Why are Zergs rewarded more AP?

Minno · November 2015

AP should now be awarded END of campaign cycle not during. AP gains should be calculated based on taking/defending, or running the map point system.

That should force a concentration on playing the map objectives. AP farms would be arbitrary, farming of players for fun wouldn't reward you for AP, and healthier map moves would help distribute groups. It would also force group leads to start running objectives so players can earn AP. But this will fail without the following condition:

-Removal of emp should be discussed. Replaced completely in favor of additional map objectives to stimulate faction coordination. Players in the top 10 should be rewarded at end of campaign with top tier gear, gold and costumes (or crowns.)

With emp still in place, groups will forever justify running off to have "fun" balling up collecting kills to brag about via the forums. Currently if a solo player doesn't help map objectives, they don't gain ranking due to AP and since they can't kill zergs, they don't earn AP. Larger groups, if they don't play the map point system, can let their faction lose yet still farm AP. They gain ranks and can push for emp for more power to sit and farm AP if they so choose to.

Also, Add more items/ gear to buy with AP. Scale all sets to vr16 to stimulate crafting different builds. More sets = more RNG drops. More drops means ZOS can pull more people into cyro to farm for sets. Farming in cyro = earning AP. earning AP will be via objectives not kills. Groups will form to take objectives and cyro back to a healthy state.

Objectives should reward both small and large group styles. Keeps should require large groups to take. Resources can be taken by small groups. So its almost being implemented. It just needs more flag takes, use more of the map, more scripted events to stimulate how keeps are buffed, etc.

But you'll need to castrate the emp focus from the player group. It's currently forcing stagnation with how cyro is played.

Jaronking · November 2015

Sypher wrote: »

Can we get back to the original topic...

No get to streaming .

Jura23 · November 2015

ataggs wrote: »

I suggest that campaigns be based on group size. Why not let the large objective guilds have a campaign or two with the current 24 person raid size and then throw a small man campaign out there with a cap of 8. I would prefer that because everyone knows that those small groups and pugs steal AP from those doing the heavy lifting (not to mention they steal your siege).

They "steal" AP the zerg didn't earn anyway if you read OP.

Derra · November 2015

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl (hint hint - the game even tells you when inviting the 5th person that you´re exceeding the standard grpsize). In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Edit: Because i quoted wrong

And your basing your entire argument about what is and isn't a zerg on semantics, why?

The UI divisions of 'grp 1 - grp 6' in the raid frame is purely aesthetic, it plays no role in the functionally of grouping. Why is running more than 8 zergging? Does something magical happen at that number? Is it not more responsible to define zergging by the relative sizes of two opposing forces and the organization or lack there of on each side? That is to say, based on behavior, not arbitrary numbers.

I base it on the games normal grpsize and it´s applicable 100% of the time.

When basing it on your criteria things like organisation or something as arbitrary as skill becomes a factor in defining zerging.
1v4:
4 win => zerg
1 win => noobs
4v12:
12 win = zerg
4 = noobs

24ppl in ts following crown in highly organised guildgrp = no zerg bc organisation?
Not by my understanding of that term.

Also on topic for sypher:

I think everyone claiming ppl don´t play for ap are kidding themselves. 80% of the time when the server is lagging to sh*t it´s because people in large grps are farming their asses off at alessia bridge or sej => brk route. They´re definetly not doing this for ap nooo - of course not. It´s for the strategic value of holding alessia bridge as a blue raid grp when alessia is yellow and sejanus is red...

Move ap bonuses away from big grps and favor smaller ones and see how that works out.
1 player 100% ap
2 players 115% ap
3 players 130% ap
4 players 150% ap
every additional player does not add to the cake but makes the pieces smaller.

Satiar · November 2015

The fun of farming for me these days is not the AP so much as the fun of killing lots and lots of people. Which is why I couldn't care about the AP being lower or higher.

My final word on the group size issue is that people play to the content they have and the challenge they want. I want to win maps, I want to see a keep with 60 people in it and decide to take it. the raid and guild I play in is built accordingly. I do not fault those who want different battles, but you in an 8 man can't look at that keep and decide to take it. I don't think it's fair to fault those who who build to take on fights you can't or won't .

Derra · November 2015

Satiar wrote: »

The fun of farming for me these days is not the AP so much as the fun of killing lots and lots of people. Which is why I couldn't care about the AP being lower or higher.

My final word on the group size issue is that people play to the content they have and the challenge they want. I want to win maps, I want to see a keep with 60 people in it and decide to take it. the raid and guild I play in is built accordingly. I do not fault those who want different battles, but you in an 8 man can't look at that keep and decide to take it. I don't think it's fair to fault those who who build to take on fights you can't or won't .

Think that´s a perfectly valid argument. While i don´t agree with everything building to take that fight enables you to do (as smaller grps mainly can not parttake because of what the gamesystems enable your grp to do) - I can understand that reasoning 100%.

