Put an end to ZERGS!

Lava_Croft · October 2015

MisterBigglesworth wrote: »

They just need to revert the changes they made to their netcode in patch 1.2.3

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Patch/1.2.3

^ this...

This is where it all started falling apart...

Because everybody likes people with speedhacks flying around Cyrodiil while duping their way to fame and riches.

Derra · October 2015

Lava_Croft wrote: »

MisterBigglesworth wrote: »

They just need to revert the changes they made to their netcode in patch 1.2.3

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Patch/1.2.3

^ this...

This is where it all started falling apart...

Because everybody likes people with speedhacks flying around Cyrodiil while duping their way to fame and riches.

It was this patch where the performance of the game took the biggest hit. They should have rolled back then and worked on a solution less crippling to performance.

Ara_Valleria · October 2015

RDMyers65b14_ESO wrote: »

Keep in mind that ESO zergs are not the lower level players but usually they are stacking emps and former emps with those who are Alliance level 30+ and upwards. So, the zerg is so much higher ranked than the average player. I have seen a zerg with multiple active Emps due to guesting and jumping to the group leader.

Stacking emps. Multiple active emps jumping to group leader.
lol wut ?!

Lava_Croft · October 2015

Derra wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

MisterBigglesworth wrote: »

They just need to revert the changes they made to their netcode in patch 1.2.3

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Patch/1.2.3

^ this...

This is where it all started falling apart...

Because everybody likes people with speedhacks flying around Cyrodiil while duping their way to fame and riches.

It was this patch where the performance of the game took the biggest hit. They should have rolled back then and worked on a solution less crippling to performance.

I'll take *** performance over a complete lack of protection against cheating/hacking any day.

prootch · October 2015

This game is a mass battle game... so groups of 4 or 2 would not change the map situation... when a target keep is obvious to everyone, people will stack there: this is a term of basic strategy: concentration of forces. Open rvr means mass battles.

aoe friendly fire is the only real way to disolve multi warband aoe stack in mass battle (wich would only limit aoe stack to one group... not enough from my point of view considering the lag caused by such groups atm)

Suppression of aoe damage or heavy limitations compared to mono target damage would certainly be a solution.
for exemple: -50% damage second spam, -100% damage third spam, ect... or +50% cost, +100% cost, ect...
(still I'm sure some would try to stack 100 players on first strike to oneshot ennemies).

but non of these proposals would disolve multi wb stack anyway, but it could disolve lag.

remove the aoe cap would result in more people stacked on the same square inch to make sure they outdamage you... it's the real exemple of a so called "good idea" that turns out to reinforce aoe stack and lag.

Ara_Valleria · October 2015

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

MisterBigglesworth wrote: »

They just need to revert the changes they made to their netcode in patch 1.2.3

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Patch/1.2.3

^ this...

This is where it all started falling apart...

Because everybody likes people with speedhacks flying around Cyrodiil while duping their way to fame and riches.

It was this patch where the performance of the game took the biggest hit. They should have rolled back then and worked on a solution less crippling to performance.

I'll take *** performance over a complete lack of protection against cheating/hacking any day.

lol wut ?!

Edit : oh wait nvm. You were talking about the previous state of the game. My bad, thought you meant people hack nowadays.

ToRelax · October 2015

prootch wrote: »

This game is a mass battle game... so groups of 4 or 2 would not change the map situation... when a target keep is obvious to everyone, people will stack there: this is a term of basic strategy: concentration of forces. Open rvr means mass battles.

aoe friendly fire is the only real way to disolve multi warband aoe stack in mass battle (wich would only limit aoe stack to one group... not enough from my point of view considering the lag caused by such groups atm)

Suppression of aoe damage or heavy limitations compared to mono target damage would certainly be a solution.
for exemple: -50% damage second spam, -100% damage third spam, ect... or +50% cost, +100% cost, ect...
(still I'm sure some would try to stack 100 players on first strike to oneshot ennemies).

but non of these proposals would disolve multi wb stack anyway, but it could disolve lag.

remove the aoe cap would result in more people stacked on the same square inch to make sure they outdamage you... it's the real exemple of a so called "good idea" that turns out to reinforce aoe stack and lag.

