David v. Goliath - Why ESO will always be a numbers game

MisterBigglesworth · October 2015

They wouldn't even need to have full on collision for it to fix zerging.
They could simply have it be that you move at X% slower when X number of allies are within X meters of you.
That alone would get people to spread out more.

DaveMoeDee · October 2015

Valindor Magnus wrote: »

Would also like to address this suggestion of increasing siege damage. If siege damage is increased enough to be effective against zergs then what's gonna stop solo players from using it against other small man groups? I don't think the solution is as simple as just giving anyone and everyone a way of destroying a large group of enemies. Any change that makes killing enemies easier just means more horse simulator online. It's a tough balance act of keeping everyone happy and quite frankly is pretty much impossible at this point.

True.

To add to that, why would it be desirable for small groups to get advantages with siege against large groups but no desirable for single people to get advantages against small groups? Why should small groups get special treatment? There is no special virtue in "small man groups".

Poxheart · October 2015

The numbers of true concern are the dwindling numbers of people PvPing.

JDar · October 2015

Everyone in an elite guild or group thinks they should be invincible and if they run into something that stops them or makes the game hard for them then obviously that is not their fault.

Satiar · October 2015

Nah that's how bad guilds play. The good ones recognizes weaknesses and learn from defeat. Continually change and adapt

Teargrants · October 2015

Satiar wrote: »

Nah that's how bad guilds play. The good ones recognizes weaknesses and learn from defeat. Continually change and adapt

Like take Steve for example, he learns to actually slot Vigor after getting rekt 1v1 by Alduith.

Hektik_V · October 2015

Zheg wrote: »

Alomar wrote: »

Yonkit wrote: »

Haxus+SWP= 8 player small man raids ftw!

VE + K-Hole + LoM = Small 12 man raids! See the irony there?

Except, out of those three guilds, no one makes BS claims about how many are actually in the group just because their fragile egos get hurt when the group wipes and it's easier to try and convince whoever you lost to that the other dead 16 reds that moved with the group and stealth bombed with the group didn't actually exist and it was a valiant effort for the 'small' man against the zerg.

No guild I've ever talked to has accurately accounted for all of their numbers, plus other guilds, plus pugs. VE almost never accounts for total combatants, even when stacked with proper zerg guilds like NPK/CN.

SkylarkAU · October 2015

Ghostbane wrote: »

I remember whenever a breach happened in a keep, one or two players would become the 'wall' or the 'seal' of said breach. Tanky and disruptive, to prevent as many of the enemy pouring in as possible....[snip]

Yeah i'm not buying it.. nothing changed in terms of roots, stuns etc. Tanks are still very effective on the breach if your group has a sound strategy and is organised..

This group that rushed the breach had barrier, purges, rapids etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNUvFaewq74

Valindor Magnus · October 2015

A guild is only responsible for its own members, I don't think any guild is gonna stop and count how many pugs or other small groups follow them or are in a keep with them. goes for DC AD and EP. Let's set up a hypothetical situation for some reflection. If Vehemence decides to try and take chalman and another guild large or small we have never communicated with shows up to help take the keep, because you know that's the point of cooperating, then we are not going to count how many people took place In the keep take. Likewise for any other faction guilds. There are solo players, small groups, raids, casuals, and hardcore players that all intermingle during these fights so bringing up numbers is really pointless because the game allows it. If all you want is a GvG then set something up. Otherwise expect there the be large amounts of players gravitating towards the only objective we have in cyrodiil, taking keeps. Likewise, wiping because you are outnumbered shouldn't be confused because of wiping due to poor game design and the fact that players abuse the game design. Let's not play the blame game because it's not gonna solve anything. Just *** pvp and have fun, if it's not fun move on. Other players aren't gonna play in a way that makes you happy they are gonna play how they want.

Jules · October 2015

Zheg wrote: »

Alomar wrote: »

Yonkit wrote: »

Haxus+SWP= 8 player small man raids ftw!

VE + K-Hole + LoM = Small 12 man raids! See the irony there?

Except, out of those three guilds, no one makes BS claims about how many are actually in the group just because their fragile egos get hurt when the group wipes and it's easier to try and convince whoever you lost to that the other dead 16 reds that moved with the group and stealth bombed with the group didn't actually exist and it was a valiant effort for the 'small' man against the zerg. I mean, I know the 2-bar DC pop is a tough thing to fight against, but maybe the solution is to just take your "8" man group up to 9. You can just invite from the pool of dead reds that always seem to be right next to you guys after a wipe - it should be easy considering most of them are somehow in your guild roster.

I can't even believe you stand by this blatantly presumptive post. This is just grand standing at its finest.

Really disappointing Zheg.

Valindor Magnus · October 2015

@Jules

This whole forum section is just a bunch of grandstanding lol. No point in trying to just point him out for doing it. I mean what was even the point of this post to begin with? To complain to like minded people for support? Or to just try and convince people to play the game how you think it should be played? This forum section is the very definition of grandstanding.

Yonkit · October 2015

Alomar wrote: »

Yonkit wrote: »

Haxus+SWP= 8 player small man raids ftw!

