On Cyrodiil and “balance”

Taarente

Cyrodiil is not an arena or a duelling ground.

It’s a campaign war.
That means:

• map control matters
• numbers and preparation matter
• defence compounds power
• retreat and avoidance are valid choices

Fights are only “fair” when the map itself is even. When it isn’t, outcomes are meant to tilt. That’s not bad balance — that’s the design.
An “unkillable” player is almost always borrowed strength: map buffs, terrain, support, momentum. Everyone has seen the same player go from immortal early in a map to dead in seconds once the map flips and you now own it. That’s the system working.

Ball groups aren’t proof PvP is broken. They’re what coordination looks like in an open war zone — and you’re not required to fight them.
There are valid balance criticisms:

• PvE sets behaving badly in PvP
• overtuned interactions
• outliers narrowing build choice

Those are tool problems, not mode problems. Cyrodiil doesn’t adapt to individuals, it adapts to pressure. If you read the map, avoid impossible odds, attack weakness instead of strength, and accept that sometimes the right move is to leave — the mode makes sense.

Criticise the sets if needed.
But don’t blame the war for acting like a war.

Vulkunne

Taarente wrote: »

Cyrodiil is not an arena or a duelling ground.

It’s a campaign war.
That means:

• map control matters
• numbers and preparation matter
• defence compounds power
• retreat and avoidance are valid choices

Fights are only “fair” when the map itself is even. When it isn’t, outcomes are meant to tilt. That’s not bad balance — that’s the design.
An “unkillable” player is almost always borrowed strength: map buffs, terrain, support, momentum. Everyone has seen the same player go from immortal early in a map to dead in seconds once the map flips and you now own it. That’s the system working.

Ball groups aren’t proof PvP is broken. They’re what coordination looks like in an open war zone — and you’re not required to fight them.
There are valid balance criticisms:

• PvE sets behaving badly in PvP
• overtuned interactions
• outliers narrowing build choice

Those are tool problems, not mode problems. Cyrodiil doesn’t adapt to individuals, it adapts to pressure. If you read the map, avoid impossible odds, attack weakness instead of strength, and accept that sometimes the right move is to leave — the mode makes sense.

Criticise the sets if needed.
But don’t blame the war for acting like a war.

When I go to Cyrodiil, what am I fighting for?

Am I fighting to get killed very consistently along with alarmingly large numbers of other players (from both factions) when fighting one group which consists of 5 to 15 people? Who themselves aren't dying, aren't flinching, aren't stopping and are otherwise completely unbothered. I'm sorry but that's not how wars work.

On YouTube there are videos about actual wars in history that I have found really informative. And the first lesson the student of War will learn is wars are fought in Battle Lines. It's not a Hollywood A list with guns with unlimited ammo just duking it out with an entire faction, like it is now in ESO. That's not a war; that's a Hollywood creation.

An actual war in ESO really feels more like the first Vengeance test as well as Cyrodiil from years ago where large scale battles formed lines and tactics determined which lines held. That's war. Gimmicks and bad combat nerf do not make wars, it just makes people not want to play.

Sufficed to say War is something I know well and would love to talk more on this subject if you want. But exploits and gimmicks are for joke, not for war. Real authority is also earned thru shared pain and experiences, not with this fake authority from some of these Guild leaders. It comes from a place of respect, not high school mentality, bruised egos and spite from bad reasons.

Taarente

Vulkunne wrote: »

Taarente wrote: »

Cyrodiil is not an arena or a duelling ground.

It’s a campaign war.
That means:

• map control matters
• numbers and preparation matter
• defence compounds power
• retreat and avoidance are valid choices

Fights are only “fair” when the map itself is even. When it isn’t, outcomes are meant to tilt. That’s not bad balance — that’s the design.
An “unkillable” player is almost always borrowed strength: map buffs, terrain, support, momentum. Everyone has seen the same player go from immortal early in a map to dead in seconds once the map flips and you now own it. That’s the system working.