Small groups *did* influence the map directly for a long time.
You may think about how to kill another zergball or random zerg, and then a zergall would still be a viable tactic. But giving small groups a fighting chance against even large organized groups would make them able to influence the map a lot more than the groups they defeat. 1.) because they have a chance to siege and defend on their own again and 2.) because winning a fight 6v24 means 18 free players in the small group's alliance.

prootch · October 2015

They still do actually... when they are organized and coordinate with other groups... gank squad on supply lines for example. We still do use that kind of tactics a lot. Also opening keeps everywhere on the map away from the main pugs...

I agree with the idea of giving small groups and edge: with group cc for exemple. But removing aoe cap would not have the effect you await: it would just push organized aoe warbands to stack more aoe... and eventually instant wipe small groups.

FENGRUSH · October 2015

prootch wrote: »

They still do actually... when they are organized and coordinate with other groups... gank squad on supply lines for example. We still do use that kind of tactics a lot. Also opening keeps everywhere on the map away from the main pugs...

I agree with the idea of giving small groups and edge: with group cc for exemple. But removing aoe cap would not have the effect you await: it would just push organized aoe warbands to stack more aoe... and eventually instant wipe small groups.

small groups arent effected by AOE caps - stacking 'more' doesnt even change this situation.

The game played the way were talking about before. Its not like this is uncharted waters. This argument youre putting forward is said a lot, and generally by people who lack the experience or foresight to understand how these fights actually play out. Trust The Lord FENGRUSH.

ToRelax · October 2015

prootch wrote: »

They still do actually... when they are organized and coordinate with other groups... gank squad on supply lines for example. We still do use that kind of tactics a lot. Also opening keeps everywhere on the map away from the main pugs...

I agree with the idea of giving small groups and edge: with group cc for exemple. But removing aoe cap would not have the effect you await: it would just push organized aoe warbands to stack more aoe... and eventually instant wipe small groups.

They could not wipe smallgroups faster than they currently do because small groups do not get damage reduction from AoE caps. Against a full raid this would mean the small group deals over 60% more damage if all enemies are getting hit. But nothing changes the other way around.

LaDy-JeN · October 2015

If there would be only small scale, why should Ithere be guilds in this game?
If you have a guild, where you feel home, u'd like to play with eachother and guildmates wants to get entertained. So the best you can do if you don't like zergs, go and find a guild!

prootch · October 2015

Experience rofl... small groups are crushed by organized aoe warbands, so they would also be crushed by organized aoe warbands without aoe caps...

Just while we speak aoe spamming steel tornadoe warbands are crushed by... multiple aoe spamming steel tornadoe warbands, turning rvr into a mass aoe lag spam ***... if you like stack aoe spamming go for gw2.

Generally people who lack the experience of multiple warband lead fail to understand the basics of strategy that leads to organized stacks : concentration of forces. Now if you would like to limit stacking, you must make aoe less efficient... not more efficient.

Except if your only concern is to wipe pugs trains more efficiently... and brag about it.

Dreyloch · October 2015

ZigaZuzek wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

You seriously arent trying to compare real world issues of militaries to in game where the primary goal is fun are you?

Well being overrun 24 vs 1 is not exactly fun either. And zergs also cause major lag.

Your on a battlefield in hostile territory. What makes you think you should be able to run around solo without getting spotted and killed? Also, the lag isn't the Zergs fault. That's on ZoS for not having the tech to run things properly. I think we'd all agree that we would play stick figures if it meant having large 3 faction battles at a Keep with no lag.

FENGRUSH · October 2015

prootch wrote: »

Experience rofl... small groups are crushed by organized aoe warbands, so they would also be crushed by organized aoe warbands without aoe caps...

Just while we speak aoe spamming steel tornadoe warbands are crushed by... multiple aoe spamming steel tornadoe warbands, turning rvr into a mass aoe lag spam ***... if you like stack aoe spamming go for gw2.