VE + K-Hole + LoM = Small 12 man raids! See the irony there?

The irony is that you'll never see me bs'ing anyone about numbers. Wait, that's not irony.

Akinos · October 2015

Yonkit wrote: »

Alomar wrote: »

Yonkit wrote: »

Haxus+SWP= 8 player small man raids ftw!

VE + K-Hole + LoM = Small 12 man raids! See the irony there?

The irony is that you'll never see me bs'ing anyone about numbers. Wait, that's not irony.

We'll probably never see you make any type of sense either. Almost everything you post is silly BS.=)

Back on topic, some more modes of PvP other then Cyrodil would very likely allievate the zerg stacking issue that everybody dislikes. I for one am getting real bored of fighting in the same areas on the same map.

Jules · October 2015

Valindor Magnus wrote: »

@Jules

This whole forum section is just a bunch of grandstanding lol. No point in trying to just point him out for doing it. I mean what was even the point of this post to begin with? To complain to like minded people for support? Or to just try and convince people to play the game how you think it should be played? This forum section is the very definition of grandstanding.

The point of the post is pretty clear if you simply read it. It outlines the game mechanics that consistently and exclusively favor the larger group. This makes for poor and uninteresting gameplay. All the dumb guild back and forth couldn't be more irrelevant to the actual topic at hand. But thanks for trying to derail the thread even further by outlining grandstanding for me.

hammayolettuce · October 2015

Alomar wrote: »

Yonkit wrote: »

Haxus+SWP= 8 player small man raids ftw!

VE + K-Hole + LoM = Small 12 man raids! See the irony there?

The back and forth e-peening here is pointless to me and I am not engaging it. But VE has never made an issue over the sportsmanship of numerical advantages. We play with what we have. Perhaps you your criticism would be more valid if directed at others.

It'd be nice if we could all stop raging at each other too. We're competitors, not enemies

Valindor Magnus · October 2015

I'm very well aware of the content of your post. But the purpose behind posting it is what I was calling into question, in regards to grand standing. And you are intelligent enough to know that. And it is not my intention to derail your petty post into something other than a formal QQ but if you didn't want the topic to change then don't do it yourself by posting a reply only criticizing Zheg on his opinion. But don't worry I'm not touching this post again. Wouldn't want to derail your important discussion on how YOU want the game to play out any more than I have already.

xANTIxMATTERx · October 2015

So many edited posts

Huckdabuck · October 2015

xANTIxMATTERx wrote: »

So many edited posts

Better edited than regrettedededed.

Ghost-Shot · October 2015

Hektik_V wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Alomar wrote: »

Yonkit wrote: »

Haxus+SWP= 8 player small man raids ftw!

VE + K-Hole + LoM = Small 12 man raids! See the irony there?

Except, out of those three guilds, no one makes BS claims about how many are actually in the group just because their fragile egos get hurt when the group wipes and it's easier to try and convince whoever you lost to that the other dead 16 reds that moved with the group and stealth bombed with the group didn't actually exist and it was a valiant effort for the 'small' man against the zerg.

No guild I've ever talked to has accurately accounted for all of their numbers, plus other guilds, plus pugs. VE almost never accounts for total combatants, even when stacked with proper zerg guilds like NPK/CN.

How could we stack with NPK/CN when we dont even play on the same server?

ToRelax · October 2015

SkylarkAU wrote: »

Ghostbane wrote: »

I remember whenever a breach happened in a keep, one or two players would become the 'wall' or the 'seal' of said breach. Tanky and disruptive, to prevent as many of the enemy pouring in as possible....[snip]

Yeah i'm not buying it.. nothing changed in terms of roots, stuns etc. Tanks are still very effective on the breach if your group has a sound strategy and is organised..

This group that rushed the breach had barrier, purges, rapids etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNUvFaewq74

They were not even purging and I doubt they concentrated on healing either.

JDar · October 2015

All I'm reading here is people who are in a super guild, which makes them better and more deserving of AP than the masses they try to face, and it's an injustice of some kind.

Edit: and there is some kind of helplessness too, as though it is victimization that must be corrected by the developers. When certain top guilds think they are David there is some kind of siege mentality warping their world view.

Jules · October 2015

JDar wrote: »

All I'm reading here is people who are in a super guild, which makes them better and more deserving of AP than the masses they try to face, and it's an injustice of some kind.

Edit: and there is some kind of helplessness too, as though it is victimization that must be corrected by the developers. When certain top guilds think they are David there is some kind of siege mentality warping their world view.

You are delusional.

Minnesinger · October 2015

Of course, numbers matter. It would make a lot less sense to have small groups wipe huge zergs by the help of mechanics. There is a certain amount of fixes that should be addressed anyways. AoE cap as has been debated over mamy times. It is just benefiting zergers. If you zerg you should be in danger if stacked in one place. Think of how silly that is? Why isn´t AoE damage inflicting everyone in some small area?