Ball groups aren’t proof PvP is broken. They’re what coordination looks like in an open war zone — and you’re not required to fight them.
There are valid balance criticisms:

• PvE sets behaving badly in PvP
• overtuned interactions
• outliers narrowing build choice

Those are tool problems, not mode problems. Cyrodiil doesn’t adapt to individuals, it adapts to pressure. If you read the map, avoid impossible odds, attack weakness instead of strength, and accept that sometimes the right move is to leave — the mode makes sense.

Criticise the sets if needed.
But don’t blame the war for acting like a war.

When I go to Cyrodiil, what am I fighting for?

Am I fighting to get killed very consistently along with alarmingly large numbers of other players (from both factions) when fighting one group which consists of 5 to 15 people? Who themselves aren't dying, aren't flinching, aren't stopping and are otherwise completely unbothered. I'm sorry but that's not how wars work.

On YouTube there are videos about actual wars in history that I have found really informative. And the first lesson the student of War will learn is wars are fought in Battle Lines. It's not a Hollywood A list with guns with unlimited ammo just duking it out with an entire faction, like it is now in ESO. That's not a war; that's a Hollywood creation.

An actual war in ESO really feels more like the first Vengeance test as well as Cyrodiil from years ago where large scale battles formed lines and tactics determined which lines held. That's war. Gimmicks and bad combat nerf do not make wars, it just makes people not want to play.

Sufficed to say War is something I know well and would love to talk more on this subject if you want. But exploits and gimmicks are for joke, not for war. Real authority is also earned thru shared pain and experiences, not with this fake authority from some of these Guild leaders. It comes from a place of respect, not high school mentality, bruised egos and spite from bad reasons.

I think this comes down to expectations.

Cyrodiil isn’t trying to model historical line warfare. It’s a strategic control war built around terrain, movement, logistics, and timing — not holding a line because “that’s what war looks like.” If you try to fight it like an arena or a reenactment, the system will punish you.

Those small, hard-to-kill groups aren’t winning because of Hollywood fantasy. They win because they choose their fights, disengage when needed, and apply pressure where it matters. That may not feel noble or realistic, but it’s effective in this rule-set.

So when you ask “what am I fighting for?” — the honest answer is: whatever you decide to fight for.
Keeps. Scrolls. Map pressure. Support. Learning the field. Or simply the fights you enjoy.

Cyrodiil doesn’t hand you meaning. You bring it with you.

Vulkunne

Taarente wrote: »

Vulkunne wrote: »

Taarente wrote: »

Cyrodiil is not an arena or a duelling ground.

It’s a campaign war.
That means:

• map control matters
• numbers and preparation matter
• defence compounds power
• retreat and avoidance are valid choices

Fights are only “fair” when the map itself is even. When it isn’t, outcomes are meant to tilt. That’s not bad balance — that’s the design.
An “unkillable” player is almost always borrowed strength: map buffs, terrain, support, momentum. Everyone has seen the same player go from immortal early in a map to dead in seconds once the map flips and you now own it. That’s the system working.

Ball groups aren’t proof PvP is broken. They’re what coordination looks like in an open war zone — and you’re not required to fight them.
There are valid balance criticisms:

• PvE sets behaving badly in PvP
• overtuned interactions
• outliers narrowing build choice

Those are tool problems, not mode problems. Cyrodiil doesn’t adapt to individuals, it adapts to pressure. If you read the map, avoid impossible odds, attack weakness instead of strength, and accept that sometimes the right move is to leave — the mode makes sense.

Criticise the sets if needed.
But don’t blame the war for acting like a war.

When I go to Cyrodiil, what am I fighting for?

Am I fighting to get killed very consistently along with alarmingly large numbers of other players (from both factions) when fighting one group which consists of 5 to 15 people? Who themselves aren't dying, aren't flinching, aren't stopping and are otherwise completely unbothered. I'm sorry but that's not how wars work.