I still think reducing the ap gained would benefit the game as it would definetly create a disincentive to things like scrollfarming, towerfarming, bridgefarming and the likes - all those things big grps do when they´re playing for the ap.

Teargrants · November 2015

Derra wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl (hint hint - the game even tells you when inviting the 5th person that you´re exceeding the standard grpsize). In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Edit: Because i quoted wrong

And your basing your entire argument about what is and isn't a zerg on semantics, why?

The UI divisions of 'grp 1 - grp 6' in the raid frame is purely aesthetic, it plays no role in the functionally of grouping. Why is running more than 8 zergging? Does something magical happen at that number? Is it not more responsible to define zergging by the relative sizes of two opposing forces and the organization or lack there of on each side? That is to say, based on behavior, not arbitrary numbers.

I base it on the games normal grpsize and it´s applicable 100% of the time.

When basing it on your criteria things like organisation or something as arbitrary as skill becomes a factor in defining zerging.
1v4:
4 win => zerg
1 win => noobs
4v12:
12 win = zerg
4 = noobs

24ppl in ts following crown in highly organised guildgrp = no zerg bc organisation?
Not by my understanding of that term.

Also on topic for sypher:

I think everyone claiming ppl don´t play for ap are kidding themselves. 80% of the time when the server is lagging to sh*t it´s because people in large grps are farming their asses off at alessia bridge or sej => brk route. They´re definetly not doing this for ap nooo - of course not. It´s for the strategic value of holding alessia bridge as a blue raid grp when alessia is yellow and sejanus is red...

Move ap bonuses away from big grps and favor smaller ones and see how that works out.
1 player 100% ap
2 players 115% ap
3 players 130% ap
4 players 150% ap
every additional player does not add to the cake but makes the pieces smaller.

So you refuse to believe the selfsame large group ppl who say in this very thread that they don't give a crap about AP?

I can tell you exactly why we go to sej bridge and farm:

- We get tons of kills. (Kills is what we care about, AP is worthless)
- Sometimes it's the best spot to find good fights as blue if red and yellow aren't pushing us.
- It's a good way to get away from other blue guilds if there's already a couple pushing objectives and we would just be piling in with them as the alternative.
- It's a nice break from a million keep fights that are all the same thanks to uniform keep layout.
- It's funny.

Go ahead, cut AP earned the bigger your group size. Make it 0 AP for anything over '8 ppl', I couldn't care less.

Satiar · November 2015

Derra I think we're at a good understanding, thanks for considering what I put down.

I just kinda wish it was the old days, when small groups were appreciated by large guilds for ruining supply lines and harassing zergs with mobile tactics, and larger guilds were appreciated by small mans for holding territory and facilitating an environment for them to operate in. I've done both and I hate the general animosity

Derra · November 2015

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl (hint hint - the game even tells you when inviting the 5th person that you´re exceeding the standard grpsize). In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Edit: Because i quoted wrong

And your basing your entire argument about what is and isn't a zerg on semantics, why?

The UI divisions of 'grp 1 - grp 6' in the raid frame is purely aesthetic, it plays no role in the functionally of grouping. Why is running more than 8 zergging? Does something magical happen at that number? Is it not more responsible to define zergging by the relative sizes of two opposing forces and the organization or lack there of on each side? That is to say, based on behavior, not arbitrary numbers.

I base it on the games normal grpsize and it´s applicable 100% of the time.

When basing it on your criteria things like organisation or something as arbitrary as skill becomes a factor in defining zerging.
1v4:
4 win => zerg
1 win => noobs
4v12:
12 win = zerg
4 = noobs

24ppl in ts following crown in highly organised guildgrp = no zerg bc organisation?
Not by my understanding of that term.

Also on topic for sypher:

I think everyone claiming ppl don´t play for ap are kidding themselves. 80% of the time when the server is lagging to sh*t it´s because people in large grps are farming their asses off at alessia bridge or sej => brk route. They´re definetly not doing this for ap nooo - of course not. It´s for the strategic value of holding alessia bridge as a blue raid grp when alessia is yellow and sejanus is red...

Move ap bonuses away from big grps and favor smaller ones and see how that works out.
1 player 100% ap
2 players 115% ap
3 players 130% ap
4 players 150% ap
every additional player does not add to the cake but makes the pieces smaller.

So you refuse to believe the selfsame large group ppl who say in this very thread that they don't give a crap about AP?

I can tell you exactly why we go to sej bridge and farm:

- We get tons of kills. (Kills is what we care about, AP is worthless)
- Sometimes it's the best spot to find good fights as blue if red and yellow aren't pushing us.
- It's a good way to get away from other blue guilds if there's already a couple pushing objectives and we would just be piling in with them as the alternative.
- It's a nice break from a million keep fights that are all the same thanks to uniform keep layout.
- It's funny.

