Comprehensive list of PVP issues (not bugs) as of 1.2.6

Krentar_RNX · August 2014

Anomaly 2 wrote: »

1. Zergs are an awful strategy and easy to wipe out because of the mindless mentality behind it. Have wiped massive zergs while in a raid of 24 just because we had players who were on Team Speak and could communicate and work as Military force

No *** ! you are a zerg on your own spamming 3 barriers, purge, pulsar, rapid, and imo.

Teamspeak and Military Force, my ***

Anomaly 2 · August 2014

Krentar_RNX wrote: »

Anomaly 2 wrote: »

1. Zergs are an awful strategy and easy to wipe out because of the mindless mentality behind it. Have wiped massive zergs while in a raid of 24 just because we had players who were on Team Speak and could communicate and work as Military force

No *** ! you are a zerg on your own spamming 3 barriers, purge, pulsar, rapid, and imo.

Teamspeak and Military Force, my ***

I'm not part of a guild that pulsar spams

I don't remember saying that was a strategy we use? Where did you even pull that from. I even said we don't just spam spells( i.e not a pulsar spamer group ) but you cut that part out of the quote lol. Shouldn't just make assumptions any ways. That's not at all how we play. Those groups are annoying to deal with but not impossible and it brings little fun to the table to be a part of a group like that in my opinion, I loathe any kind of group that makes their players use specific builds like pulsar groups or PvE trial groups. I like variety and really build as I think is the most fun and that doesn't include pulsar on my bar or even a destruction staff for that matter. What I mean acting as a military by using strategy is by communicating and organizing to take or hold specific keeps that are in our best interest to move for a objective ( unlike zergs which mindlessly move to x location ) or when we are taking a keep and we know we have a pulsar group coming we plan to make sure we have players with negates and for them to call them out when they drop it so we keep burn the pulsar group down before they can do anything. Obviously there is so much more to strategizing then just this but that is a step in the direction of what I meant.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · August 2014

Anomaly 2 wrote: »

Halrloprillalar wrote: »

This is not a thread about bugs.

1. Aoe caps causing zergballs. A whole thread about it here. Basically, the current meta is 'follow the leader, press 1-2 buttons, win game' is stale and unfun for many people.

2. Home vs. guesting, and pvp buffs. Firstly, pvp buffs should only apply in pvp, having them for pve is silly - and I say this despite knowingly using first round AB/DB for my leveling buffs. It encourages guester zergs from unicolor campaigns to destroy real, contested campaigns due to buffs and the former emperor nonsense. There should only be buffs from the current campaign, or no guesting.

3. Emperor trading/former emperor buffs. The former buffs are small but significant enough that a whole raid of FEs will be more effective in both pvp and pve. Former emp should be only available in the campaign it was obtained, IMO. Other solutions possible, thread can be found here and here and others

4. Forward camps. Supply lines and map coverage currently mean nothing when you can suicide port to any place on the map with a camp. Also, having random people use up your camps (which are pricey) and not replace them is frustrating, especially if those people have no concept of what it is you are trying to accomplish. It also allows cross faction trolls/spies to interfere by abusing the overlap radius. More can be found in the main thread here

5. The rewards/AP/gear system. This is getting some changes to it, which is nice, but the 'send you random bag of nonsense' for every chunk of AP method is really inconvenient for many people, as can be seen here

1. Zergs are an awful strategy and easy to wipe out because of the mindless mentality behind it. Have wiped massive zergs while in a raid of 24 just because we had players who were on Team Speak and could communicate and work as Military force to combat other players. Not just spam spells.

No, you missunderstood what he was talking about.

He has nothing against zerging, but against the tactic known as "zerg balling" or "blobbing".
In short, it is exploiting the aoe target cap by stacking as many players on top of each other to get a passive chance of dodging that increases with the numbers: (members - 6) / members x 100
As part of a group of 20, you would get 70% chances of avoiding an attack.

Anomaly 2 · August 2014

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO
Lmao nope I didn't misunderstand a thing. I compeltely understand that strategy he was talking about and so does everyone else, theres no need for you to point it out. Second the reason why I responded was because he flat out said that my group I run with was a Zerg because that was this strategy
we use, and nothing like a military force because of this and teamspeak has *** to do with why we can do well.
I just stated back that we don't run in that kind of way by as you put it "zerg balling/ blobbing" together and also pointed out that I never once said anything about that ever using that strategy. Therefore, he misunderstood what I said and so did you

Now we wasted everyone's time reading this pointless argument trying to clarify for you and him what I said. Lets move on...

Krinaman · August 2014

In short, it is exploiting the aoe target cap by stacking as many players on top of each other to get a passive chance of dodging that increases with the numbers: (members - 6) / members x 100
As part of a group of 20, you would get 70% chances of avoiding an attack.

They stack to take advantage of how group mechanics in this game works. Pretty much every group mechanic in this game requires you to be stacked or nearly stacked. Synergies, healing, buffs, purges, etc. all require you to stand close.

If it was just about dodging your AOE's they would simply spread out and as a member of a 20 person group they would have a 95% of avoiding your attack.

Morvul · August 2014

Krinaman wrote: »

In short, it is exploiting the aoe target cap by stacking as many players on top of each other to get a passive chance of dodging that increases with the numbers: (members - 6) / members x 100
As part of a group of 20, you would get 70% chances of avoiding an attack.

