Why are Zergs rewarded more AP?

Cryhavoc · November 2015

Sypher 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

Thank you... was losing faith for a moment.

Plain and simple.

Lava_Croft · 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.

The default group size in Cyrodiil is 24 since that is the maximum allowed size for a group. Check the group finder for confirmation of the number 24. Sneakily trying to add the word 'solely' to it is also not very nice, but exemplary.

frozywozy · November 2015

Zheg wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

So then if the pendulum swings the other way and AP distribution, and all of the other things you harp on are patched and it's far more favorable to run solo or small groups, and now you just have a gigantic mass of multiple 1-5 man groups at keeps and the performance STILL drops, are each of these 1-5 man groups a zerg? Who becomes the scapegoat then?

We did a long, painful siege against a well-defend chalman last night, and after getting the inner down, left the keep because another blue raid showed up (at least) and performance plummeted before we were about to engage the reds inside. And yet we are the boogeyman that zergs and is to blame for all of the performance issues according to the posts that your thread promotes. While you may diplomatically choose your words, you share guilt in having fostered the anti-group atmosphere that's currently present.

Are you serious? Sypher never said that the ONLY problem causing latency issues in Cyrodiil were large groups. He said it was part of the problem. You keep argueing for the sake of argueing even after Sypher publicly apologized for using the term zerg.

You stated plenty of valid points in your argumentation but you also went pretty far with your assumptions of what Sypher mind thinks. You're not in his head, are you? Maybe you should watch his stream a little bit and you would see what kind of person he is. He doesn't have any deep hatred for large groups as you pretend. He respect the playstyle. He just doesn't like the fact that they get more benefits than small groups on top of the fact that they are a part of the problem regarding server performances.

Like we discussed the other day, it's not only about the fact that some people run more than one full raid in the same guild / teamspeak but the fact that some group leader doesn't have the maturity to move their group out of the area if another raid of their own faction is already engaging. This is a problem involving all 3 factions. Everybody should be aware about it. I personally call often in my zone chat when I see a massive swarm of EP pushing only one side of the map to split forces on the other front to help the server.

Another problem on Azura Star this campaign is when there is a massive fight happening between DC and EP at Chalman or Aleswell and AD comes to participate in a 3ways fight. This DOES NOT work. 3ways fights are a thing of the past and nobody should even come close to consider that option. The server cannot handle it. Not with the actual population cap. Please stop trying to back cap keeps when there is already 100 players in the area. It is not fun for anybody but your blind and selfish person.

vamp_emily · November 2015

allen-iverson wrote: »

but solo PvP/ lil gank groups contribute little to nothing for winning campaigns or recovering scrolls.

I tend to disagree with you. As a solo PvPer myself, I contribute allot more than you may think.

- I go where I am needed. As soon as I see in zone chat that something is being attacked, I'm on my way.

- I am constantly riding around keeps looking for any threat, so I can give my alliance fair warning before the keep is in serious trouble.

- Just yesterday, I spent 12,000g ( not AP ) repairing inner and outer walls of Chal.

- I always carry at least 50 soul gems on me and I rez everyone I can.

There are many things I have done ( sorry not going to put a wall of text up about it ) that either turned a fight around or helped our alliance win a campaign or even recover a scroll and for u to say solo PvPers contribute very little is very sad.

People like me, and I know there are many out there, should be rewarded more AP.

FENGRUSH · November 2015

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

So then if the pendulum swings the other way and AP distribution, and all of the other things you harp on are patched and it's far more favorable to run solo or small groups, and now you just have a gigantic mass of multiple 1-5 man groups at keeps and the performance STILL drops, are each of these 1-5 man groups a zerg? Who becomes the scapegoat then?

We did a long, painful siege against a well-defend chalman last night, and after getting the inner down, left the keep because another blue raid showed up (at least) and performance plummeted before we were about to engage the reds inside. And yet we are the boogeyman that zergs and is to blame for all of the performance issues according to the posts that your thread promotes. While you may diplomatically choose your words, you share guilt in having fostered the anti-group atmosphere that's currently present.

Are you serious? Sypher never said that the ONLY problem causing latency issues in Cyrodiil were large groups. He said it was part of the problem. You keep argueing for the sake of argueing even after Sypher publicly apologized for using the term zerg.

You stated plenty of valid points in your argumentation but you also went pretty far with your assumptions of what Sypher mind thinks. You're not in his head, are you? Maybe you should watch his stream a little bit and you would see what kind of person he is. He doesn't have any deep hatred for large groups as you pretend. He respect the playstyle. He just doesn't like the fact that they get more benefits than small groups on top of the fact that they are a part of the problem regarding server performances.

Like we discussed the other day, it's not only about the fact that some people run more than one full raid in the same guild / teamspeak but the fact that some group leader doesn't have the maturity to move their group out of the area if another raid of their own faction is already engaging. This is a problem involving all 3 factions. Everybody should be aware about it. I personally call often in my zone chat when I see a massive swarm of EP pushing only one side of the map to split forces on the other front to help the server.

Another problem on Azura Star this campaign is when there is a massive fight happening between DC and EP at Chalman or Aleswell and AD comes to participate in a 3ways fight. This DOES NOT work. 3ways fights are a thing of the past and nobody should even come close to consider that option. The server cannot handle it. Not with the actual population cap. Please stop trying to back cap keeps when there is already 100 players in the area. It is not fun for anybody but your blind and selfish person.

Its pretty clear the guy was offended by Sypher and takes offense to anyone attempting to speak ill of large group play - he doesnt care about the post at all. Report his post as off topic and move on. Hes seeking that glory. Unfortunately he has 4 V16 chars in his sig, talks about being great, and Ive never heard of any of them. Must be making a living inside big groups where its hard to see names.

newtinmpls · November 2015

vamp_emily wrote: »

As a solo PvPer myself, I contribute allot more than you may think.

- I go where I am needed. As soon as I see in zone chat that something is being attacked, I'm on my way.

- I am constantly riding around keeps looking for any threat, so I can give my alliance fair warning before the keep is in serious trouble.

- Just yesterday, I spent 12,000g ( not AP ) repairing inner and outer walls of Chal.

- I always carry at least 50 soul gems on me and I rez everyone I can.

