Why are Zergs rewarded more AP?

RobboEU · November 2015

Satiar wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

TheLaw wrote: »

This is the least of our issues, Sypher. You should use your influence to keep PVP from completely dying. This won't help.

You guys aren't getting the big picture.

Balancing out AP gain is the first step to discourage zerging. Zerging is the leading cause of performance issue in cyrodiil.

I'm really surprised (and disapointed) that people in this thread don't get that.

It has been said many times. Zergs already have an advantage on the battlefield due to sheer numbers. They don't need added help from game mechanics and added incentives from AP gain. Btw, anybody who says AP doesn't matter is flat out lying

AP is nice but I have no need for it. I look at kill counter these days to see how the night went. My AP tracker mod is uninstalled lol

The game has need for AP balancing though, regardless if YOU personally need AP or not.

Leaderboards make a game competitive, on ESO the PVP leaderboards are determined by AP. (Just in case you failed to notice).

MrGrimey · November 2015

Satiar wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

TheLaw wrote: »

This is the least of our issues, Sypher. You should use your influence to keep PVP from completely dying. This won't help.

You guys aren't getting the big picture.

Balancing out AP gain is the first step to discourage zerging. Zerging is the leading cause of performance issue in cyrodiil.

I'm really surprised (and disapointed) that people in this thread don't get that.

It has been said many times. Zergs already have an advantage on the battlefield due to sheer numbers. They don't need added help from game mechanics and added incentives from AP gain. Btw, anybody who says AP doesn't matter is flat out lying

AP is nice but I have no need for it. I look at kill counter these days to see how the night went. My AP tracker mod is uninstalled lol

And?.... I look at total AP gain to see how I did since I'm grinding like a mad man to get detonation on my sorc or caltrops on my nightblade. It takes over a million AP to get proxy, so better believe I'm going to find the most efficient way possible. Unfortunately, the easiest way possible skyrockets mine and my enemies ping and drops our frame rate.

Again, this is just a small change to discourage zerging, it will not eliminate Zergs. But it's a step in the right direction, and also a very easy thing that requires minimal programming.

Satiar · November 2015

If I believed it would
A: discourage zerging (lol no, why would it?)
B: Not potentially distract from other vastly more important issues

I'd be fine. But as is, like I said, seems like a feel good measure at most. And given how the thread was created and has gone, it seems not just a lil bit spiteful.

RobboEU · November 2015

Satiar wrote: »

If I believed it would
A: discourage zerging (lol no, why would it?)
B: Not potentially distract from other vastly more important issues

I'd be fine. But as is, like I said, seems like a feel good measure at most. And given how the thread was created and has gone, it seems not just a lil bit spiteful.

A. Because people in the groups would be rewarded less.. Did your brain die during this thread?

B. Zerging is game breaking.

Satiar · November 2015

Eldruf wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

If I believed it would
A: discourage zerging (lol no, why would it?)
B: Not potentially distract from other vastly more important issues

I'd be fine. But as is, like I said, seems like a feel good measure at most. And given how the thread was created and has gone, it seems not just a lil bit spiteful.

A. Because people in the groups would be rewarded less.. Did your brain die during this thread?

B. Zerging is game breaking.

A: You're not going to stop zergs by lessening AP gain. Do you seriously think people get on and get in raid and do that every night merely to get AP? It's done because it's fun, because there's fights and objectives. After a while AP becomes literally meaningless.
B: The definition of zerging in this thread is so bloody braindead. What is it at last time we left it? 5 people? 8? I forget the magic number. Also apparently if you make a group to break up a zerg you are also a zerg? Even if outnumbered 2 or 3 to one?

Raizin · November 2015

Satiar wrote: »

Eldruf wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

If I believed it would
A: discourage zerging (lol no, why would it?)
B: Not potentially distract from other vastly more important issues

I'd be fine. But as is, like I said, seems like a feel good measure at most. And given how the thread was created and has gone, it seems not just a lil bit spiteful.

A. Because people in the groups would be rewarded less.. Did your brain die during this thread?

B. Zerging is game breaking.

braindead.

Is the definition of ppl who still believe that this game will get any better (lag,zerging,or whatever issue)... just sayin...

Derra · November 2015

Satiar wrote: »

Eldruf wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

If I believed it would
A: discourage zerging (lol no, why would it?)
B: Not potentially distract from other vastly more important issues

I'd be fine. But as is, like I said, seems like a feel good measure at most. And given how the thread was created and has gone, it seems not just a lil bit spiteful.