On YouTube there are videos about actual wars in history that I have found really informative. And the first lesson the student of War will learn is wars are fought in Battle Lines. It's not a Hollywood A list with guns with unlimited ammo just duking it out with an entire faction, like it is now in ESO. That's not a war; that's a Hollywood creation.

An actual war in ESO really feels more like the first Vengeance test as well as Cyrodiil from years ago where large scale battles formed lines and tactics determined which lines held. That's war. Gimmicks and bad combat nerf do not make wars, it just makes people not want to play.

Sufficed to say War is something I know well and would love to talk more on this subject if you want. But exploits and gimmicks are for joke, not for war. Real authority is also earned thru shared pain and experiences, not with this fake authority from some of these Guild leaders. It comes from a place of respect, not high school mentality, bruised egos and spite from bad reasons.

I think this comes down to expectations.

Cyrodiil isn’t trying to model historical line warfare. It’s a strategic control war built around terrain, movement, logistics, and timing — not holding a line because “that’s what war looks like.” If you try to fight it like an arena or a reenactment, the system will punish you.

Those small, hard-to-kill groups aren’t winning because of Hollywood fantasy. They win because they choose their fights, disengage when needed, and apply pressure where it matters. That may not feel noble or realistic, but it’s effective in this rule-set.

So when you ask “what am I fighting for?” — the honest answer is: whatever you decide to fight for.
Keeps. Scrolls. Map pressure. Support. Learning the field. Or simply the fights you enjoy.

Cyrodiil doesn’t hand you meaning. You bring it with you.

But you said, "But don’t blame the war for acting like a war."

That's a thing that already has meaning. You and I can't redefine it. Otherwise we're talking about something else. Again, there are several good selections on places like YouTube which breaks down Wars historically and gives a wonderful explanation of reasons for why wars were fought, as well as the manner they were fought therein.

The line for war is drawn by people's opinions, but it is not necessarily defined by it. This is why from History; the Germans lost in WWII vs the Allies. Because people like Stalin fought the war with numbers and the German leadership fought it with Charisma and the results were disastrous. Soldiers win wars, not tough egos and a Hollywood rifle.

Also, those Ball Groups win without having to choose their fights lol. They fight virtually anyone and win everywhere they go. For them it's a matter of time, not even by the numbers or even location necessarily. I know this because I've seen it... alot.

Taarente

Vulkunne wrote: »

Taarente wrote: »

Vulkunne wrote: »

Taarente wrote: »

Cyrodiil is not an arena or a duelling ground.

It’s a campaign war.
That means:

• map control matters
• numbers and preparation matter
• defence compounds power
• retreat and avoidance are valid choices

Fights are only “fair” when the map itself is even. When it isn’t, outcomes are meant to tilt. That’s not bad balance — that’s the design.
An “unkillable” player is almost always borrowed strength: map buffs, terrain, support, momentum. Everyone has seen the same player go from immortal early in a map to dead in seconds once the map flips and you now own it. That’s the system working.

Ball groups aren’t proof PvP is broken. They’re what coordination looks like in an open war zone — and you’re not required to fight them.
There are valid balance criticisms:

• PvE sets behaving badly in PvP
• overtuned interactions
• outliers narrowing build choice

Those are tool problems, not mode problems. Cyrodiil doesn’t adapt to individuals, it adapts to pressure. If you read the map, avoid impossible odds, attack weakness instead of strength, and accept that sometimes the right move is to leave — the mode makes sense.

Criticise the sets if needed.
But don’t blame the war for acting like a war.

When I go to Cyrodiil, what am I fighting for?

Am I fighting to get killed very consistently along with alarmingly large numbers of other players (from both factions) when fighting one group which consists of 5 to 15 people? Who themselves aren't dying, aren't flinching, aren't stopping and are otherwise completely unbothered. I'm sorry but that's not how wars work.

On YouTube there are videos about actual wars in history that I have found really informative. And the first lesson the student of War will learn is wars are fought in Battle Lines. It's not a Hollywood A list with guns with unlimited ammo just duking it out with an entire faction, like it is now in ESO. That's not a war; that's a Hollywood creation.