Generally people who lack the experience of multiple warband lead fail to understand the basics of strategy that leads to organized stacks : concentration of forces. Now if you would like to limit stacking, you must make aoe less efficient... not more efficient.

Except if your only concern is to wipe pugs trains more efficiently... and brag about it.

Looks like you were playing a game where they called groups warbands when ESO was released so you missed out on the no AOE caps ESO pvp experience.

The game you are describing that ESO would become without AOE caps is actually what is happening today.

Minnesinger · October 2015

I know what anxiety zerging can cause. At the same time, I believe that without zergs many players wouldn´t come to Cyro. I understand the safety of numbers that gives some comfortability. Also, this should be remembered, what nice AP these zergs give when you can outplay their zerg tactics. I mostly play solo/ small/ medeium size, which can be pretty awesome.

prootch · October 2015

groups are called warbands in eso... from 2 to 24 ^^ (not zerg, ball, or whatever...)
what i'm describing: aoe cap would only worsen the current situation:
more organized warbands stacking more aoe to outdamage the ennemy on a smaller zone to max damage.

if you want to depack multi warband aoe stacks: make sure to introduce a zone cc that would immobilize or get asleep the whole stack of warbands/pugs for a while, with limited purge capacity... and curiously they would stop packing too much.

ToRelax · October 2015

prootch wrote: »

Experience rofl... small groups are crushed by organized aoe warbands, so they would also be crushed by organized aoe warbands without aoe caps...

Just while we speak aoe spamming steel tornadoe warbands are crushed by... multiple aoe spamming steel tornadoe warbands, turning rvr into a mass aoe lag spam ***... if you like stack aoe spamming go for gw2.

Generally people who lack the experience of multiple warband lead fail to understand the basics of strategy that leads to organized stacks : concentration of forces. Now if you would like to limit stacking, you must make aoe less efficient... not more efficient.

Except if your only concern is to wipe pugs trains more efficiently... and brag about it.

There are more things in this game favouring large groups than just AoE caps, but that is probably the most obvious one. GW2 has AoE caps and large AoE spamming zergs. ESO has AoE caps and large AoE spamming zergs. What experience without AoE caps are you even talking about? There is not a single reason why small groups should somehow have it harder without AoE caps, against organized zergballs. There is a reason why it would be much easier.

prootch · October 2015

They will not have it harder against organized groups...

They will die instant just the same against organised aoe warbands... the situation would only improve eventually for small groups against unorganized pugs. So it would not solve the issue of organized multi warbands zergs (these organized aoe warbands which are causing real lag issues on eu servers now... when they die, the lag dies... while we don't face lag with 50 pu vs warband).

ToRelax · October 2015

prootch wrote: »

They will not have it harder against organized groups...

They will die instant just the same against organised aoe warbands... the situation would only improve eventually for small groups against unorganized pugs. So it would not solve the issue of organized multi warbands zergs (these organized aoe warbands which are causing real lag issues on eu servers now... when they die, the lag dies... while we don't face lag with 50 pu vs warband).

If they die in an instant now they never had a chance. Doesn't matter in that case.
As for the lag, it would help against the lag 1.) because of less calculations and 2.) because fights would be over faster.

prootch · October 2015

The zos trend is not to have the fights finish instant... thr vast majority of their customers are not aiming for a counter strike aoe headshot gameplay... it's only the fantasy of some small groups.

So you will get lag nonetheless... and massive aoe ball stackers, even with aoe decap.

FENGRUSH · October 2015

They only end quickly if you put all your eggs in one basket and get blown away. That type of gameplay should be discouraged if anything (due to the fact its killing performance if nothing else). But today it is encouraged in multiple ways.

_Chaos · October 2015

FENGRUSH wrote: »

They only end quickly if you put all your eggs in one basket and get blown away. That type of gameplay should be discouraged if anything (due to the fact its killing performance if nothing else). But today it is encouraged in multiple ways.

I think it's the opposite. They only end quickly when you're not stacked up tight.