There are many things I have done ( sorry not going to put a wall of text up about it ) that either turned a fight around or helped our alliance win a campaign or even recover a scroll and for u to say solo PvPers contribute very little is very sad.

People like me, and I know there are many out there, should be rewarded more AP.

I'd be interested in hearing more - both what you do (heck, I'll copy it, I'm always looking for good ideas and ways to contribute) and also how you think it could be logically rewarded ingame.

I mean "damage done" is easy to calculate and reward. What other data could be used to apply rewards? Just curious here.

Manoekin · November 2015

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

So then if the pendulum swings the other way and AP distribution, and all of the other things you harp on are patched and it's far more favorable to run solo or small groups, and now you just have a gigantic mass of multiple 1-5 man groups at keeps and the performance STILL drops, are each of these 1-5 man groups a zerg? Who becomes the scapegoat then?

We did a long, painful siege against a well-defend chalman last night, and after getting the inner down, left the keep because another blue raid showed up (at least) and performance plummeted before we were about to engage the reds inside. And yet we are the boogeyman that zergs and is to blame for all of the performance issues according to the posts that your thread promotes. While you may diplomatically choose your words, you share guilt in having fostered the anti-group atmosphere that's currently present.

Another problem on Azura Star this campaign is when there is a massive fight happening between DC and EP at Chalman or Aleswell and AD comes to participate in a 3ways fight. This DOES NOT work. 3ways fights are a thing of the past and nobody should even come close to consider that option. The server cannot handle it. Not with the actual population cap. Please stop trying to back cap keeps when there is already 100 players in the area. It is not fun for anybody but your blind and selfish person.

What are we supposed to do, wait half an hour for that fight to end and hope you guys come south?

I'll take my group wherever I think we can kill the most amount of enemy players. Also, those fights that are large are usually lagging the entire server enough before we get to the keep I don't know how much we're even contributing to it.

Zheg · November 2015

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

So then if the pendulum swings the other way and AP distribution, and all of the other things you harp on are patched and it's far more favorable to run solo or small groups, and now you just have a gigantic mass of multiple 1-5 man groups at keeps and the performance STILL drops, are each of these 1-5 man groups a zerg? Who becomes the scapegoat then?

We did a long, painful siege against a well-defend chalman last night, and after getting the inner down, left the keep because another blue raid showed up (at least) and performance plummeted before we were about to engage the reds inside. And yet we are the boogeyman that zergs and is to blame for all of the performance issues according to the posts that your thread promotes. While you may diplomatically choose your words, you share guilt in having fostered the anti-group atmosphere that's currently present.

Are you serious? Sypher never said that the ONLY problem causing latency issues in Cyrodiil were large groups. He said it was part of the problem. You keep argueing for the sake of argueing even after Sypher publicly apologized for using the term zerg.

You stated plenty of valid points in your argumentation but you also went pretty far with your assumptions of what Sypher mind thinks. You're not in his head, are you? Maybe you should watch his stream a little bit and you would see what kind of person he is. He doesn't have any deep hatred for large groups as you pretend. He respect the playstyle. He just doesn't like the fact that they get more benefits than small groups on top of the fact that they are a part of the problem regarding server performances.

Like we discussed the other day, it's not only about the fact that some people run more than one full raid in the same guild / teamspeak but the fact that some group leader doesn't have the maturity to move their group out of the area if another raid of their own faction is already engaging. This is a problem involving all 3 factions. Everybody should be aware about it. I personally call often in my zone chat when I see a massive swarm of EP pushing only one side of the map to split forces on the other front to help the server.

Another problem on Azura Star this campaign is when there is a massive fight happening between DC and EP at Chalman or Aleswell and AD comes to participate in a 3ways fight. This DOES NOT work. 3ways fights are a thing of the past and nobody should even come close to consider that option. The server cannot handle it. Not with the actual population cap. Please stop trying to back cap keeps when there is already 100 players in the area. It is not fun for anybody but your blind and selfish person.

Fair enough, I'm not psychic, but felt it was pretty clear that I was making assumptions and felt those assumptions came from a pretty reasonable place given what's transpired. The underlying issue is that players (like sypher) have helped to create the exact negative atmosphere he apologized for. Helping to whip up the playerbase to blindly detest any notion of non small man pvp is not negated by a few diplomatic words after the fact. This thread is just one of dozens at this point; the anti group play nastiness among the playerbase is in fact one of the worst issues in pvp right now, and it's not just hypocritical for people like sypher to make claims about trying to improve pvp while at the same time contributing to the anti group absurdity - it's malicious.

Players like him that claim to (and in fact do) have a good grasp of the problems with pvp should no better than to continue contributing to the negativity, or to passively let players make absurd remarks on group play without correcting them. He may not have intentionally tried to make the thread an anti group bash, but he's smart enough to know what would happen, and at that point it's called negligence.

I'd rank the group hate that's infected the playerbase as the second or third most important issue in pvp right now (after the lag), yet even though it's an issue entirely created and maintained by the playerbase, ive yet to see one of these guys that claim to care so much about pvp and have such a good grasp of the problems actually do anything about it, much less admit its existence. Most of them just keep prodding the anti group negativity, whether intentional or not, and that's why I go into attack mode on threads like this.

Xeven · November 2015

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.

This mechanic is already basically in the game IIRC for TV Stones. If 24 people steam roll a player, only 12 of them actually get any stones. Changing AP to work like this might take 1 dev 1 day. You pick the low lying fruits first. You can get a bunch of s*** done with relatively little effort.

I am for it.

Zheg · November 2015

Phone isnt letting me edit my post above so I'll add here. The reason I've gone off on sypher (and fengrush in the past) is because I hold them to a higher standard than random Joe calling people zerglings in a thread. They're excellent pvpers, have been around for a while and know many of the issues well, and I expect them to bear more responsibility than may be fair given how publicized they are. Theyre part of a group of players that helped to create the vitriol against groups, even if they themselves were mostly diplomatic while doing so. I'm not really expecting a pod cast covering the awful atmosphere they (and many others to be fair) played a hand in creating and what a problem it's become, but at least some attention, responsibility, and acknowledgement of the problem is warranted at this point. Even with perfect performance, if the playerbase despises each other how is that a good situation?