An actual war in ESO really feels more like the first Vengeance test as well as Cyrodiil from years ago where large scale battles formed lines and tactics determined which lines held. That's war. Gimmicks and bad combat nerf do not make wars, it just makes people not want to play.

Sufficed to say War is something I know well and would love to talk more on this subject if you want. But exploits and gimmicks are for joke, not for war. Real authority is also earned thru shared pain and experiences, not with this fake authority from some of these Guild leaders. It comes from a place of respect, not high school mentality, bruised egos and spite from bad reasons.

I think this comes down to expectations.

Cyrodiil isn’t trying to model historical line warfare. It’s a strategic control war built around terrain, movement, logistics, and timing — not holding a line because “that’s what war looks like.” If you try to fight it like an arena or a reenactment, the system will punish you.

Those small, hard-to-kill groups aren’t winning because of Hollywood fantasy. They win because they choose their fights, disengage when needed, and apply pressure where it matters. That may not feel noble or realistic, but it’s effective in this rule-set.

So when you ask “what am I fighting for?” — the honest answer is: whatever you decide to fight for.
Keeps. Scrolls. Map pressure. Support. Learning the field. Or simply the fights you enjoy.

Cyrodiil doesn’t hand you meaning. You bring it with you.

But you said, "But don’t blame the war for acting like a war."

That's a thing that already has meaning. You and I can't redefine it. Otherwise we're talking about something else. Again, there are several good selections on places like YouTube which breaks down Wars historically and gives a wonderful explanation of reasons for why wars were fought, as well as the manner they were fought therein.

The line for war is drawn by people's opinions, but it is not necessarily defined by it. This is why from History; the Germans lost in WWII vs the Allies. Because people like Stalin fought the war with numbers and the German leadership fought it with Charisma and the results were disastrous. Soldiers win wars, not tough egos and a Hollywood rifle.

Also, those Ball Groups win without having to choose their fights lol. They fight virtually anyone and win everywhere they go. For them it's a matter of time, not even by the numbers or even location necessarily. I know this because I've seen it... alot.

I’m not trying to redefine war, and I’m not disputing historical analysis.

I’m talking about how this specific system behaves when you step into it — what it rewards, what it punishes, and what consistently leads to outcomes on the map. That’s observation, not opinion.

You can frame Cyrodiil through historical analogies if that helps you interpret it, but the zone itself doesn’t operate on those terms. It operates on incentives, mechanics, population, sustain, and mobility. Ignoring those doesn’t make a moral point — it just leads to predictable results.

As for groups that seem able to fight anyone anywhere: they still operate within the same rules. They survive because the system allows sustain, coordination, and disengagement to dominate raw numbers. That may be frustrating, but it isn’t arbitrary — it’s how the mechanics resolve pressure.

I’m not asking you to like that reality.
I’m saying that’s the reality you’re stepping into.

Vulkunne

Taarente wrote: »

You can frame Cyrodiil through historical analogies if that helps you interpret it, but the zone itself doesn’t operate on those terms. It operates on incentives, mechanics, population, sustain, and mobility. Ignoring those doesn’t make a moral point — it just leads to predictable results.

Wars operate on lemme check.

- Incentives. Rank, Money, Land, Influence.
- Do Tanks and Aircraft count for mechanics?
- Population. Army size, Civilian casualties. Yep.
- Sustain. Rations are very important. Starving armies to force surrenders. In both cases the troops can't continue to fight. Check.
- Mobility. Yep, another thing the lack thereof that doomed the Germans both in France and East front as well. So, Check.

My terms and Cyrodiil's terms are identical. Unless Cyrodiil isn't a war. Which then in that case its fine. Also, many men and women fought and died based on their morals. Just wanted to say that out loud before everyone else does.

If not a war, what is it then that you think Cyrodiil should be based off of? It kind of seems to me like you in reality don't want a war environment in Cyrodiil. War is hell and isn't always fair or right or orderly... which kind of seems like it goes against your expectation because you can't have unkillable Ball Groups and other similar things that are examples themselves of things that aren't affected by the chaos of war. And that is the main issue with Ball Groups, thusly.