Why reward groups that spread out? Why have a group if you're not grouped up? Stacking tight is a feat in itself and shouldn't be punished for being able to condense/expand on command.

ToRelax · October 2015

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

They only end quickly if you put all your eggs in one basket and get blown away. That type of gameplay should be discouraged if anything (due to the fact its killing performance if nothing else). But today it is encouraged in multiple ways.

I think it's the opposite. They only end quickly when you're not stacked up tight.

Why reward groups that spread out? Why have a group if you're not grouped up? Stacking tight is a feat in itself and shouldn't be punished for being able to condense/expand on command.

Because many players don't like that playstyle. It's okay if some do and use it, they just shouldn't be rewarded, because that forces others to either do the same or leave the scene.

FENGRUSH · October 2015

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

They only end quickly if you put all your eggs in one basket and get blown away. That type of gameplay should be discouraged if anything (due to the fact its killing performance if nothing else). But today it is encouraged in multiple ways.

I think it's the opposite. They only end quickly when you're not stacked up tight.

Why reward groups that spread out? Why have a group if you're not grouped up? Stacking tight is a feat in itself and shouldn't be punished for being able to condense/expand on command.

Stacking isnt really a feat, youre just piling on a guy and focusing on following him more than whats around you.

The crown looks around and makes decisions. This works because of the design of a ball group. It is not a feat whatsoever. Today groups that split up a bit will die quicker than one stacked up if that one stacked up cannot heal and take the damage. Stacking altogether should be done in moderation when <X> players need heals/ raids buff they would come together to do so then break apart to combat / avoid being focused by heavy AOE/ult burst.

Nobody needs to coordinate like that today, its just single track - same thing all the time.

HighT3chR3dn3ck · October 2015

GO PLAY SMITE

HighT3chR3dn3ck · October 2015

Although the IC SHOULD BE SEPERATE FROM THE CAMPAIGN

_Chaos · October 2015

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

They only end quickly if you put all your eggs in one basket and get blown away. That type of gameplay should be discouraged if anything (due to the fact its killing performance if nothing else). But today it is encouraged in multiple ways.

I think it's the opposite. They only end quickly when you're not stacked up tight.

Why reward groups that spread out? Why have a group if you're not grouped up? Stacking tight is a feat in itself and shouldn't be punished for being able to condense/expand on command.

Stacking isnt really a feat, youre just piling on a guy and focusing on following him more than whats around you.

The crown looks around and makes decisions. This works because of the design of a ball group. It is not a feat whatsoever. Today groups that split up a bit will die quicker than one stacked up if that one stacked up cannot heal and take the damage. Stacking altogether should be done in moderation when <X> players need heals/ raids buff they would come together to do so then break apart to combat / avoid being focused by heavy AOE/ult burst.

Nobody needs to coordinate like that today, its just single track - same thing all the time.

Tightrope walking is just walking in a straight line too, right?

PS. the good guilds actually do expand and contract when necessary, this just goes to show how incompetent you are for voicing the competitive PVP guilds real issues.

FENGRUSH · October 2015

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

They only end quickly if you put all your eggs in one basket and get blown away. That type of gameplay should be discouraged if anything (due to the fact its killing performance if nothing else). But today it is encouraged in multiple ways.

I think it's the opposite. They only end quickly when you're not stacked up tight.

Why reward groups that spread out? Why have a group if you're not grouped up? Stacking tight is a feat in itself and shouldn't be punished for being able to condense/expand on command.

Stacking isnt really a feat, youre just piling on a guy and focusing on following him more than whats around you.

The crown looks around and makes decisions. This works because of the design of a ball group. It is not a feat whatsoever. Today groups that split up a bit will die quicker than one stacked up if that one stacked up cannot heal and take the damage. Stacking altogether should be done in moderation when <X> players need heals/ raids buff they would come together to do so then break apart to combat / avoid being focused by heavy AOE/ult burst.

Nobody needs to coordinate like that today, its just single track - same thing all the time.

Tightrope walking is just walking in a straight line too, right?