Zheg · November 2015

FENGRUSH wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

So then if the pendulum swings the other way and AP distribution, and all of the other things you harp on are patched and it's far more favorable to run solo or small groups, and now you just have a gigantic mass of multiple 1-5 man groups at keeps and the performance STILL drops, are each of these 1-5 man groups a zerg? Who becomes the scapegoat then?

We did a long, painful siege against a well-defend chalman last night, and after getting the inner down, left the keep because another blue raid showed up (at least) and performance plummeted before we were about to engage the reds inside. And yet we are the boogeyman that zergs and is to blame for all of the performance issues according to the posts that your thread promotes. While you may diplomatically choose your words, you share guilt in having fostered the anti-group atmosphere that's currently present.

Are you serious? Sypher never said that the ONLY problem causing latency issues in Cyrodiil were large groups. He said it was part of the problem. You keep argueing for the sake of argueing even after Sypher publicly apologized for using the term zerg.

You stated plenty of valid points in your argumentation but you also went pretty far with your assumptions of what Sypher mind thinks. You're not in his head, are you? Maybe you should watch his stream a little bit and you would see what kind of person he is. He doesn't have any deep hatred for large groups as you pretend. He respect the playstyle. He just doesn't like the fact that they get more benefits than small groups on top of the fact that they are a part of the problem regarding server performances.

Like we discussed the other day, it's not only about the fact that some people run more than one full raid in the same guild / teamspeak but the fact that some group leader doesn't have the maturity to move their group out of the area if another raid of their own faction is already engaging. This is a problem involving all 3 factions. Everybody should be aware about it. I personally call often in my zone chat when I see a massive swarm of EP pushing only one side of the map to split forces on the other front to help the server.

Another problem on Azura Star this campaign is when there is a massive fight happening between DC and EP at Chalman or Aleswell and AD comes to participate in a 3ways fight. This DOES NOT work. 3ways fights are a thing of the past and nobody should even come close to consider that option. The server cannot handle it. Not with the actual population cap. Please stop trying to back cap keeps when there is already 100 players in the area. It is not fun for anybody but your blind and selfish person.

Its pretty clear the guy was offended by Sypher and takes offense to anyone attempting to speak ill of large group play - he doesnt care about the post at all. Report his post as off topic and move on. Hes seeking that glory. Unfortunately he has 4 V16 chars in his sig, talks about being great, and Ive never heard of any of them. Must be making a living inside big groups where its hard to see names.

Or, I dont feel the need to constantly call out my name or insist people call me lord.

Or, I don't feel the need to self aggrandize myself and stream pvp kills.

Or, you just have me on ignore at this point.

See? I can make veiled insults too.

And I never talk about being great, my ego is well in check. Humility is an attractive trait, you should try it sometime. But yes, when it comes to the anti group bashing that you regularly contribute to, I get vocal.

Minno · November 2015

Zheg wrote: »

Phone isnt letting me edit my post above so I'll add here. The reason I've gone off on sypher (and fengrush in the past) is because I hold them to a higher standard than random Joe calling people zerglings in a thread. They're excellent pvpers, have been around for a while and know many of the issues well, and I expect them to bear more responsibility than may be fair given how publicized they are. Theyre part of a group of players that helped to create the vitriol against groups, even if they themselves were mostly diplomatic while doing so. I'm not really expecting a pod cast covering the awful atmosphere they (and many others to be fair) played a hand in creating and what a problem it's become, but at least some attention, responsibility, and acknowledgement of the problem is warranted at this point. Even with perfect performance, if the playerbase despises each other how is that a good situation?

Hard to dump the solo players/advocates/solo streamers in the blame boat when ZOS has stated in the past 24+ groups spamming aoe abilities were/are the cause of lag (especially when two of those groups clashed.)

This is still the case.

FENGRUSH · November 2015

Zheg wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

So then if the pendulum swings the other way and AP distribution, and all of the other things you harp on are patched and it's far more favorable to run solo or small groups, and now you just have a gigantic mass of multiple 1-5 man groups at keeps and the performance STILL drops, are each of these 1-5 man groups a zerg? Who becomes the scapegoat then?

We did a long, painful siege against a well-defend chalman last night, and after getting the inner down, left the keep because another blue raid showed up (at least) and performance plummeted before we were about to engage the reds inside. And yet we are the boogeyman that zergs and is to blame for all of the performance issues according to the posts that your thread promotes. While you may diplomatically choose your words, you share guilt in having fostered the anti-group atmosphere that's currently present.

Are you serious? Sypher never said that the ONLY problem causing latency issues in Cyrodiil were large groups. He said it was part of the problem. You keep argueing for the sake of argueing even after Sypher publicly apologized for using the term zerg.

You stated plenty of valid points in your argumentation but you also went pretty far with your assumptions of what Sypher mind thinks. You're not in his head, are you? Maybe you should watch his stream a little bit and you would see what kind of person he is. He doesn't have any deep hatred for large groups as you pretend. He respect the playstyle. He just doesn't like the fact that they get more benefits than small groups on top of the fact that they are a part of the problem regarding server performances.

Like we discussed the other day, it's not only about the fact that some people run more than one full raid in the same guild / teamspeak but the fact that some group leader doesn't have the maturity to move their group out of the area if another raid of their own faction is already engaging. This is a problem involving all 3 factions. Everybody should be aware about it. I personally call often in my zone chat when I see a massive swarm of EP pushing only one side of the map to split forces on the other front to help the server.

Another problem on Azura Star this campaign is when there is a massive fight happening between DC and EP at Chalman or Aleswell and AD comes to participate in a 3ways fight. This DOES NOT work. 3ways fights are a thing of the past and nobody should even come close to consider that option. The server cannot handle it. Not with the actual population cap. Please stop trying to back cap keeps when there is already 100 players in the area. It is not fun for anybody but your blind and selfish person.

Its pretty clear the guy was offended by Sypher and takes offense to anyone attempting to speak ill of large group play - he doesnt care about the post at all. Report his post as off topic and move on. Hes seeking that glory. Unfortunately he has 4 V16 chars in his sig, talks about being great, and Ive never heard of any of them. Must be making a living inside big groups where its hard to see names.

Or, I dont feel the need to constantly call out my name or insist people call me lord.

Or, I don't feel the need to self aggrandize myself and stream pvp kills.

Or, you just have me on ignore at this point.

See? I can make veiled insults too.