Also, on the history and such... where do you think the concept for Cyrodiil's war comes from? Medieval European Warfare. In other words, in order for there to be a war in Cyrodiil, it had to be defined from somewhere else then formatted to fit into the Elder Scrolls story. So just disregarding history completely when talking about the concept of war is not a good thing. For example...

'Fort Dragonclaw'
'Arrius Keep'
'Castle Faregyl'

Hmm. Fort, Keep, Castle. Interesting. What is a Fort? What is a Keep? What is a Castle? Though they are names that comes from different cultures, the thing they share in common is they all are constructs built for the operation and preservation of an army in accordance with the overall strategy for any war effort.

Taarente

Vulkunne wrote: »

Taarente wrote: »

You can frame Cyrodiil through historical analogies if that helps you interpret it, but the zone itself doesn’t operate on those terms. It operates on incentives, mechanics, population, sustain, and mobility. Ignoring those doesn’t make a moral point — it just leads to predictable results.

Wars operate on lemme check.

- Incentives. Rank, Money, Land, Influence.
- Do Tanks and Aircraft count for mechanics?
- Population. Army size, Civilian casualties. Yep.
- Sustain. Rations are very important. Starving armies to force surrenders. In both cases the troops can't continue to fight. Check.
- Mobility. Yep, another thing the lack thereof that doomed the Germans both in France and East front as well. So, Check.

My terms and Cyrodiil's terms are identical. Unless Cyrodiil isn't a war. Which then in that case its fine. Also, many men and women fought and died based on their morals. Just wanted to say that out loud before everyone else does.

If not a war, what is it then that you think Cyrodiil should be based off of? It kind of seems to me like you in reality don't want a war environment in Cyrodiil. War is hell and isn't always fair or right or orderly... which kind of seems like it goes against your expectation because you can't have unkillable Ball Groups and other similar things that are examples themselves of things that aren't affected the chaos of war.

I don’t disagree with your list — incentives, population, sustain, mobility all matter. Where we diverge is how those resolve inside this system.

In Cyrodiil:
• Incentives collapse into campaign points and map state
• Population matters, but coordination and timing often outweigh raw numbers
• Sustain and mobility dominate because the mechanics allow them to
• Land control directly amplifies power through buffs, transit, and pressure

That doesn’t make it “not a war.”
It makes it a war with its own constraints and expressions.

I’m not denying that people fight wars for morals — historically or otherwise. I’m saying Cyrodiil doesn’t measure that. It doesn’t reward intent, honour, or sacrifice. It rewards outcomes that move the campaign.

So if you ask what Cyrodiil should be “based off” — I’m not prescribing anything. I’m describing what it already is: a strategic control system where advantage compounds and meaning is player-supplied.

You’re free to bring whatever values you want into it.
The system just won’t validate them for you.

Just to be clear, my original post wasn’t an attempt to argue PvP philosophy or redefine war.

It was to explain what actually happens in Cyrodiil, based on experience and understanding how the zone works, and to step away from the endless “PvP is broken / PvP should be X” loop. That discussion never goes anywhere.

I’m not prescribing values or telling anyone how to play.
I’m describing the reality you enter when you enter into the campaign.

Vulkunne

Taarente wrote: »

That doesn’t make it “not a war.”
It makes it a war with its own constraints and expressions.

.

2nd Punic War for both sides was nothing but constraints or expressions.

Hannibal Crossing the Alps. Was hell. It was brutal and very very much unfair.
Hannibal arriving in Italty. It was brutal and very very much unfair.

In fact, the Roman army's number one criticism of its opponents was they didn't always fight on flat ground. That may have been the Roman Way of fighting War, but it wasn't everyone's way. And so, with the Romans fighting in different places all over the world, many theaters of war had unique constraints and expressions.