Go ahead, cut AP earned the bigger your group size. Make it 0 AP for anything over '8 ppl', I couldn't care less.

Well i don´t understand the reasoning behind running with 24ppl in a grp at all as it presents no challenge in 90% of the encounters i see these grps in. They just farm.
Being it ap or be it kills. I did not claim it´s exclusively for AP and i believe ppl stating they don´t care about ap anymore. I don´t think they´re the majority though - could be wrong here again (I do know a lot of people caring about ranks which happen to be associated with ap). If it does not interest you why are you arguing - if it helps in spreading people out why not?

Also ezareth did the spiderman thing better. Yours seem a little forced.

ToRelax · November 2015

I will just say this:
There's no point in arguing what is called zerging by whom, who does it, or why, as long as we agree there's no point in the current scaling of AP with groupsize. It would be a simple change, something only ZOS could screw over. If anyone thinks there's a reason this change should not happen if it could happen fast and without introducing some gamebreaking bug, I'd love to hear about the argument.

Huckdabuck · November 2015

ToRelax wrote: »

I will just say this:
There's no point in arguing what is called zerging by whom, who does it, or why, as long as we agree there's no point in the current scaling of AP with groupsize. It would be a simple change, something only ZOS could screw over. If anyone thinks there's a reason this change should not happen if it could happen fast and without introducing some gamebreaking bug, I'd love to hear about the argument.

You answered your own question.

Xsorus · November 2015

Zheg wrote: »

Jura23 wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Jura23 wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Lol at the "benefits" that small groups have you listed... Literally nothing you listed has anything to do with game mechanics like the benefits that Zergs receive.

Small groups would also stand a better chance if they also didn't have to fight against the lag that Zergs bring with them. Small groups need the game to be much more responsive in order to coordinate and fight against AOE spamming blobs

Right, because being able to run builds that are more survivable and honed towards the 1v1 and small group fights that group players have to engage in while also solo or in a small group (away from the main raid) multiple times a night provides no benefit at all for you during those fights.

"I'd like to present exhibit A to the court for how solo/small group players are consistently disingenuous in the discussion and want to only ever focus on the disadvantages they have."

As to the other benefits, it speaks to the fact that solo/small group players have more freedom than large group players have during the night. That doesn't necessarily translate into combat wins, but they are certainly perks that large group players don't get to enjoy. As I said at the bottom of the post, things are hardly equal, but as you so eloquently proved, your side of the argument never wants to even admit that there are some advantages to running solo or in a small group, so why even bother having the debate?

The discussion is about the game mechanic advantages that Zergs have over small groups... Not some arbitrary "benefits" you made up that don't do anything for small groups in the battlefield.

You seem to be incapable of following, so I'll try to phrase it yet again.

People playing in large groups have to run group-oriented bars that are quite lackluster when they engage in solo or small skirmishes. People playing in large groups have to engage in these kinds of fights many times throughout the night, which may come as a surprise to you. People playing in small groups or solo do NOT have to handicap their build/skillbar and therefore have a distinct advantage during the 1v1 or small skirmishes that people in large groups so often have to engage in.

How, in what world, is that an arbitrary ::airquotes:: benefit? You may not think it's all that important (though it is...) but the fact that you refuse to even admit that it's a benefit is indicative of what you and everyone else on that side of the debate does in these discussions. I, and everyone else that plays in large groups for pvp, completely revamp my skill bar and sometimes my gear when I want to go play solo or with a friend or two. That should say something. And if you're still incapable of understanding, I know not what to do with you.

They don't have to. They choose to do so. Which is pretty significant difference.

You can choose not to, but when you engage another large group, they will have a significant advantage. So yes, you pretty much need to make your skill bars more group-oriented. Either you have a disadvantage when fighting other large groups (which usually means more because those fights happen to determine control of map objectives), or you have a disadvantage during small skirmishes away from your group. It should be obvious why almost everyone chooses to not be disadvantaged during the group v group fights, meaning that the solo/small group has the advantage during those small skirmishes.

For some classes and builds this means swapping out a single skill, for others, far more. Either way, it's an advantage, one that is like pulling teeth to get some people to even acknowledge. I mean, the entire last few posts are about people refusing to admit even a single advantage to being solo or in a small group. No one is saying things are perfectly balanced, but the fact that people insist they have zero advantages just shows how ridiculous these debates are.

Everything has its pros and cons. So what is your point exactly?

The point is that there ARE some cons to being in a large group, and none of the peanut gallery is even capable of admitting that. Don't believe me? Just scroll up.

@Xsorus , agree to disagree, but thank you for reaffirming that the goal of threads like this isn't to improve solo/small group play, but to create yet ANOTHER thread bashing large group play and throwing out the word 'zerg' because it makes people feel better. Gold star Sypher, goal achieved.