Wasnt really insulting - no worries.

Zheg wrote: »

Phone isnt letting me edit my post above so I'll add here. The reason I've gone off on sypher (and fengrush in the past) is because I hold them to a higher standard than random Joe calling people zerglings in a thread. They're excellent pvpers, have been around for a while and know many of the issues well, and I expect them to bear more responsibility than may be fair given how publicized they are. Theyre part of a group of players that helped to create the vitriol against groups, even if they themselves were mostly diplomatic while doing so. I'm not really expecting a pod cast covering the awful atmosphere they (and many others to be fair) played a hand in creating and what a problem it's become, but at least some attention, responsibility, and acknowledgement of the problem is warranted at this point. Even with perfect performance, if the playerbase despises each other how is that a good situation?

People feel a vitriol (VE especially, must be a hot topic in your guys teamspeak) - but its brought on by your own imagination really. The gameplay is simple compared to what group play could be and has been. Thats all there really is to it. Some people are willing to acknowledge it, some others feel they are the best in todays current 24 man ball group gameplay and want to insist to others that there is a lot of skill behind what theyre doing.

Its just a matter of opinion really, you dont disagree with mine. Youre not alone - but I dont think youre in the majority. I want a group chemistry that is more interesting, and environment thats more interesting. Instead were rebalancing siege every 2 months, tripping over the same issues, and going backwards in terms of making the game more interesting as far as mass PvP goes.

All of the talk of zergs is moot really, the discussion has been had what it is and isnt in 100s of threads on this forum - literally hundreds. I dont really care about the exact number, but once its a raid hovering everywhere as a ball - its a ball group. Ball groups and the current game design is not balanced, and nobody at @ZOS is willing to acknowledge or address it.

I dont care how good your ball group is or how good you think it is. The meta is stupid and has clear problems. Youre either on board with that or youre wrong as far as Im concerned.

MrGrimey · November 2015

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

So then if the pendulum swings the other way and AP distribution, and all of the other things you harp on are patched and it's far more favorable to run solo or small groups, and now you just have a gigantic mass of multiple 1-5 man groups at keeps and the performance STILL drops, are each of these 1-5 man groups a zerg? Who becomes the scapegoat then?

We did a long, painful siege against a well-defend chalman last night, and after getting the inner down, left the keep because another blue raid showed up (at least) and performance plummeted before we were about to engage the reds inside. And yet we are the boogeyman that zergs and is to blame for all of the performance issues according to the posts that your thread promotes. While you may diplomatically choose your words, you share guilt in having fostered the anti-group atmosphere that's currently present.

Are you serious? Sypher never said that the ONLY problem causing latency issues in Cyrodiil were large groups. He said it was part of the problem. You keep argueing for the sake of argueing even after Sypher publicly apologized for using the term zerg.

You stated plenty of valid points in your argumentation but you also went pretty far with your assumptions of what Sypher mind thinks. You're not in his head, are you? Maybe you should watch his stream a little bit and you would see what kind of person he is. He doesn't have any deep hatred for large groups as you pretend. He respect the playstyle. He just doesn't like the fact that they get more benefits than small groups on top of the fact that they are a part of the problem regarding server performances.

Like we discussed the other day, it's not only about the fact that some people run more than one full raid in the same guild / teamspeak but the fact that some group leader doesn't have the maturity to move their group out of the area if another raid of their own faction is already engaging. This is a problem involving all 3 factions. Everybody should be aware about it. I personally call often in my zone chat when I see a massive swarm of EP pushing only one side of the map to split forces on the other front to help the server.

Another problem on Azura Star this campaign is when there is a massive fight happening between DC and EP at Chalman or Aleswell and AD comes to participate in a 3ways fight. This DOES NOT work. 3ways fights are a thing of the past and nobody should even come close to consider that option. The server cannot handle it. Not with the actual population cap. Please stop trying to back cap keeps when there is already 100 players in the area. It is not fun for anybody but your blind and selfish person.

Fair enough, I'm not psychic, but felt it was pretty clear that I was making assumptions and felt those assumptions came from a pretty reasonable place given what's transpired. The underlying issue is that players (like sypher) have helped to create the exact negative atmosphere he apologized for. Helping to whip up the playerbase to blindly detest any notion of non small man pvp is not negated by a few diplomatic words after the fact. This thread is just one of dozens at this point; the anti group play nastiness among the playerbase is in fact one of the worst issues in pvp right now, and it's not just hypocritical for people like sypher to make claims about trying to improve pvp while at the same time contributing to the anti group absurdity - it's malicious.

Players like him that claim to (and in fact do) have a good grasp of the problems with pvp should no better than to continue contributing to the negativity, or to passively let players make absurd remarks on group play without correcting them. He may not have intentionally tried to make the thread an anti group bash, but he's smart enough to know what would happen, and at that point it's called negligence.

I'd rank the group hate that's infected the playerbase as the second or third most important issue in pvp right now (after the lag), yet even though it's an issue entirely created and maintained by the playerbase, ive yet to see one of these guys that claim to care so much about pvp and have such a good grasp of the problems actually do anything about it, much less admit its existence. Most of them just keep prodding the anti group negativity, whether intentional or not, and that's why I go into attack mode on threads like this.

Dude, calm down... You're reading too much into everything, your sounding like my girlfriend, lol.

All this thread was about is that AP shouldn't be rewarded and created out of thin air to reward large groups. You are the one that turned this into a "us vs them" argument and decided to play the victim.

MrGrimey · November 2015

Xeven 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.

This mechanic is already basically in the game IIRC for TV Stones. If 24 people steam roll a player, only 12 of them actually get any stones. Changing AP to work like this might take 1 dev 1 day. You pick the low lying fruits first. You can get a bunch of s*** done with relatively little effort.

I am for it.

Exactly, tv stones aren't created out of thin air... Why should AP?

MountainHound · November 2015

I agree with whatever Lord @FENGRUSH says.

Crown · November 2015

@MountainHound Makes a good point about the math. We all agree that the numbers don't seem right, though we also have to consider many scenarios that do not make the calculations so simple.

