Sypher wrote: »

Psilent wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

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

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

Zheg wrote: »

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

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

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

Spoken like a true zergling.

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

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

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

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

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

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

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

That's one group....

6 groups. 24 people is 6 groups.

I swear to all that is good that if we start acting like 24 people doesn't constitute a zerg then our poor little servers will commit suicide before we break them ourselves.

Anything wrong with running 24 people? No. Sometimes other factions are running 50 people groups and you need a solid 24 man raid to fight back properly. But let's not pretend that 24 people = 1 group, with that mentality we can kiss server performance goodbye.

Why are you so intent on bashing players who are playing the game the way it was designed rather than bashing zos for not just fixing the performance issues, its really not that hard they just choose not to do it.

/

Minno wrote: »

krim wrote: »

Is the correct terminology for a group bigger than four a raid. So its not a group anymore its a raid. I find it interesting that now its even more of a problem then before 1.6. tsk tsk Zeni, and people still want to have faith.. Well its probably time for everyone to start listening to the right people. Things dont seem to be getting better.

That's why I mentioned the size of the pve trial "raids"; why is that 12 but pvp is 24?

Not enough consistency, tbh.

I'm not PvE'er but it probably has to do with the fact that if you had a 24 man PvE raid then people would have all the content done in 3 minutes instead of 6.

Minno wrote: »

Huckdabuck wrote: »

/

Minno wrote: »

krim wrote: »

Is the correct terminology for a group bigger than four a raid. So its not a group anymore its a raid. I find it interesting that now its even more of a problem then before 1.6. tsk tsk Zeni, and people still want to have faith.. Well its probably time for everyone to start listening to the right people. Things dont seem to be getting better.

That's why I mentioned the size of the pve trial "raids"; why is that 12 but pvp is 24?

Not enough consistency, tbh.

I'm not PvE'er but it probably has to do with the fact that if you had a 24 man PvE raid then people would have all the content done in 3 minutes instead of 6.

Meant as the reverse; its painfully obvious why its restricted for pve rollercoasters.

Well I've also never seen an advertisement for Large Scale PvE battle with 100's of NPC's on screen either.

Huckdabuck wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Huckdabuck wrote: »

/

Minno wrote: »

krim wrote: »

Is the correct terminology for a group bigger than four a raid. So its not a group anymore its a raid. I find it interesting that now its even more of a problem then before 1.6. tsk tsk Zeni, and people still want to have faith.. Well its probably time for everyone to start listening to the right people. Things dont seem to be getting better.

That's why I mentioned the size of the pve trial "raids"; why is that 12 but pvp is 24?

Not enough consistency, tbh.

I'm not PvE'er but it probably has to do with the fact that if you had a 24 man PvE raid then people would have all the content done in 3 minutes instead of 6.

Meant as the reverse; its painfully obvious why its restricted for pve rollercoasters.

Well I've also never seen an advertisement for Large Scale PvE battle with 100's of NPC's on screen either.

Not anymore; they removed that from the pvp advertising.

No more "blame ZOS" from the community, especially since they are doubling their communication efforts to resolve.

I think we can discuss why is raid size 24 instead of 12-15 like some of the major guilds claim to use. It seems unified, in that aspect, that 24 = zerg.

Minimum Group size in relation to objectives:

Resource: 1-2 minimum (with right build).
Keep: I've seen 5 do it (sans defenders.)
Therefore minimum of 10.
Scroll: coordinated; requires bodies if at Temples. Needs minimum 10 if at keep under surprise attack. Becomes zerg fight in open.

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

6 groups. 24 people is 6 groups.

I swear to all that is good that if we start acting like 24 people doesn't constitute a zerg then our poor little servers will commit suicide before we break them ourselves.

Anything wrong with running 24 people? No. Sometimes other factions are running 50 people groups and you need a solid 24 man raid to fight back properly. But let's not pretend that 24 people = 1 group, with that mentality we can kiss server performance goodbye.

Why are you so intent on bashing players who are playing the game the way it was designed rather than bashing zos for not just fixing the performance issues, its really not that hard they just choose not to do it.

It doesn't seem to me like he's bashing that playstyle. A lot of people that roll around in these 20+ man groups tend to be professional victims. Sypher is simply questioning the design of AP returns given group size. It's an open dialogue about that design choice and all implications of it.

This isn't a conversation about how to decide arbitrarily what number of group members constitutes a zerg (btw lol @ people saying it's completely relative and that to 1 person, 2 people is a zerg).

This isn't a conversation about how 24 man ball groups are ridiculous, but I'll derail for a bit.

I'll bash those players & playstyle.
Get a 24 man group together headed by 1 individual who can make calls that others understand. Stay within 5 meters of that leader at all times in combat situations. Damage dealers: spam your strongest AOE spell. Healers: spam your AOE heals & purge. "RAPIDS UP!!!! BLOW ULTS!!!! Wow, great job, guys. Really impressive stuff." You have insane survivability as a group against lower numbers because of AOE caps, but I don't want to even get into that.

With a 24 man group against X unorganized number of players:
I may be pulling some numbers seemingly out of nowhere here, but it's to illustrate a point. I think that if I grabbed an average mmo player and threw him into Cyrodiil for the first time, he could fight in a ball group at 80%+ effectiveness of your typical ball player in ESO. Why? Because that playstyle requires very little mechanical skill and very little game knowledge outside of the leader.