Pointing out your zerging with 24 people isn't bashing zergs; if you feel bad about being called a Zerg for running 24 people, stop bloody zerging with 24 people and you won't be called a Zerg. This whole butt hurt thing you guys get when people point out what you are doing is hilariously stupid.

Xsorus · November 2015

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

It's not one group, 24 people is 6 groups in this game; hell when you go past 4 people is specifically says its creating a large group. Hell even in raid terms the raids in this game are 12 mans.. At no point in any game is 24 one group... Hell its 3 groups in daoc, 6 in wow, 4 in warhammer.

Xsorus · November 2015

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl (hint hint - the game even tells you when inviting the 5th person that you´re exceeding the standard grpsize). In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Edit: Because i quoted wrong

And your basing your entire argument about what is and isn't a zerg on semantics, why?

The UI divisions of 'grp 1 - grp 6' in the raid frame is purely aesthetic, it plays no role in the functionally of grouping. Why is running more than 8 zergging? Does something magical happen at that number? Is it not more responsible to define zergging by the relative sizes of two opposing forces and the organization or lack there of on each side? That is to say, based on behavior, not arbitrary numbers.

To answer your question.. No.
You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

Teargrants · November 2015

Derra wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl (hint hint - the game even tells you when inviting the 5th person that you´re exceeding the standard grpsize). In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Edit: Because i quoted wrong

And your basing your entire argument about what is and isn't a zerg on semantics, why?

The UI divisions of 'grp 1 - grp 6' in the raid frame is purely aesthetic, it plays no role in the functionally of grouping. Why is running more than 8 zergging? Does something magical happen at that number? Is it not more responsible to define zergging by the relative sizes of two opposing forces and the organization or lack there of on each side? That is to say, based on behavior, not arbitrary numbers.

I base it on the games normal grpsize and it´s applicable 100% of the time.

When basing it on your criteria things like organisation or something as arbitrary as skill becomes a factor in defining zerging.
1v4:
4 win => zerg
1 win => noobs
4v12:
12 win = zerg
4 = noobs

24ppl in ts following crown in highly organised guildgrp = no zerg bc organisation?
Not by my understanding of that term.

Also on topic for sypher:

I think everyone claiming ppl don´t play for ap are kidding themselves. 80% of the time when the server is lagging to sh*t it´s because people in large grps are farming their asses off at alessia bridge or sej => brk route. They´re definetly not doing this for ap nooo - of course not. It´s for the strategic value of holding alessia bridge as a blue raid grp when alessia is yellow and sejanus is red...

Move ap bonuses away from big grps and favor smaller ones and see how that works out.
1 player 100% ap
2 players 115% ap
3 players 130% ap
4 players 150% ap
every additional player does not add to the cake but makes the pieces smaller.

So you refuse to believe the selfsame large group ppl who say in this very thread that they don't give a crap about AP?

I can tell you exactly why we go to sej bridge and farm:

- We get tons of kills. (Kills is what we care about, AP is worthless)
- Sometimes it's the best spot to find good fights as blue if red and yellow aren't pushing us.
- It's a good way to get away from other blue guilds if there's already a couple pushing objectives and we would just be piling in with them as the alternative.
- It's a nice break from a million keep fights that are all the same thanks to uniform keep layout.
- It's funny.

Go ahead, cut AP earned the bigger your group size. Make it 0 AP for anything over '8 ppl', I couldn't care less.

Well i don´t understand the reasoning behind running with 24ppl in a grp at all as it presents no challenge in 90% of the encounters i see these grps in. They just farm.
Being it ap or be it kills. I did not claim it´s exclusively for AP and i believe ppl stating they don´t care about ap anymore. I don´t think they´re the majority though - could be wrong here again (I do know a lot of people caring about ranks which happen to be associated with ap). If it does not interest you why are you arguing - if it helps in spreading people out why not?

Also ezareth did the spiderman thing better. Yours seem a little forced.

The point of having 24 ppl in a group is to take on other groups of 24+ ppl head to head, rather than taking them on as a 4 man, an 8 man, a 12 man, ect and only be able to engage such groups by ganking back lines or stealth bombs while they are engaged with others.

changing AP values is fine, I don't have an opinion on it one way or the other because I don't see it impacting how people play in the big picture. People will tend to stay with the playstyle they enjoy and eschew what they don't enjoy.

I am but a young padawan in the ways of Spider-Man, Braidas is my god, Ezareth is my saint.

Satiar · November 2015

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

It's not one group, 24 people is 6 groups in this game; hell when you go past 4 people is specifically says its creating a large group. Hell even in raid terms the raids in this game are 12 mans.. At no point in any game is 24 one group... Hell its 3 groups in daoc, 6 in wow, 4 in warhammer.

See we Playing any of those games? No. Awesome. So why are we talking about them like they mean anything. Go play DAOC and argue about group size.