Back in the good old days, on campaign reset days we (I ran with Alacrity at the time) used to cap our groups at 12 people until we felt that we needed 4 more to win some fights. 16 was the most we would run with, as beyond that the AP gains were too diluted. Now, most of us who run larger groups agree that we prefer smaller ones. It takes more skill and finesse, and it's a lot easier to control smaller groups than 24 people at once - and is thus more fun for a good leader. The state of the game today makes it less feasible to win consistently against larger groups (which, regardless of what we all say here, will continue to exist), so those of us who can do so will probably continue to run full (24 person) groups when we feel it's necessary.

Should every player in a group share AP gains? Consider that a lot of roles might not participate as much, or if a target is squishy, two people can kill the target based on whoever has the lowest latency before anyone else's skills go off. I believe that the answer to this question has to be yes. The following questions are based on this answer being yes.

What about someone who casts a purge or a buff on the players who get the kill? Should they share in the AP? If a healer sees @Sypher about to die while trying to gank a player on the back line of an opposing group, and casts a heal saving @Sypher's life, how much of the upcoming AP that @Sypher makes killing his target - and his next target(s) should that person get? If it would have taken @Sypher 90 seconds to run back to the fight, and he kills 8 people before that time limit is up, how much of the AP he made is fair to be shared? 50% of the first kill is an obvious answer. Perhaps a percentage of all AP made until he goes out of combat? Everything that you want to suggest needs to have a simple mathematical formula that can be implemented in game.

What about someone who casts a debuff on the opponent? Should they share in the AP? They didn't do much (if any) damage, though their contribution reduced the opponents skills cast / uses their resources / prevents them from being effective for a time. How can that contribution be measured? To test this in current, I tried going solo (not a group member) and fear-spamming while two friends killed opponents. I made no AP doing so. Is this reasonable? My contribution being the stealther who feared a target while two other people killed said target before the fear was over seems like it should be of value (and thus worth AP on the kill).

What about someone who is in a tank build and absorbs a lot of damage so that the glass cannons who kill the opponent don't have to? Should they share in the AP? There are two people who run with me regularly who are masters of the body block. DKs who gap close to a target with their flappy flap up, shield, and stand in front of a glass cannon build who can finish the target off quickly. The DK protector saved the glass canon, the glass cannon knows that he/she couldn't have won the fight without the protector, so is that person entitled to sharing AP? Logically, there needs to be a game-intelligence-capable decision made about this, so the data that the game collects in real time has to feasibly be able to decide. I'm sure we all agree that the protector sharing AP is reasonable, though how can that be calculated? If it's based on to whom the opponent does damage, then a lot more people in the area will likely share in AP who should otherwise not.

What about someone who casts a caltrops in order to tag all opponents that other people kill? Should they share in the AP? They've tagged all opponents, but the amount of damage to each target as compared to using DPS skills is minimal. Right now, someone who does minimal damage to a target that dies will get very little AP compared to the player(s) who did most of the damage. I'm not certain what the ratios / math details are, though it is noticeable.

What about someone who spams mutagen or healing springs to tag all the allies with heals? Should they share in the AP that the people they tag kill? What about the AP that the group members of the people they tag make and is thus shared with the people they tagged with heals? A complex scenario is if non-grouped-person heals a healer who is part of a group and prevents said healer from dying, then that healer heals a glass cannon group member thus preventing him/her from dying, and the glass cannon kills a target. The original person is indirectly responsible for saving the life of the person who made the kill. Should this solo healer get any portion of the AP gain? There are people who like to play solo and prefer healing rather than DPS. How are these people supposed to make AP?

Another interesting scenario is if two people are each part of different 24-person groups. Those two people participate equally in killing an opponent. Right now, both those people along with everyone in range in their groups (who is in range) will get about 100 AP. Consider your suggestions carefully, as what seems fair to you based on your role and responsibilities in group is very likely not fair to others.

EDIT: Auto correct is sometimes wrong.

Huckdabuck · November 2015

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

So then if the pendulum swings the other way and AP distribution, and all of the other things you harp on are patched and it's far more favorable to run solo or small groups, and now you just have a gigantic mass of multiple 1-5 man groups at keeps and the performance STILL drops, are each of these 1-5 man groups a zerg? Who becomes the scapegoat then?

We did a long, painful siege against a well-defend chalman last night, and after getting the inner down, left the keep because another blue raid showed up (at least) and performance plummeted before we were about to engage the reds inside. And yet we are the boogeyman that zergs and is to blame for all of the performance issues according to the posts that your thread promotes. While you may diplomatically choose your words, you share guilt in having fostered the anti-group atmosphere that's currently present.

Are you serious? Sypher never said that the ONLY problem causing latency issues in Cyrodiil were large groups. He said it was part of the problem. You keep argueing for the sake of argueing even after Sypher publicly apologized for using the term zerg.

You stated plenty of valid points in your argumentation but you also went pretty far with your assumptions of what Sypher mind thinks. You're not in his head, are you? Maybe you should watch his stream a little bit and you would see what kind of person he is. He doesn't have any deep hatred for large groups as you pretend. He respect the playstyle. He just doesn't like the fact that they get more benefits than small groups on top of the fact that they are a part of the problem regarding server performances.

Like we discussed the other day, it's not only about the fact that some people run more than one full raid in the same guild / teamspeak but the fact that some group leader doesn't have the maturity to move their group out of the area if another raid of their own faction is already engaging. This is a problem involving all 3 factions. Everybody should be aware about it. I personally call often in my zone chat when I see a massive swarm of EP pushing only one side of the map to split forces on the other front to help the server.

Another problem on Azura Star this campaign is when there is a massive fight happening between DC and EP at Chalman or Aleswell and AD comes to participate in a 3ways fight. This DOES NOT work. 3ways fights are a thing of the past and nobody should even come close to consider that option. The server cannot handle it. Not with the actual population cap. Please stop trying to back cap keeps when there is already 100 players in the area. It is not fun for anybody but your blind and selfish person.

Its pretty clear the guy was offended by Sypher and takes offense to anyone attempting to speak ill of large group play - he doesnt care about the post at all. Report his post as off topic and move on. Hes seeking that glory. Unfortunately he has 4 V16 chars in his sig, talks about being great, and Ive never heard of any of them. Must be making a living inside big groups where its hard to see names.

Or, I dont feel the need to constantly call out my name or insist people call me lord.

Or, I don't feel the need to self aggrandize myself and stream pvp kills.

Or, you just have me on ignore at this point.