A. Because people in the groups would be rewarded less.. Did your brain die during this thread?

B. Zerging is game breaking.

A: You're not going to stop zergs by lessening AP gain. Do you seriously think people get on and get in raid and do that every night merely to get AP? It's done because it's fun, because there's fights and objectives. After a while AP becomes literally meaningless.
B: The definition of zerging in this thread is so bloody braindead. What is it at last time we left it? 5 people? 8? I forget the magic number. Also apparently if you make a group to break up a zerg you are also a zerg? Even if outnumbered 2 or 3 to one?

You´re forming an organised zerg to beat an unorganised zerg. You´re getting hung up way to much on the negative connotation the word might have for you.
If you truely believe that a raidgrp with 24 players is not zerging on the other hand and have to claim everyone stating you´re zerging is braindead - sry that´s just delusional.

Etaniel · November 2015

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Eldruf wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

If I believed it would
A: discourage zerging (lol no, why would it?)
B: Not potentially distract from other vastly more important issues

I'd be fine. But as is, like I said, seems like a feel good measure at most. And given how the thread was created and has gone, it seems not just a lil bit spiteful.

A. Because people in the groups would be rewarded less.. Did your brain die during this thread?

B. Zerging is game breaking.

A: You're not going to stop zergs by lessening AP gain. Do you seriously think people get on and get in raid and do that every night merely to get AP? It's done because it's fun, because there's fights and objectives. After a while AP becomes literally meaningless.
B: The definition of zerging in this thread is so bloody braindead. What is it at last time we left it? 5 people? 8? I forget the magic number. Also apparently if you make a group to break up a zerg you are also a zerg? Even if outnumbered 2 or 3 to one?

You´re forming an organised zerg to beat an unorganised zerg. You´re getting hung up way to much on the negative connotation the word might have for you.
If you truely believe that a raidgrp with 24 players is not zerging on the other hand and have to claim everyone stating you´re zerging is braindead - sry that´s just delusional.

+1 killing blow for Derra

CatchMeTrolling · November 2015

allen-iverson wrote: »

groups should continue to make more AP because they actually accomplish goals on the map. solo PvP is a lot of fun and allows you to test your skill and challenge yourself against other players and i understand that is a lot of fun, but solo PvP/ lil gank groups contribute little to nothing for winning campaigns or recovering scrolls. Organized groups/guilds do.

i suggest solo PvP players try out joining an organized guild fight to see what its like. ive been a solo/small group pvp player most of my time in this game and now that im in a group that does Guild vs. Guild on a nightly basis i can honestly say the fights are more fun and require a lot more tact than a lot of people like to think. if you don't think thats the case maybe find a different guild.

My opinion on this will change when i see sypher post a youtube vid showing us a 1vX keep take/scroll run in a pop-locked server.

Lol I completely disagree with the group's get thing's done. Leader's get things done, I've come across so many groups that completely suck and I'm sitting there teaching them the basics and how to defend. Meanwhile rolling solo or in a 2-5 group. Player's that actually do something should get more ap, in fact the ap system needs to be reworked a little to stop farming and emp farming from no lifers.

Lava_Croft · November 2015

If 24 people is a zerg and the default group size is 24, ESO is a game designed for zerging and OP bought the wrong game.

It's not that hard.

Draxys · November 2015

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

allen-iverson wrote: »

groups should continue to make more AP because they actually accomplish goals on the map. solo PvP is a lot of fun and allows you to test your skill and challenge yourself against other players and i understand that is a lot of fun, but solo PvP/ lil gank groups contribute little to nothing for winning campaigns or recovering scrolls. Organized groups/guilds do.

i suggest solo PvP players try out joining an organized guild fight to see what its like. ive been a solo/small group pvp player most of my time in this game and now that im in a group that does Guild vs. Guild on a nightly basis i can honestly say the fights are more fun and require a lot more tact than a lot of people like to think. if you don't think thats the case maybe find a different guild.

My opinion on this will change when i see sypher post a youtube vid showing us a 1vX keep take/scroll run in a pop-locked server.

Lol I completely disagree with the group's get thing's done. Leader's get things done, I've come across so many groups that completely suck and I'm sitting there teaching them the basics and how to defend. Meanwhile rolling solo or in a 2-5 group. Player's that actually do something should get more ap, in fact the ap system needs to be reworked a little to stop farming and emp farming from no lifers.

Groups are the ones that get things done, that's a fact, but not all of them can do it. Just because some suck doesn't mean others can't accomplish map objectives without you.

Turelus · November 2015

I think we should be looking at more combat and design to spread people over the map and grant smaller meaningful objectives to break up zergs rather than trying to penalise groups for forming.