PS. the good guilds actually do expand and contract when necessary, this just goes to show how incompetent you are for voicing the competitive PVP guilds real issues.

Haha, FENGRUSH is incompetant for voicing competitive PVP guilds real issues? Try putting that one up in a poll.

Its fine to disagree with my last post, but unfortunately theres so little reason to do so in the games design you pretty much cant even prove it to be wrong.

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

They only end quickly if you put all your eggs in one basket and get blown away. That type of gameplay should be discouraged if anything (due to the fact its killing performance if nothing else). But today it is encouraged in multiple ways.

Stacking tight is a feat in itself

Just going to quote this one again for emphasis. This is what Im arguing with. Its clear youre in love with the ball group meta and will be vitriolic to anyone who opposes your method of PvP. I have no problems if thats how people want to play, just as they shouldnt have a problem if I want to 1vX or 4vX. But they shouldnt have a problem with the way Im playing.

I dont advocate the 'easy fixes' to ball groups that some people post where we just ramp up damage against people that are grouped. I advocate for actual equality - where ball groups dont get artificial mitigation. This isnt helping the game or the players to make it fun or interesting. The groups it helps the most are people those that stick with the crown while they PvP.

Jules · October 2015

This is pretty extreme.

_Chaos · October 2015

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

They only end quickly if you put all your eggs in one basket and get blown away. That type of gameplay should be discouraged if anything (due to the fact its killing performance if nothing else). But today it is encouraged in multiple ways.

I think it's the opposite. They only end quickly when you're not stacked up tight.

Why reward groups that spread out? Why have a group if you're not grouped up? Stacking tight is a feat in itself and shouldn't be punished for being able to condense/expand on command.

Stacking isnt really a feat, youre just piling on a guy and focusing on following him more than whats around you.

The crown looks around and makes decisions. This works because of the design of a ball group. It is not a feat whatsoever. Today groups that split up a bit will die quicker than one stacked up if that one stacked up cannot heal and take the damage. Stacking altogether should be done in moderation when <X> players need heals/ raids buff they would come together to do so then break apart to combat / avoid being focused by heavy AOE/ult burst.

Nobody needs to coordinate like that today, its just single track - same thing all the time.

Tightrope walking is just walking in a straight line too, right?

PS. the good guilds actually do expand and contract when necessary, this just goes to show how incompetent you are for voicing the competitive PVP guilds real issues.

Haha, FENGRUSH is incompetant for voicing competitive PVP guilds real issues? Try putting that one up in a poll.

Its fine to disagree with my last post, but unfortunately theres so little reason to do so in the games design you pretty much cant even prove it to be wrong.

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

They only end quickly if you put all your eggs in one basket and get blown away. That type of gameplay should be discouraged if anything (due to the fact its killing performance if nothing else). But today it is encouraged in multiple ways.

Stacking tight is a feat in itself

Just going to quote this one again for emphasis. This is what Im arguing with. Its clear youre in love with the ball group meta and will be vitriolic to anyone who opposes your method of PvP. I have no problems if thats how people want to play, just as they shouldnt have a problem if I want to 1vX or 4vX. But they shouldnt have a problem with the way Im playing.

I dont advocate the 'easy fixes' to ball groups that some people post where we just ramp up damage against people that are grouped. I advocate for actual equality - where ball groups dont get artificial mitigation. This isnt helping the game or the players to make it fun or interesting. The groups it helps the most are people those that stick with the crown while they PvP.

I loved solo'ing/1vX until I changed factions and made a Magicka DK, but that's a separate issue. No one has an issue with that. Sure when nothing is going on it's easy to stack crown, but there's more to it than just cuddling up beside someone. And that's what I'm refuting.

You're talking as if you just stack on crown and spam an ability, not taking into account the where, when, and why part of the 5 W's. and that is a big issue if you're going to be representing the PVP population. Quit over-generalizing everything, and I won't have any issues with you being our voice. You're damn good for mechanics, but have sub-par knowledge of large combat situationalization (no, that's not a real word.)