See? I can make veiled insults too.

Wasnt really insulting - no worries.

Zheg wrote: »

Phone isnt letting me edit my post above so I'll add here. The reason I've gone off on sypher (and fengrush in the past) is because I hold them to a higher standard than random Joe calling people zerglings in a thread. They're excellent pvpers, have been around for a while and know many of the issues well, and I expect them to bear more responsibility than may be fair given how publicized they are. Theyre part of a group of players that helped to create the vitriol against groups, even if they themselves were mostly diplomatic while doing so. I'm not really expecting a pod cast covering the awful atmosphere they (and many others to be fair) played a hand in creating and what a problem it's become, but at least some attention, responsibility, and acknowledgement of the problem is warranted at this point. Even with perfect performance, if the playerbase despises each other how is that a good situation?

People feel a vitriol (VE especially, must be a hot topic in your guys teamspeak) - but its brought on by your own imagination really. The gameplay is simple compared to what group play could be and has been. Thats all there really is to it. Some people are willing to acknowledge it, some others feel they are the best in todays current 24 man ball group gameplay and want to insist to others that there is a lot of skill behind what theyre doing.

Its just a matter of opinion really, you dont disagree with mine. Youre not alone - but I dont think youre in the majority. I want a group chemistry that is more interesting, and environment thats more interesting. Instead were rebalancing siege every 2 months, tripping over the same issues, and going backwards in terms of making the game more interesting as far as mass PvP goes.

All of the talk of zergs is moot really, the discussion has been had what it is and isnt in 100s of threads on this forum - literally hundreds. I dont really care about the exact number, but once its a raid hovering everywhere as a ball - its a ball group. Ball groups and the current game design is not balanced, and nobody at @ZOS is willing to acknowledge or address it.

I dont care how good your ball group is or how good you think it is. The meta is stupid and has clear problems. Youre either on board with that or youre wrong as far as Im concerned.

@FENGRUSH ....actually in TS we are just joking around and talking about the stuff happening on the map and rarely if ever discuss anything that's on these trashcan forums. I'm also fairly certain that I've told you in another thread or two that people in VE have their own thoughts on issues and can speak to them as they please and that those thoughts are not a reflection upon VE rather the individual presenting them. Do you understand what I'm saying or am I going to have to put that in another thread somewhere else down the line?

FENGRUSH · November 2015

Huckdabuck wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

So then if the pendulum swings the other way and AP distribution, and all of the other things you harp on are patched and it's far more favorable to run solo or small groups, and now you just have a gigantic mass of multiple 1-5 man groups at keeps and the performance STILL drops, are each of these 1-5 man groups a zerg? Who becomes the scapegoat then?

We did a long, painful siege against a well-defend chalman last night, and after getting the inner down, left the keep because another blue raid showed up (at least) and performance plummeted before we were about to engage the reds inside. And yet we are the boogeyman that zergs and is to blame for all of the performance issues according to the posts that your thread promotes. While you may diplomatically choose your words, you share guilt in having fostered the anti-group atmosphere that's currently present.

Are you serious? Sypher never said that the ONLY problem causing latency issues in Cyrodiil were large groups. He said it was part of the problem. You keep argueing for the sake of argueing even after Sypher publicly apologized for using the term zerg.

You stated plenty of valid points in your argumentation but you also went pretty far with your assumptions of what Sypher mind thinks. You're not in his head, are you? Maybe you should watch his stream a little bit and you would see what kind of person he is. He doesn't have any deep hatred for large groups as you pretend. He respect the playstyle. He just doesn't like the fact that they get more benefits than small groups on top of the fact that they are a part of the problem regarding server performances.

Like we discussed the other day, it's not only about the fact that some people run more than one full raid in the same guild / teamspeak but the fact that some group leader doesn't have the maturity to move their group out of the area if another raid of their own faction is already engaging. This is a problem involving all 3 factions. Everybody should be aware about it. I personally call often in my zone chat when I see a massive swarm of EP pushing only one side of the map to split forces on the other front to help the server.

Another problem on Azura Star this campaign is when there is a massive fight happening between DC and EP at Chalman or Aleswell and AD comes to participate in a 3ways fight. This DOES NOT work. 3ways fights are a thing of the past and nobody should even come close to consider that option. The server cannot handle it. Not with the actual population cap. Please stop trying to back cap keeps when there is already 100 players in the area. It is not fun for anybody but your blind and selfish person.

Its pretty clear the guy was offended by Sypher and takes offense to anyone attempting to speak ill of large group play - he doesnt care about the post at all. Report his post as off topic and move on. Hes seeking that glory. Unfortunately he has 4 V16 chars in his sig, talks about being great, and Ive never heard of any of them. Must be making a living inside big groups where its hard to see names.

Or, I dont feel the need to constantly call out my name or insist people call me lord.

Or, I don't feel the need to self aggrandize myself and stream pvp kills.

Or, you just have me on ignore at this point.

See? I can make veiled insults too.

Wasnt really insulting - no worries.

Zheg wrote: »

Phone isnt letting me edit my post above so I'll add here. The reason I've gone off on sypher (and fengrush in the past) is because I hold them to a higher standard than random Joe calling people zerglings in a thread. They're excellent pvpers, have been around for a while and know many of the issues well, and I expect them to bear more responsibility than may be fair given how publicized they are. Theyre part of a group of players that helped to create the vitriol against groups, even if they themselves were mostly diplomatic while doing so. I'm not really expecting a pod cast covering the awful atmosphere they (and many others to be fair) played a hand in creating and what a problem it's become, but at least some attention, responsibility, and acknowledgement of the problem is warranted at this point. Even with perfect performance, if the playerbase despises each other how is that a good situation?

People feel a vitriol (VE especially, must be a hot topic in your guys teamspeak) - but its brought on by your own imagination really. The gameplay is simple compared to what group play could be and has been. Thats all there really is to it. Some people are willing to acknowledge it, some others feel they are the best in todays current 24 man ball group gameplay and want to insist to others that there is a lot of skill behind what theyre doing.

Its just a matter of opinion really, you dont disagree with mine. Youre not alone - but I dont think youre in the majority. I want a group chemistry that is more interesting, and environment thats more interesting. Instead were rebalancing siege every 2 months, tripping over the same issues, and going backwards in terms of making the game more interesting as far as mass PvP goes.