24 people playing together in an MMO and now the community wants to deter that, Cyrodiil was designed for large groups vs large groups not 1v1 or 4v4. Yes those can happen but you have to remember by it's design it's a huge siege warfare battle game.

I have posted this a bunch of times before but Cyrodiil functions exactly like the EVE Online universe in that PvP is dynamic, unscripted and random. When you're fighting as a group of four or five the idea is to dodge the zergs and scuffle with other small groups or play skirmish/hit and run tactics. Leave the zergs alone and let them focus on what they're good at (taking/fighting for keeps) and look at more ways to add meaningful small group gameplay.

Or just make a damn arena already and let the 1vX crowed spam the forums with how big their epeens are for playing the current FotM or using the latest bugged/broken/unbalanced skill to win every fight.

Etaniel · November 2015

Lava_Croft wrote: »

If 24 people is a zerg and the default group size is 24, ESO is a game designed for zerging and OP bought the wrong game.

It's not that hard.

The default group size is 4, not 24. The game is designed for groups of 4 up to 24, stop saying Cyrodiil is solely designed for large groups, it's not.

Raizin · November 2015

Turelus wrote: »

I think we should be looking at more combat and design to spread people over the map and grant smaller meaningful objectives to break up zergs rather than trying to penalise groups for forming.

24 people playing together in an MMO and now the community wants to deter that, Cyrodiil was designed for large groups vs large groups not 1v1 or 4v4. Yes those can happen but you have to remember by it's design it's a huge siege warfare battle game.

I have posted this a bunch of times before but Cyrodiil functions exactly like the EVE Online universe in that PvP is dynamic, unscripted and random. When you're fighting as a group of four or five the idea is to dodge the zergs and scuffle with other small groups or play skirmish/hit and run tactics. Leave the zergs alone and let them focus on what they're good at (taking/fighting for keeps) and look at more ways to add meaningful small group gameplay.

Or just make a damn arena already and let the 1vX crowed spam the forums with how big their epeens are for playing the current FotM or using the latest bugged/broken/unbalanced skill to win every fight.

Ït is huge warfare battle game by its design.. .except its not working

Ernest145 · November 2015

Nobody gets mad at 24 players in a group together taking keeps and stuff (at least I don't). Players get mad when they ball up and take advantage of aoe caps. They are literally unkillable because they can stack on crown and spam all their skills, take no damage and also cause a terrible amount of lag. Which is zos's fault of but they aren't helping one bit by blobbing around.

babanovac · November 2015

Xiphyla wrote: »

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

@Xiphyla

http://www.returnofreckoning.com/

The private server is very active, if you're interested.

Minno · November 2015

Satiar wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

No one really disagrees with you Sypher. Some of us just think it's probably one of the last things on the priority list. Can we have functioning game first?

Zenimax usually makes plenty of changes all at once (sweeping changes)

This is one I think they can slide in relatively easily. There's dozens of posts about the lag and server performance, another thread about that won't help it get fixed any faster.

We need to hit this problem from all angles. This is just one of those angles.

Zenimax and easy, right. How about we get the basic freaking game mechanics working before raising hell over the AP formula ?

It's not like everyone's gonna be like "oh no I guess we gotta break up the raid" or "oh hey I get more AP I better get out there and earn it!" It's a feel good measure, let's not pretend it's anything more.

Kill count = AP and vice versa. Meaning its a measuring stick allowing players to say "I farmed such guild over and over".

Why is this bad? It castrates the need for healthy map objective moves. Which in turn adds to the promotion of zergs. Which adds to server instability. But we know this, ignore it, and pretend it's OK.

But AP alone isn't the issue, but its one change they can do very easily. They can also look at the following:
1) way they attribute rewards and issue only AP at end of campaign based on point takes not kills
2)relook at emp and its effects on faction strategy versus personal gain. Remove it or add an equal counter smaller pops can use (can only have one on per faction. )
3) strengthen faction play via additional objectives and points/rewards.

HenryIvan · November 2015

personally I feel as though zos wants pvp to be a zerg friendly place in fact it wouldn't surprise me if the devs where the ones orchestrating the zergs themselves

we need zerg siege or something implemented into the game we also need champ points out of non vet and a damn 1v1 and/or 1vX arena

Jules · November 2015

The small group vs large group fight is really stale at this point. None of you are changing each other's minds. I run in both, understand the skill and playstyle of both, and still think that AP should be a flat amount per target and divided by the amount of people in group. Why is that so difficult? All of this other stuff is just us vs. them shenanigans that does not contribute to the overall conversation of AP division, which was the original intent.

