DisgracefulMind wrote: »

All the players in this thread who play in large groups are crying that it isn't fair to limit group numbers in IC because this game shouldn't limit choices. While I understand that, you are all being entirely hypocritical. If I choose to play solo or small group play, then why should I be entirely cut off from having that option? Currently, open world PvP leaves me as a solo player at a higher disadvantage than group players. Do I complain? Of course not. I enjoy what I do, and my option is there. But it saddens me that 24-man group supporters are so against giving smaller scale combat a chance to be a thing. I'm sorry, it's unrealistic to the entire design of IC, including the TV stone drops, for a group of 24 people (that's TWO RAIDS) to be running down hallways spamming AoEs. That will kill incentive for almost everyone to be in there. Sure, this game's OPEN WORLD, aka the Cyrodiil map, is designed for large scale PvP. That's fine, all of the solo and small group players know that, we bite our tongues and watch you to run around and do what you do. Often times we roam, we search for the combat we desire, and let you all do your thing. But this game's PvP needs a new flavor. You honestly cannot argue that. So why is it so bad that IC would have a more smaller scale approach? While 4 man groups is pretty small, I would say that even 8 man groups would be excellent. You honestly don't need a full raid or a full two raids to get things done.
And if you're worried about small group players dominating IC...then looks like you need some practice with your build not being a zerg build, right?

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

GorraShatan wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

This worries me somewhat lol. Has much consideration gone into zerg busting in IC? Both for PvE and PvP?

Is siege allowed in IC? Are there spots to dump oils on enemy zergs?

And will the PvE enemies we face be resilient against zergs? Dolmens in Cyrodiil are even more of a joke than the ones in the PvE zones due to zergs and the use of siege. Will IC avoid that? (And I wish they would restore the PVE zone dolmens to their original difficulty.)

It'd be nice if we have some more anti-zerg tools in general of course. I maintain that something that applies a detonation-like effect to multiple enemies at once (maybe through a ground effect?) would be a huge help, but I could see that being a huge problem for the servers too. The cold harbour siege is a decent help, as was the buff to siege in general, though a nerf to purge may make that more effective.

That's a tangent though. Is there any word on what anti-zerg steps have been taken for IC?

AssaultLemming wrote: »

If they would drop the base damage on prox det considerably but let it scale up to max damage at say 12 players hit that might work.

MountainHound wrote: »

I am 99% certain PVP groups will only go into Cyrodiil to grind the stones/materials required for gear and apart from that will not enter.

I have played it and quite honestly IC sucks. I really don't get why ZoS didn't make it so IC was another zone/caampaign for players to win whereby you controlled each sector to make an incentive to go into it.

To cater for both, make all the equipment drops in IC be available to the cyrodiil shops whereby they can be purchased with AP.

BRogueNZ wrote: »

HobnailedBoots wrote: »

Don't like getting killed by big groups? Don't run around in small numbers on the battlefield. And that IS what it is, a battlefield.

EvilEmpire wrote: »

My biggest concern is that one of those groups that are notorious for causing lag are just going to charge in, crash everyone and just get easy kills and steal all their stones.
I've been in plenty of big fights where it might get a little laggy, but at least you can still fight, but on the other hand, there's some groups that as soon as they show up, 3/4 of your group get disconnected and crash. I don't give a *** what anyone says, there are clearly groups out there that can exploit this and it happens consistently.

This is patently absurd. There are X number of players on. Where they are and how they are group doesn't make a difference in the amount of data being transferred, and there CERTAINLY aren't groups that can force disconnect anybody simply by showing up in numbers. That's just stupid.

So wrong.

I know so because it happens everyday.

I'm not saying its group specific but suggesting how many and where doesn't matter is plain naïve.

You can smell the groups before you see them, and by smell I mean pings skyrocket, FPS drops and when the custard hits the fan disconnects follow.

Waylander wrote: »

I think a twofold approach to dis-incentivize zerging would be:

1) Make prox det have a small base damage that scales proportionately with all enemies within the blast radius. I was thinking 2k damage if 1 person within the radius, 4k dmg if 2 people, 6k dmg if 3 people etc scaling up and only capped by the number of players you hit. Hit a group of 4 for 8k damage, no big deal. Hit a close stacked group of 24 for 48k dmg and that is a big deal.

2) TV stones - If 1 player kills another player unassisted they get 100%. If 2 players kill 1 player they get 80% split and the dead player retains 20%. 3 players equally split 70%. 4 players equally split 60% 5 players+ equally split 50%

The first adds the risk that is missing from stacking.

The second reduces the reward to reflect less risk was taken to get the kill.

These have probably already been mentioned. I apologize if they have, I didn't have time to read the entire thread.