All of the talk of zergs is moot really, the discussion has been had what it is and isnt in 100s of threads on this forum - literally hundreds. I dont really care about the exact number, but once its a raid hovering everywhere as a ball - its a ball group. Ball groups and the current game design is not balanced, and nobody at @ZOS is willing to acknowledge or address it.

I dont care how good your ball group is or how good you think it is. The meta is stupid and has clear problems. Youre either on board with that or youre wrong as far as Im concerned.

@FENGRUSH ....actually in TS we are just joking around and talking about the stuff happening on the map and rarely if ever discuss anything that's on these trashcan forums. I'm also fairly certain that I've told you in another thread or two that people in VE have their own thoughts on issues and can speak to them as they please and that those thoughts are not a reflection upon VE rather the individual presenting them. Do you understand what I'm saying or am I going to have to put that in another thread somewhere else down the line?

Ya but I dont know everyone by name and I feel like theres new people every time. Its really confusing knowing whos who and what guild theyre in sometimes.

Fruitdog · November 2015

I'm Brandon.

Crown · November 2015

FENGRUSH wrote: »

some others feel they are the best in todays current 24 man ball group gameplay and want to insist to others that there is a lot of skill behind what theyre doing.

@FENGRUSH I don't believe that you've ever spent time in a 24 person group fighting against another 24 person group. It's not simply a matter of everyone balling up as tight as possible and spamming their AoE skills and dropping ultimates. I grant that this is often what it seems like, and sometimes what actually happens, though learning how to fight against groups who do so, training, and executing different plans in real time (or even making things up on the fly) takes a lot more skill than most of you *solo players* give credit for.

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I want a group chemistry that is more interesting, and environment thats more interesting. Instead were rebalancing siege every 2 months, tripping over the same issues, and going backwards in terms of making the game more interesting as far as mass PvP goes.

I agree.

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I dont really care about the exact number, but once its a raid hovering everywhere as a ball - its a ball group. Ball groups and the current game design is not balanced

I agree again, though consider that people want to win, and every person has the potential for a different world view and opinion on what exactly constitutes winning. For some people, winning may be killing a single opponent in an honourable duel. For others it may be getting a tough kill while ganking the back or side of an oncoming group or siege line. Others may see winning as participating in kills regardless of how you get them. Some see winning as taking or defending a keep, regardless of the tactics that are used. Others see winning as having the most points.

I've been called the God of AP *** on many occasions (EDIT: can't say the word i wanted to on the forums. It's the word for people who sell their bodies for money). I make points, and when there are multiple options of what to do on a map, I'll usually choose the one that will result in the most points. The reason for this is that I look at the game from the perspective of someone who has been playing video games for longer than you - or at least @Sypher has been alive. To me there is a clear start and end to each game. ESO PvP (I don't care much for PvE these days) starts when you get into Cyrodiil at PvP rank 1, and ends when you reach PvP rank 50 (Grand Overlord). To me, that's the equivalent of playing Q-Bert on my Colleco and "beating the game". Once you beat the game, you start over and try again harder, faster, or in some other way more challenging. If I'm still playing ESO when my NB hits PvP50, I'll probably play my Templar or DK a bit more often.

Regarding points vs map control, to me, the map serves to enable points. If they (hey @ZOS_GinaBruno ) want winning campaigns to mean something, perhaps there should be a benefit or advantage to doing so. Last campaign I got 4 useless gold items with the sturdy trait and one more that was equally as useless. Gear in sets that nobody uses, that takes less durability damage in PvE, for a PvP reward on a character that plays 95% of his time in PvP. Oh! Lets not forget about the repair kits that don't stack! Those were pretty awesome..

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I dont care how good your ball group is or how good you think it is. The meta is stupid and has clear problems.

I don't believe that there are many people who will disagree with you.

If you would like to gain the perspective of what it's like for "ball groups", or even how challenging it can be to manage and direct 24-person groups, I invite you to play with me for a night. I don't know if you have an AD character, but making one and getting to level 10 should be quick enough. Run with us for a few hours, listen to the calls that are made, the debates about how to beat certain opposing groups (including balls of 50+ that we face at times), and then come back with productive suggestions on how to improve the game for everyone.

I made a point in the stream that players can be divided into the 90%, the 9%, and the 1%. ZOS caters to the 90%. Any suggestion that you expect them to work on needs to take that into account. You should also consider that the percentages can apply to very different things (solo players, small group players, large group players, PvE 4-person groups, PvE trials, etc). To me, you're part of the 1% of solo player. Where do you fit when considering group players?

Huckdabuck · November 2015

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Huckdabuck wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

So then if the pendulum swings the other way and AP distribution, and all of the other things you harp on are patched and it's far more favorable to run solo or small groups, and now you just have a gigantic mass of multiple 1-5 man groups at keeps and the performance STILL drops, are each of these 1-5 man groups a zerg? Who becomes the scapegoat then?

We did a long, painful siege against a well-defend chalman last night, and after getting the inner down, left the keep because another blue raid showed up (at least) and performance plummeted before we were about to engage the reds inside. And yet we are the boogeyman that zergs and is to blame for all of the performance issues according to the posts that your thread promotes. While you may diplomatically choose your words, you share guilt in having fostered the anti-group atmosphere that's currently present.

Are you serious? Sypher never said that the ONLY problem causing latency issues in Cyrodiil were large groups. He said it was part of the problem. You keep argueing for the sake of argueing even after Sypher publicly apologized for using the term zerg.

You stated plenty of valid points in your argumentation but you also went pretty far with your assumptions of what Sypher mind thinks. You're not in his head, are you? Maybe you should watch his stream a little bit and you would see what kind of person he is. He doesn't have any deep hatred for large groups as you pretend. He respect the playstyle. He just doesn't like the fact that they get more benefits than small groups on top of the fact that they are a part of the problem regarding server performances.

Like we discussed the other day, it's not only about the fact that some people run more than one full raid in the same guild / teamspeak but the fact that some group leader doesn't have the maturity to move their group out of the area if another raid of their own faction is already engaging. This is a problem involving all 3 factions. Everybody should be aware about it. I personally call often in my zone chat when I see a massive swarm of EP pushing only one side of the map to split forces on the other front to help the server.