I just think it's hilarious that I can take 20 people to a keep with 50-70 freaking people inside but it's really me that's zerging. 24 vs 70 is zerging ? How about 24vs 50? 40? 30? Whether I run 24 or not factions will stack up and Zerg because that is what they have always done. The only difference is that good guilds provide a Zerg counter that isn't "make a bigger Zerg".

Teargrants · November 2015

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl (hint hint - the game even tells you when inviting the 5th person that you´re exceeding the standard grpsize). In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Edit: Because i quoted wrong

And your basing your entire argument about what is and isn't a zerg on semantics, why?

The UI divisions of 'grp 1 - grp 6' in the raid frame is purely aesthetic, it plays no role in the functionally of grouping. Why is running more than 8 zergging? Does something magical happen at that number? Is it not more responsible to define zergging by the relative sizes of two opposing forces and the organization or lack there of on each side? That is to say, based on behavior, not arbitrary numbers.

To answer your question.. No.
You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

That's the thing, two big groups go at it and a couple seconds later one is wipped and as you would put it, it's all just out zergging another zerg. That does not provide useful information about what happened.

It's nice and all calling it all zergging vs zergging, but it's not helpful to the guilds fighting for campaign objectives. "Our zerg got out zergged." What people need to know is organized group? Disorganized group? Tons of pugs?

AbraXuSeXile · November 2015

Who cares about AP

GRxKnight · November 2015

Derra wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl (hint hint - the game even tells you when inviting the 5th person that you´re exceeding the standard grpsize). In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Edit: Because i quoted wrong

And your basing your entire argument about what is and isn't a zerg on semantics, why?

The UI divisions of 'grp 1 - grp 6' in the raid frame is purely aesthetic, it plays no role in the functionally of grouping. Why is running more than 8 zergging? Does something magical happen at that number? Is it not more responsible to define zergging by the relative sizes of two opposing forces and the organization or lack there of on each side? That is to say, based on behavior, not arbitrary numbers.

I base it on the games normal grpsize and it´s applicable 100% of the time.

When basing it on your criteria things like organisation or something as arbitrary as skill becomes a factor in defining zerging.
1v4:
4 win => zerg
1 win => noobs
4v12:
12 win = zerg
4 = noobs

24ppl in ts following crown in highly organised guildgrp = no zerg bc organisation?
Not by my understanding of that term.

Also on topic for sypher:

I think everyone claiming ppl don´t play for ap are kidding themselves. 80% of the time when the server is lagging to sh*t it´s because people in large grps are farming their asses off at alessia bridge or sej => brk route. They´re definetly not doing this for ap nooo - of course not. It´s for the strategic value of holding alessia bridge as a blue raid grp when alessia is yellow and sejanus is red...

Move ap bonuses away from big grps and favor smaller ones and see how that works out.
1 player 100% ap
2 players 115% ap
3 players 130% ap
4 players 150% ap
every additional player does not add to the cake but makes the pieces smaller.

So you refuse to believe the selfsame large group ppl who say in this very thread that they don't give a crap about AP?

I can tell you exactly why we go to sej bridge and farm:

- We get tons of kills. (Kills is what we care about, AP is worthless)
- Sometimes it's the best spot to find good fights as blue if red and yellow aren't pushing us.
- It's a good way to get away from other blue guilds if there's already a couple pushing objectives and we would just be piling in with them as the alternative.
- It's a nice break from a million keep fights that are all the same thanks to uniform keep layout.
- It's funny.

Go ahead, cut AP earned the bigger your group size. Make it 0 AP for anything over '8 ppl', I couldn't care less.

Well i don´t understand the reasoning behind running with 24ppl in a grp at all as it presents no challenge in 90% of the encounters i see these grps in. They just farm.
Being it ap or be it kills. I did not claim it´s exclusively for AP and i believe ppl stating they don´t care about ap anymore. I don´t think they´re the majority though - could be wrong here again (I do know a lot of people caring about ranks which happen to be associated with ap). If it does not interest you why are you arguing - if it helps in spreading people out why not?

Also ezareth did the spiderman thing better. Yours seem a little forced.

This is becoming more and more untrue with each passing day, at least on Azuras during peak hours on weeknights and especially weekends. Daniel puts up 1-2 groups roughly of his own guild people plus the pugs they attract. Just those numbers alone warrant you to be running in 24 man groups almost all the time to fight them. These groups don't go after the small groups or 1vX'ers. Hell Rage saw Sypher at Sej the other night on his DK running around trying to kite us away from the group and we simply walked away. We "zergs" have no intention of mowing down individuals and chasing singles away from the group. Now if we come across you on our way to an objective that's a different story, but back on topic.