Jules · October 2015

Minnesinger wrote: »

Of course, numbers matter. It would make a lot less sense to have small groups wipe huge zergs by the help of mechanics. There is a certain amount of fixes that should be addressed anyways. AoE cap as has been debated over mamy times. It is just benefiting zergers. If you zerg you should be in danger if stacked in one place. Think of how silly that is? Why isn´t AoE damage inflicting everyone in some small area?

Of course numbers matter. No ones saying they shouldn't. The issue is that numbers themselves give a huge advantage, and the game supports large stacked numbers with the mechanics stated above. It makes large stacked groups infallible.

Minnesinger · October 2015

Jules wrote: »

Minnesinger wrote: »

Of course, numbers matter. It would make a lot less sense to have small groups wipe huge zergs by the help of mechanics. There is a certain amount of fixes that should be addressed anyways. AoE cap as has been debated over mamy times. It is just benefiting zergers. If you zerg you should be in danger if stacked in one place. Think of how silly that is? Why isn´t AoE damage inflicting everyone in some small area?

Of course numbers matter. No ones saying they shouldn't. The issue is that numbers themselves give a huge advantage, and the game supports large stacked numbers with the mechanics stated above. It makes large stacked groups infallible.

I agree. I tried to say that there is some safety in numbers. But for the sake of good pvp, zergs shouldn´t be safe from small and very good groups. For balance there shoud be weaknesses that could be taken advantage of in all play styles. Making numbers automatically decisive isn´t really making it fun for the portion of players who don´t trust in zerging. I don´t keep my hopes high though. When reading the forums there is a clear voicing of casual players. The game shouldn´t be too hard. PvE alone has been modified multiple times to make it easier. PvP just follows that suit.

JDar · October 2015

Jules wrote: »

JDar wrote: »

All I'm reading here is people who are in a super guild, which makes them better and more deserving of AP than the masses they try to face, and it's an injustice of some kind.

Edit: and there is some kind of helplessness too, as though it is victimization that must be corrected by the developers. When certain top guilds think they are David there is some kind of siege mentality warping their world view.

You are delusional.

If you want a game where it makes more sense to bring fewer people to a fight than your opponent then you can join the club. It's a war game. Numbers matter but they are not automatically decisive like you seem to think. I have been in groups where Haxus has wiped a full-raid (HK) plenty recently. So I don't know what more you want. You get respect for being able to accomplish with ten players what some 24-player groups do, but I don't see why you think you need any more advantage via game mechanics -- Haxus is already stacked with some of the best players in the game with the most experienced players.

edit: In summation, I don't think being a better smaller group entitles anyone to win battles. Bring more people if you want to win.

Bashev · October 2015

Good points in this topic, but I doubt that a ZoS member will comment here.

JDar · October 2015

I get that massive zerging isn't what people think is fun to play but there are already plenty of things that can balance it out. You counter-attack. You capture some back-line keeps. Number of tactics you can use. Capture a resource and defend it. I just think complaining about this is a really tired topic and I'm over it. I am tired of seeing zerg threads.

Yonkit · October 2015

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Alomar wrote: »

Yonkit wrote: »

Haxus+SWP= 8 player small man raids ftw!

VE + K-Hole + LoM = Small 12 man raids! See the irony there?

Except, out of those three guilds, no one makes BS claims about how many are actually in the group just because their fragile egos get hurt when the group wipes and it's easier to try and convince whoever you lost to that the other dead 16 reds that moved with the group and stealth bombed with the group didn't actually exist and it was a valiant effort for the 'small' man against the zerg.

No guild I've ever talked to has accurately accounted for all of their numbers, plus other guilds, plus pugs. VE almost never accounts for total combatants, even when stacked with proper zerg guilds like NPK/CN.

How could we stack with NPK/CN when we dont even play on the same server?

6 weeks ago, 8 weeks ago, I dunno, when VE was still on Azura's and I could invisbat/tornado through whole raids, NPK/CN would occasionally run side by side with VE, though more often than not Bulb would ask them to fight in the south while we fought in the north of vice versa, but there were a lot of guilds running around AZ, most of them not NPK size, who would float in and out of combat near VE.

ToRelax · October 2015

JDar wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

JDar wrote: »

All I'm reading here is people who are in a super guild, which makes them better and more deserving of AP than the masses they try to face, and it's an injustice of some kind.

Edit: and there is some kind of helplessness too, as though it is victimization that must be corrected by the developers. When certain top guilds think they are David there is some kind of siege mentality warping their world view.

You are delusional.

If you want a game where it makes more sense to bring fewer people to a fight than your opponent then you can join the club. It's a war game. Numbers matter but they are not automatically decisive like you seem to think. I have been in groups where Haxus has wiped a full-raid (HK) plenty recently. So I don't know what more you want. You get respect for being able to accomplish with ten players what some 24-player groups do, but I don't see why you think you need any more advantage via game mechanics -- Haxus is already stacked with some of the best players in the game with the most experienced players.

edit: In summation, I don't think being a better smaller group entitles anyone to win battles. Bring more people if you want to win.

A system that would make it so small groups are stronger than full raids at the same skill level would be stupid, yes. Who's asking for anything like that?
But a system that gives a full raid even more advantages over a small group then having more players is equally stupid. And yet that is how the game works right now.