_Chaos · November 2015

Jules wrote: »

The small group vs large group fight is really stale at this point. None of you are changing each other's minds. I run in both, understand the skill and playstyle of both, and still think that AP should be a flat amount per target and divided by the amount of people in group. Why is that so difficult? All of this other stuff is just us vs. them shenanigans that does not contribute to the overall conversation of AP division, which was the original intent.

Can't really get into a conversation about AP division when the OP just pulled figures out of his ass. Regular players are rarely worth 1k AP, I want to know what assumptions are being made and how it was tested if we're taking this seriously.

Turelus · November 2015

Jules wrote: »

The small group vs large group fight is really stale at this point. None of you are changing each other's minds. I run in both, understand the skill and playstyle of both, and still think that AP should be a flat amount per target and divided by the amount of people in group. Why is that so difficult? All of this other stuff is just us vs. them shenanigans that does not contribute to the overall conversation of AP division, which was the original intent.

The problem with that is it discourages people from grouping up, which in an MMO you should be encouraging. Are the issues people have however...

Zergs: Large numbers of players in one area following each other.
or
Trains: Large groups stacking and spamming.

The former is much easier to defeat and normally a 1vX or small groups true love as they can tally up the kills and AP fast.

Raizin wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I think we should be looking at more combat and design to spread people over the map and grant smaller meaningful objectives to break up zergs rather than trying to penalise groups for forming.

24 people playing together in an MMO and now the community wants to deter that, Cyrodiil was designed for large groups vs large groups not 1v1 or 4v4. Yes those can happen but you have to remember by it's design it's a huge siege warfare battle game.

I have posted this a bunch of times before but Cyrodiil functions exactly like the EVE Online universe in that PvP is dynamic, unscripted and random. When you're fighting as a group of four or five the idea is to dodge the zergs and scuffle with other small groups or play skirmish/hit and run tactics. Leave the zergs alone and let them focus on what they're good at (taking/fighting for keeps) and look at more ways to add meaningful small group gameplay.

Or just make a damn arena already and let the 1vX crowed spam the forums with how big their epeens are for playing the current FotM or using the latest bugged/broken/unbalanced skill to win every fight.

Ït is huge warfare battle game by its design.. .except its not working

Then maybe the focus should be on fixing that so it works and give better options/objectives for smalling skirmishing plan than outright changing the game to be about groups of 2 (because at this point anything more is a zerg).

Zheg · November 2015

Jules wrote: »

The small group vs large group fight is really stale at this point. None of you are changing each other's minds. I run in both, understand the skill and playstyle of both, and still think that AP should be a flat amount per target and divided by the amount of people in group. Why is that so difficult? All of this other stuff is just us vs. them shenanigans that does not contribute to the overall conversation of AP division, which was the original intent.

Except, taking sypher's track record into account, it's not farfetched to believe that the denigration of large groups that's happened was at least partially intentional. The OP and title could have been phrased any number of ways; whether it was a subconscious loathing of group play or he was actively aware of it, any reasonable person would take one quick look at the thread and see that it was not meant to be constructive - at least not wholly. So, while at a quick glance it may look like the original intent was to talk about overall AP division, many of us chose to read between the lines and call out the BS. I don't think anyone has actually said in the thread that they think there's a problem with even AP distribution, which should speak to how literally no one gives a flying eff about AP and how off the mark this is in terms of priority.

Some players have been whipped into such an anti-group frenzy that they spew the same exponentially increasing ridiculousness that I'm sure you've read in the thread. How many more threads do we need that intentionally try to foment even more hysterics about 'zergs'? Because according to this thread, you need to be in a group <= 4 to be given any kind of credit at all for the things you do in Cyrodiil because that's the default group size in ESO (hurr hurr), and you know that's complete bull. The people that have prodded the masses against any kind of large group play and developed the insinuatation that only small mans are respectable have now reaped the rewards of their labor as apparently 8 players constitutes a zerg in some players eyes - so to them congrats, now you've entered the zerg as well. Sypher was looking to make the drama llama spit with that thread title and that's exactly what happened.

skillastat · November 2015

Sypher wrote: »

...

Sypher where is the next podcast ?

I am podcast hungry.

blabafat · November 2015

Cinnamon_Spider wrote: »

Did someone say bridge fight? Defend the bridge!

yes!!

Minno · November 2015

Etaniel wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

If 24 people is a zerg and the default group size is 24, ESO is a game designed for zerging and OP bought the wrong game.