We run in these large groups with the sole purpose of fighting the other large groups on the map and this is becoming more and more of a necessity due to the larger issues that this game has than measly AP gains. If we were a 12 man group or 16 man group you can forget us ever dreaming of taking on Daniel's forces or VE or any other large organized group. It's just not going to happen that often.

As to your "no challenge" comment, large group play may seem mindless to a lot of small group/solo players because of the assumption that all we do is spam one button. There are builds that definitely do only that coughsteeltornadocough*...but on my sorc I can say that I use all 10 of my active skills and an ultimate in almost every encounter and it's not as simple as standing in one spot spamming impulse. There's a lot more too it than that and I wish that these small group players would step into our world for a change and see that it's not as simple as they think.

Xsorus · November 2015

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

It's not one group, 24 people is 6 groups in this game; hell when you go past 4 people is specifically says its creating a large group. Hell even in raid terms the raids in this game are 12 mans.. At no point in any game is 24 one group... Hell its 3 groups in daoc, 6 in wow, 4 in warhammer.

See we Playing any of those games? No. Awesome. So why are we talking about them like they mean anything. Go play DAOC and argue about group size.

I just think it's hilarious that I can take 20 people to a keep with 50-70 freaking people inside but it's really me that's zerging. 24 vs 70 is zerging ? How about 24vs 50? 40? 30? Whether I run 24 or not factions will stack up and Zerg because that is what they have always done. The only difference is that good guilds provide a Zerg counter that isn't "make a bigger Zerg".

See it still doesn't help your point because the group size in this game is 4 people, when you go larger you are basically converting into a raid group. So you aren't just running 1 group.. You are running 6 groups and trying to pretend that's not zerging; pointing out to you that in multiple games you would be zerging is me just backing it up with more facts.

And again, you are zerging with 24 people; running into a bigger Zerg doesn't change that fact.

Now ignoring the fact that you are zerging let's examine why your group won't ever be taken seriously while doing it.. Because a setup 24 man fighting anything else in this game besides a setup 24 man requires zero skill... You have virtually no risk smashing your setup Zerg into a bunch of pug players...

It's also true for every other massive scale pvp game out there.. If you did it in daoc for example; no one would respect you. Hell if you ran more then 8 people you would get aj by every single other group out there because it implied you had no skill.

You will not change the vast majority of players mindsets on this. So while there is nothing wrong with you zerging (and that's what you are doing) being upset no one respects you for it is silly. I believe not only have I explained this to you multiple times but lowbei has as well.

blabafat · November 2015

It's not about whether AP is worth anything(which it is, as @Ara_Valleria stated, in terms of leaderboards, EMP, assault rank, etc.)

It's the fact that the #1 problem to high ping and low FPS is being promoted further

No AoE caps, no dynamic ulti, COMBINED with increased AP gain is motivating people to zerg and lag the campaigns

Xsorus · November 2015

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl (hint hint - the game even tells you when inviting the 5th person that you´re exceeding the standard grpsize). In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Edit: Because i quoted wrong

And your basing your entire argument about what is and isn't a zerg on semantics, why?

The UI divisions of 'grp 1 - grp 6' in the raid frame is purely aesthetic, it plays no role in the functionally of grouping. Why is running more than 8 zergging? Does something magical happen at that number? Is it not more responsible to define zergging by the relative sizes of two opposing forces and the organization or lack there of on each side? That is to say, based on behavior, not arbitrary numbers.

To answer your question.. No.
You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

That's the thing, two big groups go at it and a couple seconds later one is wipped and as you would put it, it's all just out zergging another zerg. That does not provide useful information about what happened.

It's nice and all calling it all zergging vs zergging, but it's not helpful to the guilds fighting for campaign objectives. "Our zerg got out zergged." What people need to know is organized group? Disorganized group? Tons of pugs?

What you stated has no point with the matter at hand; you asked when it's considered a Zerg.. I explained when it is. Going into how you would describe the Zerg to other people doesn't matter.

Satiar · November 2015

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

It's not one group, 24 people is 6 groups in this game; hell when you go past 4 people is specifically says its creating a large group. Hell even in raid terms the raids in this game are 12 mans.. At no point in any game is 24 one group... Hell its 3 groups in daoc, 6 in wow, 4 in warhammer.

See we Playing any of those games? No. Awesome. So why are we talking about them like they mean anything. Go play DAOC and argue about group size.

I just think it's hilarious that I can take 20 people to a keep with 50-70 freaking people inside but it's really me that's zerging. 24 vs 70 is zerging ? How about 24vs 50? 40? 30? Whether I run 24 or not factions will stack up and Zerg because that is what they have always done. The only difference is that good guilds provide a Zerg counter that isn't "make a bigger Zerg".

See it still doesn't help your point because the group size in this game is 4 people, when you go larger you are basically converting into a raid group. So you aren't just running 1 group.. You are running 6 groups and trying to pretend that's not zerging; pointing out to you that in multiple games you would be zerging is me just backing it up with more facts.