Another problem on Azura Star this campaign is when there is a massive fight happening between DC and EP at Chalman or Aleswell and AD comes to participate in a 3ways fight. This DOES NOT work. 3ways fights are a thing of the past and nobody should even come close to consider that option. The server cannot handle it. Not with the actual population cap. Please stop trying to back cap keeps when there is already 100 players in the area. It is not fun for anybody but your blind and selfish person.

Its pretty clear the guy was offended by Sypher and takes offense to anyone attempting to speak ill of large group play - he doesnt care about the post at all. Report his post as off topic and move on. Hes seeking that glory. Unfortunately he has 4 V16 chars in his sig, talks about being great, and Ive never heard of any of them. Must be making a living inside big groups where its hard to see names.

Or, I dont feel the need to constantly call out my name or insist people call me lord.

Or, I don't feel the need to self aggrandize myself and stream pvp kills.

Or, you just have me on ignore at this point.

See? I can make veiled insults too.

Wasnt really insulting - no worries.

Zheg wrote: »

Phone isnt letting me edit my post above so I'll add here. The reason I've gone off on sypher (and fengrush in the past) is because I hold them to a higher standard than random Joe calling people zerglings in a thread. They're excellent pvpers, have been around for a while and know many of the issues well, and I expect them to bear more responsibility than may be fair given how publicized they are. Theyre part of a group of players that helped to create the vitriol against groups, even if they themselves were mostly diplomatic while doing so. I'm not really expecting a pod cast covering the awful atmosphere they (and many others to be fair) played a hand in creating and what a problem it's become, but at least some attention, responsibility, and acknowledgement of the problem is warranted at this point. Even with perfect performance, if the playerbase despises each other how is that a good situation?

People feel a vitriol (VE especially, must be a hot topic in your guys teamspeak) - but its brought on by your own imagination really. The gameplay is simple compared to what group play could be and has been. Thats all there really is to it. Some people are willing to acknowledge it, some others feel they are the best in todays current 24 man ball group gameplay and want to insist to others that there is a lot of skill behind what theyre doing.

Its just a matter of opinion really, you dont disagree with mine. Youre not alone - but I dont think youre in the majority. I want a group chemistry that is more interesting, and environment thats more interesting. Instead were rebalancing siege every 2 months, tripping over the same issues, and going backwards in terms of making the game more interesting as far as mass PvP goes.

All of the talk of zergs is moot really, the discussion has been had what it is and isnt in 100s of threads on this forum - literally hundreds. I dont really care about the exact number, but once its a raid hovering everywhere as a ball - its a ball group. Ball groups and the current game design is not balanced, and nobody at @ZOS is willing to acknowledge or address it.

I dont care how good your ball group is or how good you think it is. The meta is stupid and has clear problems. Youre either on board with that or youre wrong as far as Im concerned.

@FENGRUSH ....actually in TS we are just joking around and talking about the stuff happening on the map and rarely if ever discuss anything that's on these trashcan forums. I'm also fairly certain that I've told you in another thread or two that people in VE have their own thoughts on issues and can speak to them as they please and that those thoughts are not a reflection upon VE rather the individual presenting them. Do you understand what I'm saying or am I going to have to put that in another thread somewhere else down the line?

Ya but I dont know everyone by name and I feel like theres new people every time. Its really confusing knowing whos who and what guild theyre in sometimes.

@FENGRUSH

Well it's the same people every time if that helps any! You also seem to know who all is in VE since you've been rather quick to point it out in most of the threads where people are not on the same page as you. Please just try to address the person directly instead of trying to make this a guild versus whatever issue (as it is not).

Fruitdog · 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.

This right here, people just need to move on. Worst thread NA.

Huckdabuck · November 2015

Fruitdog wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

The small group vs large group fight is really stale at this point. None of you are changing each other's minds.

This right here, people just need to move on. Worst thread NA.

Fruity......I miss you buddy!

Takllin · November 2015

Fruitdog wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

The small group vs large group fight is really stale at this point. None of you are changing each other's minds.

This right here, people just need to move on. Worst thread NA.

Get back ingame scrub. No one else makes fun of my old man voice...

Fruitdog · November 2015

Huckdabuck wrote: »

Fruitdog wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

The small group vs large group fight is really stale at this point. None of you are changing each other's minds.

This right here, people just need to move on. Worst thread NA.

Fruity......I miss you buddy!

I miss you too, baby. My innernets have been a mess but they're working now. Let's hook up for some ERP tonight.

Sypher · November 2015

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

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.

"Assuming you are AP buffed and are killing people for their full AP value"

... FOCUS MAN.

_Chaos · November 2015

Sypher wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

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.

"Assuming you are AP buffed and are killing people for their full AP value"

... FOCUS MAN.

How did you come to get this full AP value figure?
Have you tried percentages at different AP values?

GRxKnight · November 2015

I honestly don't understand how you solo small group players can put up with the zerging and ball groups...every time i try and go out and solo or small group i get into a fight it instantly turns from a 1v1 to a 1v7 or more EVERY TIME...it gets frustrating enough that i leave cyrodil or flat out just log off...now I know I'm not a super godly solo player but I'd have to think that I'm somewhat capable of playing that kind of playstyle...to me getting constantly zerged down and unable to fight back is what deters me from that playstyle and why i play with groups

As stated in an earlier post and as well by crown i challenge those that want to bash the large group play style to run in these large groups (and a good one not a pug group) and see for yourselves it's not as brain-dead as you all think...

On topic to Sypher's post fixing the ap formula isn't going to do what you think it will do...large groups will still be running because of what you guys said in the podcast...AoE caps, and ultimate generation...those two should be looked at and discussed before talking about something so trivial as how much ap gains as they kill someone.

frozywozy · November 2015

Turelus wrote: »

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).

The problem with grouping in this game in large numbers is that it decreases server performances. Get the intro video we all watched years ago out of your head. This is not the reality and won't be the reality anytime soon. There is no "100 of players on the screen engaging in huge epic battles". We need to find tools and ways to encourage small scale PvP, for the best of all.

I'm not saying that large group PvP should be penalized. I'm saying that it should not be the only way to be successful in this game. Remove AOE caps, bring back dynamic ulti regeneration, lower population caps and change ap gains to make it fair for everyone and it will be good start in the right direction.