They stack to take advantage of how group mechanics in this game works. Pretty much every group mechanic in this game requires you to be stacked or nearly stacked. Synergies, healing, buffs, purges, etc. all require you to stand close.

If it was just about dodging your AOE's they would simply spread out and as a member of a 20 person group they would have a 95% of avoiding your attack.

yes, and yes.
But do you seriously not see that having to decide when to stack (for group buffs) and when to spread out (for avoiding AoEs) makes for a better game, then one where you simply stack always, because it is always the best move?

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · August 2014

Anomaly 2 wrote: »

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO
Lmao nope I didn't misunderstand a thing. I compeltely understand that strategy he was talking about and so does everyone else, theres no need for you to point it out. Second the reason why I responded was because he flat out said that my group I run with was a Zerg because that was this strategy
we use, and nothing like a military force because of this and teamspeak has *** to do with why we can do well.
I just stated back that we don't run in that kind of way by as you put it "zerg balling/ blobbing" together and also pointed out that I never once said anything about that ever using that strategy. Therefore, he misunderstood what I said and so did you Now we wasted everyone's time reading this pointless argument trying to clarify for you and him what I said. Lets move on...

Then you just weren't answering to the part you said you were answering, on purpose?
Because he wasn't talking about strategy or the general idea of zerging vs communication and organization.
He talked about a very specific issue around a very specific tactic. One that counter acts a lot of what you say you like.

Yes you can take on large amount of disorganized and spread out players. This is actually desirable and awesome. And tha twas his point, the aoe cap mechanic limits that in an un-natural way.

Build variety, strategy, communicating and thinking about what you are doing just go flying out of the window when there is only one single optimum tactic: balling around your group leader and following him like a shadow.

Krinaman wrote: »

In short, it is exploiting the aoe target cap by stacking as many players on top of each other to get a passive chance of dodging that increases with the numbers: (members - 6) / members x 100
As part of a group of 20, you would get 70% chances of avoiding an attack.

They stack to take advantage of how group mechanics in this game works. Pretty much every group mechanic in this game requires you to be stacked or nearly stacked. Synergies, healing, buffs, purges, etc. all require you to stand close.

If it was just about dodging your AOE's they would simply spread out and as a member of a 20 person group they would have a 95% of avoiding your attack.

yes, many mechanics in the game, and just the natural act of being a group, encourages to be close to each other.
Those are the organic advantages in numbers.

But they usually comes with proportionally scaling draw backs:
- Friendly fire (too hardcore for ESO)
- Character colision detection (allegedly too hard for the devs)
- Oportunistic use of AoE abilities

In our case, all those disadvantages do not exist and in addition, stacking players gain yet another boon through the target cap.
One that is much more compeling as it is preventive and passive rather than reactive and active like heals/buffs/purges would be.

All the others forces compeling to clip through eahc other would be balanced by the removal of aoe target caps and the reintroduction of their main drawback.
Or at the very least, the strongest of these forces would be removed and we could move on to fix other things.

Krinaman · August 2014

Morvul wrote: »

Krinaman wrote: »

In short, it is exploiting the aoe target cap by stacking as many players on top of each other to get a passive chance of dodging that increases with the numbers: (members - 6) / members x 100
As part of a group of 20, you would get 70% chances of avoiding an attack.

They stack to take advantage of how group mechanics in this game works. Pretty much every group mechanic in this game requires you to be stacked or nearly stacked. Synergies, healing, buffs, purges, etc. all require you to stand close.

If it was just about dodging your AOE's they would simply spread out and as a member of a 20 person group they would have a 95% of avoiding your attack.

yes, and yes.
But do you seriously not see that having to decide when to stack (for group buffs) and when to spread out (for avoiding AoEs) makes for a better game, then one where you simply stack always, because it is always the best move?

That's like asking if I think always wearing armor and equipping a weapon should always be the best move. This game like most MMOs give an advantage for grouping. Being as that is the case then yes grouping is always the best move.

That said, I'm not thrilled with the group mechanics requiring stacking. I also think some of the group benefits could use balancing but then this game needs a whole crap ton of balancing done.

Grim13 · August 2014

Skill means little when really large battles occur. It boils down to whose skills/passives fail the least and whose damage will actually register through the lag.

Kybotica · August 2014

To those who want to keep guesting, wouldn't a "lockout" be appropriate? I know the argument that somebody should be able to play with whomever they choose, but I'd say they need to pick a campaign together and stick with it. Maybe you can only enter one campaign per 12 hours or something? That way, you can join your friends in their campaign and go back to yours, but the groups who dominate an empty campaign and then run off to guest stomp others would risk losing their home if they use their lockout on a guest campaign and theirs gets attacked.

I've seen massive groups jump from campaign to campaign (at least three different ones on a given day) and practically ruin the experience for others while enjoying their passives. Locking them out of their home for a set number of hours after guesting would help prevent this, as they'd have to pick from being able to defend or going to play in a populated campaign that they aren't truly invested in.

All it would take is their home campaign being run over once or twice by another group and them not being able to defend to keep them from ruining other campaigns.

I get that people want to play in the campaign with their friends, but I find the guesting mechanic to be far too open for abuse. Travel to player is part of the issue here, and I think that that feature should be entirely disabled when attempting to do so on a target within cyrodiil.

I feel campaign choice should have weight. You should have loyalty to your campaign for a season, and you should feel the need to stay there more often than guesting into other campaigns. Right now, campaigns are becoming more and more meaningless as massive guest groups lock the populations on campaigns they rarely participate on whenever the mood takes them.