And again, you are zerging with 24 people; running into a bigger Zerg doesn't change that fact.

Now ignoring the fact that you are zerging let's examine why your group won't ever be taken seriously while doing it.. Because a setup 24 man fighting anything else in this game besides a setup 24 man requires zero skill... You have virtually no risk smashing your setup Zerg into a bunch of pug players...

It's also true for every other massive scale pvp game out there.. If you did it in daoc for example; no one would respect you. Hell if you ran more then 8 people you would get aj by every single other group out there because it implied you had no skill.

You will not change the vast majority of players mindsets on this. So while there is nothing wrong with you zerging (and that's what you are doing) being upset no one respects you for it is silly. I believe not only have I explained this to you multiple times but lowbei has as well.

Ah geez man. I love how you arbitrarily decide on a group size that is a "Zerg" and one that isn't. 2v1 and 50v24 are the same ratio but according to you one is a Zerg and one isn't. Because ? Because you don't like working with people to achieve victory? Because fighting in a field is more honorable than fighting in a keep?

What it comes down to is you hating groups and that's pretty much it. That I can face odds of 3v1 but still be zerging by your standards is flat on its face stupid; it's an opinion devoid of context because, for some reason, you think teamwork is bad.

And to that, all I can say is lol. To one guy in a field 4 men is a Zerg. To a 4 man 12 is a Zerg. It's about context, something you clearly are unable to factor into your blind group hate. 1v1 is honorable but 24v24 isn't? Explain that one to me and I'll be bloody impressed

Xiphyla · November 2015

I miss warhammer >_>. Good old days in scenario and 4vZerglings.

Xiphyla · November 2015

Even though it's a mmo , where mass people play together , but It's still funny how people defend zerging so much

.

MrGrimey · November 2015

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

It's not one group, 24 people is 6 groups in this game; hell when you go past 4 people is specifically says its creating a large group. Hell even in raid terms the raids in this game are 12 mans.. At no point in any game is 24 one group... Hell its 3 groups in daoc, 6 in wow, 4 in warhammer.

See we Playing any of those games? No. Awesome. So why are we talking about them like they mean anything. Go play DAOC and argue about group size.

I just think it's hilarious that I can take 20 people to a keep with 50-70 freaking people inside but it's really me that's zerging. 24 vs 70 is zerging ? How about 24vs 50? 40? 30? Whether I run 24 or not factions will stack up and Zerg because that is what they have always done. The only difference is that good guilds provide a Zerg counter that isn't "make a bigger Zerg".

See it still doesn't help your point because the group size in this game is 4 people, when you go larger you are basically converting into a raid group. So you aren't just running 1 group.. You are running 6 groups and trying to pretend that's not zerging; pointing out to you that in multiple games you would be zerging is me just backing it up with more facts.

And again, you are zerging with 24 people; running into a bigger Zerg doesn't change that fact.

Now ignoring the fact that you are zerging let's examine why your group won't ever be taken seriously while doing it.. Because a setup 24 man fighting anything else in this game besides a setup 24 man requires zero skill... You have virtually no risk smashing your setup Zerg into a bunch of pug players...

It's also true for every other massive scale pvp game out there.. If you did it in daoc for example; no one would respect you. Hell if you ran more then 8 people you would get aj by every single other group out there because it implied you had no skill.

You will not change the vast majority of players mindsets on this. So while there is nothing wrong with you zerging (and that's what you are doing) being upset no one respects you for it is silly. I believe not only have I explained this to you multiple times but lowbei has as well.

Ah geez man. I love how you arbitrarily decide on a group size that is a "Zerg" and one that isn't. 2v1 and 50v24 are the same ratio but according to you one is a Zerg and one isn't. Because ? Because you don't like working with people to achieve victory? Because fighting in a field is more honorable than fighting in a keep?

What it comes down to is you hating groups and that's pretty much it. That I can face odds of 3v1 but still be zerging by your standards is flat on its face stupid; it's an opinion devoid of context because, for some reason, you think teamwork is bad.

And to that, all I can say is lol. To one guy in a field 4 men is a Zerg. To a 4 man 12 is a Zerg. It's about context, something you clearly are unable to factor into your blind group hate. 1v1 is honorable but 24v24 isn't? Explain that one to me and I'll be bloody impressed

50v25 lags up the server and makes the game run like crap and 2v1 does none of that

Poxheart · November 2015

Teargrants & Hjoras, back in the day you used to small man with Bulbasir over by the Alessia bridge, don't tell me you guys didn't refer to any group larger than yourselves that chased after you as a zerg.

Satiar · November 2015

Poxheart wrote: »

Teargrants & Hjoras, back in the day you used to small man with Bulbasir over by the Alessia bridge, don't tell me you guys didn't refer to any group larger than yourselves that chased after you as a zerg.