Woods in Germania, rivers in North Italy, hills of Spain, mountain and islands of Greece, deserts of Egypt. Yet War ... War never changes.

The rest of what you said, is your opinion and I'm not at War over people having different opinions which I hope is not the message you're trying to send. I like the subject of war, but I hate when people ruin it in games and movies because they're afraid to portray it for what it is, rather than what someone else thinks or can't handle or whatever their reason is. Like what happened with the recent Star Wars films for example, among many other things that exist in pop culture these days.

Taarente

Vulkunne wrote: »

Taarente wrote: »

That doesn’t make it “not a war.”
It makes it a war with its own constraints and expressions.

.

2nd Punic War for both sides was nothing but constraints or expressions.

Hannibal Crossing the Alps. Was hell. It was brutal and very very much unfair.
Hannibal arriving in Italty. It was brutal and very very much unfair.

In fact, the Roman army's number one criticism of its opponents was they didn't always fight on flat ground. That may have been the Roman Way of fighting War, but it wasn't everyone's way. And so, with the Romans fighting in different places all over the world, many theaters of war had unique constraints and expressions.

Woods in Germania, rivers in North Italy, hills of Spain, mountain and islands of Greece, deserts of Egypt. Yet War ... War never changes.

The rest of what you said, is your opinion and I'm not at War over people having different opinions which I hope is not the message you're trying to send. I like the subject of war, but I hate when people ruin it in games and movies because they're afraid to portray it for what it is, rather than what someone else thinks or can't handle or whatever their reason is. Like what happened with the recent Star Wars films for example, among many other things that exist in pop culture these days.

My original post wasn’t an opinion or a value judgement. It was based on experience, observation, and analysing the map.

I looked at what was actually happening in Cyrodiil, reviewed how the bonus structure works (which is openly documented on UESP), and asked a simple question: how do you get from owning nothing to controlling the map?

The answer is understanding how combat power is built and sustained — logistics, movement, positioning, timing, and reinforcement. It’s recognising what’s happening on the field and acting accordingly.

In that sense, Cyrodiil operates the same way any strategy or war game does. You assess conditions, project power where it matters, reinforce success, and accept that outcomes are probabilistic, not guaranteed.

That’s all I was trying to explain.

Vulkunne

Taarente wrote: »

Vulkunne wrote: »

Taarente wrote: »

That doesn’t make it “not a war.”
It makes it a war with its own constraints and expressions.

.

2nd Punic War for both sides was nothing but constraints or expressions.

Hannibal Crossing the Alps. Was hell. It was brutal and very very much unfair.
Hannibal arriving in Italty. It was brutal and very very much unfair.

In fact, the Roman army's number one criticism of its opponents was they didn't always fight on flat ground. That may have been the Roman Way of fighting War, but it wasn't everyone's way. And so, with the Romans fighting in different places all over the world, many theaters of war had unique constraints and expressions.

Woods in Germania, rivers in North Italy, hills of Spain, mountain and islands of Greece, deserts of Egypt. Yet War ... War never changes.

The rest of what you said, is your opinion and I'm not at War over people having different opinions which I hope is not the message you're trying to send. I like the subject of war, but I hate when people ruin it in games and movies because they're afraid to portray it for what it is, rather than what someone else thinks or can't handle or whatever their reason is. Like what happened with the recent Star Wars films for example, among many other things that exist in pop culture these days.

My original post wasn’t an opinion or a value judgement. It was based on experience, observation, and analysing the map.

I looked at what was actually happening in Cyrodiil, reviewed how the bonus structure works (which is openly documented on UESP), and asked a simple question: how do you get from owning nothing to controlling the map?

The answer is understanding how combat power is built and sustained — logistics, movement, positioning, timing, and reinforcement. It’s recognising what’s happening on the field and acting accordingly.

In that sense, Cyrodiil operates the same way any strategy or war game does. You assess conditions, project power where it matters, reinforce success, and accept that outcomes are probabilistic, not guaranteed.

That’s all I was trying to explain.