It's not that hard.

The default group size is 4, not 24. The game is designed for groups of 4 up to 24, stop saying Cyrodiil is solely designed for large groups, it's not.

Default pvp is 24. Default pve is 12.
Which is correct?

frozywozy · November 2015

k2blader wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

k2blader wrote: »

Assuming all four statements are correct, just do 1, 2, or 3 a lot and you'll be earning AP fine.

Yes?

What?

Yeah sorry I was lazy to type everything out and it didn't come off that well, I guess.

I was just trying to say: folks who successfully play solo or small group, which I assume the OP does, earn AP just fine.

Also I'm a bit unsure of the 24 people getting 120 AP each per kill? Been a while since I was in a 24-person pug so I just don't know. I can understand if every person who gets a tag on an enemy gets some AP, but anyone not getting a tag shouldn't be getting AP. Anyway, I just don't know what is actually happening there.

Not to mention half the time zergs probably aren't 24-person groups but smaller sized groups and randoms gravitating toward the same action. So to argue over AP received seems a little peckish.

This

MountainHound · November 2015

I get what you are saying, the AP should simply be split among the group.

5 men = 1000/5

1 man = 1000/1

24 man = 1000/24

It is simple logic. The big groups will still earn more as they are hitting more people and killing more. But what Sypher is saying, for some reason the game does not divide 1,000 ap by 24, it caps it at x mount so in reality running in a group of 24 is way more rewarding as you leach off of other peoples kills even if you are no where near them.

But I also get what other people are saying. This is a group game that requires team work to capture keeps which is the ultimate goal. If you can't take a keep with 5 people, come back with 10, if you cant take it with 10, come back with 20.

But also Sypher, what you have to consider, is it "fair" if you are behind a team that is sieging (playing Cyrodiil how the developers want) whilst you gank the back lines earning 1,000ap a kill whereby you are only getting these kills as some people in your faction want to win? If you want to cap AP for groups, I think you should also reward people AP for hitting a keep with siege.

Actually that is a point that I would think would encourage sieging. Each time you hit a keep wall, you get 24 AP. That would be awesome.

Galalin · November 2015

Let me sum this up.... zenimax changes a few numbers for AP distribution... bam its broken and we all don't get AP until hopefully the next major update or the one after not to mention how many things the break in the process of these minor changes.

I really don't care ine way or the other because my days here are numbered but still would rather see them fix something more important for the ppl who may stay

If you ask me this would be like the time everyone had hope in ZoS to fix *** and they come back with patch notes stating they fixed /leanbackcoin

DK SCRUB OUT

FENGRUSH · November 2015

Satiar wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Kinda like saying it's better to be homeless because then you don't have to worry about paying your landlord rent, or go to work.

Not even remotely applicable or coherent. I've laid it out multiple times for you, the last one being as direct and easy to digest as possible. You clearly want nothing to do with logic, so what's the point?

The thing is, people in Zergs don't have to run group skills to still have a massive advantage. You seem to be forgetting that. Maybe you should go back to reading your list of "benefits" to see just how arbitrary your list is and they have nothing to do with game mechanics, but rather player choice.

You're grasping for straws at this point and you're logic is so skewed and bias. You're right, there is no point in responding to you anymore

Keep up the great logic

If a group wants to be competitive and not free AP for any semi serious group they fight, than yes they have to run group builds.

The lack of knowledge as to how groups work on this forum is lol-worthy.

I run in a group/Zerg everyday and the AP gain is astounding compared to when I was running solo or in a small group.

You guys are over exaggerating the "skill" it takes to run in a large group. Maybe I'm just a gifted player, but it's not that hard or a big hindrance to put a group ability on your bar. Even then, solo builds are fine for group play since they focus on survivability and single target burst. It's always good to have a few players that can focus the healers in the other group

The thing is, I'm speaking on experience from both sides, small and large groups. Many of you group players wouldn't be caught dead without at least 10 other players by your side.

Best players in the game can be found in elite raids. Most of us raid at raid times and then small man in off hours. Has been like that since forever

FENGRUSH doesnt run in raids so this gets shot down before post is even finished.

Kutsuu · November 2015

Agree with OP, this is a no-brainer. There should be no APs artificially created due to any mechanics, especially when they encourage huge groups by making the AP gains better.

Also, "best players in the game" is relative. You can take the best group/smallman/raid player in the game and drop them into a duel circle and watch them lose every match - same goes for throwing a bunch of duelists in a group against some great group players. Reminds me of people on DAoC arguing whether the solo artists or 8man players were better.