We didn't. Tear grants and I have always done both. We were part of Hijinx and TYSM and had appreciation for both styles of gameplay. We're late night players, we've always been the guys to raid and than small man later; both styles have their merits. When we went up against something we couldn't fight we just got out of the way.

Satiar · November 2015

MrGrimey wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

It's not one group, 24 people is 6 groups in this game; hell when you go past 4 people is specifically says its creating a large group. Hell even in raid terms the raids in this game are 12 mans.. At no point in any game is 24 one group... Hell its 3 groups in daoc, 6 in wow, 4 in warhammer.

See we Playing any of those games? No. Awesome. So why are we talking about them like they mean anything. Go play DAOC and argue about group size.

I just think it's hilarious that I can take 20 people to a keep with 50-70 freaking people inside but it's really me that's zerging. 24 vs 70 is zerging ? How about 24vs 50? 40? 30? Whether I run 24 or not factions will stack up and Zerg because that is what they have always done. The only difference is that good guilds provide a Zerg counter that isn't "make a bigger Zerg".

See it still doesn't help your point because the group size in this game is 4 people, when you go larger you are basically converting into a raid group. So you aren't just running 1 group.. You are running 6 groups and trying to pretend that's not zerging; pointing out to you that in multiple games you would be zerging is me just backing it up with more facts.

And again, you are zerging with 24 people; running into a bigger Zerg doesn't change that fact.

Now ignoring the fact that you are zerging let's examine why your group won't ever be taken seriously while doing it.. Because a setup 24 man fighting anything else in this game besides a setup 24 man requires zero skill... You have virtually no risk smashing your setup Zerg into a bunch of pug players...

It's also true for every other massive scale pvp game out there.. If you did it in daoc for example; no one would respect you. Hell if you ran more then 8 people you would get aj by every single other group out there because it implied you had no skill.

You will not change the vast majority of players mindsets on this. So while there is nothing wrong with you zerging (and that's what you are doing) being upset no one respects you for it is silly. I believe not only have I explained this to you multiple times but lowbei has as well.

Ah geez man. I love how you arbitrarily decide on a group size that is a "Zerg" and one that isn't. 2v1 and 50v24 are the same ratio but according to you one is a Zerg and one isn't. Because ? Because you don't like working with people to achieve victory? Because fighting in a field is more honorable than fighting in a keep?

What it comes down to is you hating groups and that's pretty much it. That I can face odds of 3v1 but still be zerging by your standards is flat on its face stupid; it's an opinion devoid of context because, for some reason, you think teamwork is bad.

And to that, all I can say is lol. To one guy in a field 4 men is a Zerg. To a 4 man 12 is a Zerg. It's about context, something you clearly are unable to factor into your blind group hate. 1v1 is honorable but 24v24 isn't? Explain that one to me and I'll be bloody impressed

50v25 lags up the server and makes the game run like crap and 2v1 does none of that

isn't my fault they bring 50, but someone has to fight it.

Teargrants · November 2015

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl (hint hint - the game even tells you when inviting the 5th person that you´re exceeding the standard grpsize). In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Edit: Because i quoted wrong

And your basing your entire argument about what is and isn't a zerg on semantics, why?

The UI divisions of 'grp 1 - grp 6' in the raid frame is purely aesthetic, it plays no role in the functionally of grouping. Why is running more than 8 zergging? Does something magical happen at that number? Is it not more responsible to define zergging by the relative sizes of two opposing forces and the organization or lack there of on each side? That is to say, based on behavior, not arbitrary numbers.

To answer your question.. No.
You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

That's the thing, two big groups go at it and a couple seconds later one is wipped and as you would put it, it's all just out zergging another zerg. That does not provide useful information about what happened.

It's nice and all calling it all zergging vs zergging, but it's not helpful to the guilds fighting for campaign objectives. "Our zerg got out zergged." What people need to know is organized group? Disorganized group? Tons of pugs?

What you stated has no point with the matter at hand; you asked when it's considered a Zerg.. I explained when it is. Going into how you would describe the Zerg to other people doesn't matter.

Uh what?

Things I asked:

Why is running more than 8 zergging?

Does something magical happen at that number?

Is it not more responsible to define zergging by the relative sizes of two opposing forces and the organization or lack there of on each side?

You answered:

Xsorus wrote: »

No. You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

I can only take it you're addressing that last question, in other words, that you define "zergging" based on numbers alone, not relative size or organization. Is you answer addressed at something else? Would be nice if you'd make it clearer.

So, do you just see fights between 24 man grps as just one side "getting outzerged while zerging" when they end?

I feel like I'm going in circles here, because people in this thread seem to just want to define any sort of 'large' group as a 'zerg', and anything it does as 'zergging'. That leaves the impression to me that people don't acknowledge what kind of organization, movement, positioning, ect that goes into large group play.