The language used in your original post might suggest otherwise. In fact, most of your post conveys the following items:

1) What you think is 'fair' (And in this case, that would count for everyone, regardless) ...
2) Several counter arguments in favor of things like ball groups, which directly contradicts some of the strongest prevailing opinions against them from the forums...
3) Your suggestions that players need to meet your expectations, especially regarding balance for Cyrodiil zone
4) And if we don't like it then we can... accept that sometimes the right move is to leave If you don't like what I think, just leave. That's how it comes across and that's how it sounds AND that's what we're told in zone, even on days like today when we complain about how screwed up PvP Balance is in Cyrodiil. Its driving folks away, making people upset and it's not right.
5) In fact, the name of this thread is Cyrodiil and Balance How do we determine balance? By starting with what we judge as being 'too much'. So, it's a judgement. Comes from your values. Bringing balance to something means that something else is in fact not right

Other items...

Cyrodiil is not an arena or a dueling ground.

For some ... it is. So are other places like Imperial City. In fact, you know, you'd be surprised how many times in Cyrodiil or IC people get mad when I interrupt their 1v1. For some, such as some ball groups, parts of Cyrodiil act as an arena for them to train and do tournaments. Many would not be happy if ZOS followed your suggestions, hence my reply.

There are numerous reasons people visit Cyrodiil. That's part of its charm. It's not something that 'fits' into what UESP or what anyone else really thinks other than those who go there for fun. It's ok to have an opinion but this is something that's come up before and a reason why many of us wish they could just adjust balance there but otherwise leave it alone.

Another thing you said this also...

Ball groups aren’t proof PvP is broken. They’re what coordination looks like in an open war zone — and you’re not required to fight them.

It's more like a slaughterhouse than an open war zone. Have you visited one of these alliances who spend like over an hour trying to kill maybe 7 to 15 people? And not kill a single person from that ball group while the kill log is full of their faction's death. It's not war, it's a slaughter which is why I still play ESO but stay away from Cyrodiil primetime. Because my characters have feelings too and are not to be treated like cattle. It's not a war and it won't be until the ball groups have something to risk. Many, many players have noticed this with them and the heal stacking and so on, so forth and have shared similar experiences.

I can easily have a group with comms and coordination, but those two elements does not necessarily make it a ball group. Ball group is about pooling buffs thru the use of a computer. They're a comp group; ball group is not a regular group. And contrary wise, I can have the computer pooling buffs with no comms or coordination. So, I'm tired of them saying, we're just an organized group. No, they're not. There are lots of organized groups with comms and coordination who cannot compete with exploitive gameplay brought from a ball group using the game to play the game for them. Which is exactly what they're doing. Organized groups with comms but no excessive buffs, can't win against them. So, it can't just be, "we're an organized group". No more to it than that. Organized groups can't compete with ball groups.

So, that said, I'm done with this discussion. If anyone else wants to jump in feel free, but I really hope ZOS will very carefully look at the situation with Cyrodiil and help fix some of the disparity there between the computer groups and the rest of us.

xylena

Taarente wrote: »

sometimes the right move is to leave

But don’t blame the war for acting like a war.

It's less like a war, and more like a high school gym class where a bunch of average kids end up matched against the varsity football team. In either case, you could easily argue the right move is to leave. That may be realistic, but ends with a dead game where everyone left.

It's easy to suspend disbelief for the purpose of fantastical weapons like magic spells, history is full of wars won by weapons once thought inconceivable, but at no point in time anywhere has there ever been an invincible battalion of a dozen guys. Instantly ruins immersion.

Taarente

xylena wrote: »

Taarente wrote: »

sometimes the right move is to leave

But don’t blame the war for acting like a war.

It's less like a war, and more like a high school gym class where a bunch of average kids end up matched against the varsity football team. In either case, you could easily argue the right move is to leave. That may be realistic, but ends with a dead game where everyone left.

It's easy to suspend disbelief for the purpose of fantastical weapons like magic spells, history is full of wars won by weapons once thought inconceivable, but at no point in time anywhere has there ever been an invincible battalion of a dozen guys. Instantly ruins immersion.

Leave as in withdraw from the fight or withdraw from the battlefield because your faction doesn’t have enough players online.

xylena

Taarente wrote: »

Leave as in withdraw from the fight or withdraw from the battlefield because your faction doesn’t have enough players online.

Usually it's the same thing. There's no meaningful action outside the ball group fight because the rest of your faction is being held hostage. Smallscale on the back lines, you get ignored for a half hour, then 40 guys who wiped to a ball group respawn there and 40v4 you.

Taarente

xylena wrote: »

Taarente wrote: »

Leave as in withdraw from the fight or withdraw from the battlefield because your faction doesn’t have enough players online.

Usually it's the same thing. There's no meaningful action outside the ball group fight because the rest of your faction is being held hostage. Smallscale on the back lines, you get ignored for a half hour, then 40 guys who wiped to a ball group respawn there and 40v4 you.

I think you’re describing something real, but I don’t think it means small-scale or back-line play is meaningless — it means it has a different job.

You’re right that if a faction has very low numbers and a dominant ball group is rolling the map, small groups can feel invisible for a while and then suddenly get wiped when that group respawns. That does happen.

Where I think the conclusion goes a bit too far is assuming that means nothing outside the ball group matters. A lot of what actually decides outcomes in Cyrodiil happens before or around those big fights:
• flipping resources to open transitus and cut sustain
• forcing defenders to split or delay
• creating movement options so your faction can react instead of ride
• shaping where the next fight even happens

Those things often don’t feel impactful moment-to-moment, and they don’t show up as a big cinematic clash — but they change what the ball group can and can’t do next.

Also, “eventually 40 people respawn and wipe you” doesn’t mean the earlier pressure was pointless. By that logic, every keep that eventually flips back was meaningless too. Cyrodiil is a war of time, movement, and attrition, not permanent ownership.

I don’t think this is an either/or:
• ball groups are very strong tools
• smallscale and back-line play shape the field those tools operate on

If you only value the moment of the big fight, then yes, everything else looks irrelevant. But the map has all these systems for a reason — and they do work, just not always loudly.

xylena

Taarente wrote: »

If you only value the moment of the big fight, then yes, everything else looks irrelevant. But the map has all these systems for a reason — and they do work, just not always loudly.

The moment of the big fight is what makes the game fun. If the game is not fun, there aren't enough players to keep the map active 24/7, which renders the campaign score meaningless, too skewed by the lone relevant tactic of flipping the entire map while nobody else is online.

olsborg

The main problem with cyrodiil atm, imo, is Ballgroups and the current meta. Ballgroups is self explanatory , we all know why we dislike it. The meta however is a different beast entirely, ive always enjoyed not playing meta, but this time around...how can I? Ive tried nonmeta and meta alike, and the difference is night and day. With metabuild wich includes rallying cry + a handful of other sets to combine with it, you literally can only die if you 1 get zerged or 2 fight someone who also uses meta and is simply better then you. If you are on nonmeta build and fight meta, the odds are stacking so hard against you that...there is no point.

MincMincMinc

olsborg wrote: »

The main problem with cyrodiil atm, imo, is Ballgroups and the current meta. Ballgroups is self explanatory , we all know why we dislike it. The meta however is a different beast entirely, ive always enjoyed not playing meta, but this time around...how can I? Ive tried nonmeta and meta alike, and the difference is night and day. With metabuild wich includes rallying cry + a handful of other sets to combine with it, you literally can only die if you 1 get zerged or 2 fight someone who also uses meta and is simply better then you. If you are on nonmeta build and fight meta, the odds are stacking so hard against you that...there is no point.

Alot of our main balance issues originate back to the butchered stat system in the game. We only need rallying in the first place because zos tripled the number of sources for crit damage without tripling the sources for crit resistance. It doesn't help subclassing gave assassination to everyone so now anyone can have the best spammable guaranteed critting while also sitting at 50-60% critchance.