That playstyle's coordination and organization are a joke. Where's your target calling? Where's your active tracking of enemy CC immunity? Resource management? Healers actively knowing who they're healing? Doesn't matter, let's follow crown and AOE, BOIS!! At that point, what is the difference between killing randoms/pugs & doing PVE? Seriously, I want to know. Where's the intelligible play and counterplay? Is it only when the ball groups collide with each other? I'm not saying that people in a 24 man group are incapable of these things, but that it's not quite as much of a priority as it probably should be.

The returns of zerging as 24 stack-on-crown are FAR too effective given user input, but unfortunately the game's current PVP system supports that playstyle. I'd like to believe that ZOS envisioned a large scale PVP zone with these 24 man groups but WITHOUT the stacking mechanics, where players MAYBE had to think for themselves and/or properly coordinate, because stacking all of your players on one spot (all eggs in one basket) would be strategic suicide. I could definitely get behind a Cyrodiil like that and would have no problem with these 24 man groups.


To the best of the best 24 man groups out there currently: you are doing far more micromanagement, have better strategies, and have individually better players than the rest of the groups out there. Don't pretend like every group is doing what you're doing, and even then, know that what you're doing truly is more effective than it should be in this state of the game.


Call this ignorance. Call this hyperbole. Call it what you will. Just know that there's some truth to what I'm saying.

Sorry 4 derail, m8s.

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

Psilent wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

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

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

Zheg wrote: »

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

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

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

Spoken like a true zergling.

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

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

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

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

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

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

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

That's one group....

6 groups. 24 people is 6 groups.

I swear to all that is good that if we start acting like 24 people doesn't constitute a zerg then our poor little servers will commit suicide before we break them ourselves.

Anything wrong with running 24 people? No. Sometimes other factions are running 50 people groups and you need a solid 24 man raid to fight back properly. But let's not pretend that 24 people = 1 group, with that mentality we can kiss server performance goodbye.

Why are you so intent on bashing players who are playing the game the way it was designed rather than bashing zos for not just fixing the performance issues, its really not that hard they just choose not to do it.

Anything wrong with running 24 people? No.
Anything wrong with running 24 people? No.
Anything wrong with running 24 people? No.

Not much basing being done there.

Sypher wrote: »

Psilent wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

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

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

Zheg wrote: »

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

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

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

Spoken like a true zergling.

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

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

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

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

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

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

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

That's one group....

6 groups. 24 people is 6 groups.

I swear to all that is good that if we start acting like 24 people doesn't constitute a zerg then our poor little servers will commit suicide before we break them ourselves.

Anything wrong with running 24 people? No. Sometimes other factions are running 50 people groups and you need a solid 24 man raid to fight back properly. But let's not pretend that 24 people = 1 group, with that mentality we can kiss server performance goodbye.

Sypher...there's a myriad valid criticisms of cheesewheel meta that you can make, but this isn't one of them. 24 people being "6 groups" as you put it is only a function of the UI. It has no bearing whatever on group functionality. All that you say when stating that "24 ppl is 6 groups of 4" is saying that "24 ppl is 24 ppl". You may as well say that the sky is blue.

The simple fact is that in Cyrodiil one group can be up to 24 ppl large. Is there anything that happens in a 24 man group that prevents the people labeled groups 1 - 6 from interacting with each other as if hey we're in he same group? No, there isn't, because for all intents and purposes of game functionality and design they are in the same single group. Arguing that that's not a single group because the raid frame says group 1 - 6 is purely arguing semantics. You can say it's 6 4mans worth of people grouped up, but that's meaningless when you try and use it as a criticism in and of itself.

Argue whatever you like, but please only use real arguments.

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

There will always be zergs in Cyrodill, less AP won't change that. At this point we need small-scale instanced PVP (arena/battlegrounds).

It's what people see when they watch reviews before buying, they are being brainwashed to zerg!

In my honest opinion though I do think that it is completely ridiculous that zergs get more do than smaller groups, should be something that is looked at to encourage people to play in smaller groups sizes.

So much wasted discussion time on literally a moot point on how to define a zerg (6 groups? 2 raids? 7 bushels?). It is ignorant to define every 24 man raid a zerg. It's easy to tell a coordinated 24 man raid by movement, heals and AoE DPS apart from a 24 man zerg of VR4 wildlings wielding two handers and Inner Fire spam. Come play some SC2 and I'll show you some OG zerging.

As far as AP gains go it would be almost impossible to test in a controlled environment. Those fabled players worth 2,888 AP might be running in a solid group that's accumulated a high net worth of AP to which only that 24 man raid could best.

Hektik_V wrote: »

So much wasted discussion time on literally a moot point on how to define a zerg (6 groups? 2 raids? 7 bushels?). It is ignorant to define every 24 man raid a zerg. It's easy to tell a coordinated 24 man raid by movement, heals and AoE DPS apart from a 24 man zerg of VR4 wildlings wielding two handers and Inner Fire spam. Come play some SC2 and I'll show you some OG zerging.

As far as AP gains go it would be almost impossible to test in a controlled environment. Those fabled players worth 2,888 AP might be running in a solid group that's accumulated a high net worth of AP to which only that 24 man raid could best.

Yep it´s easy to tell a coordinated guildzerg from a random pugzerg. Coordination does not change that people in the full raidgrp are considered a zerg for many players.
What about that is ignorant?
These people don´t like to get called zerg because of the negative connotation the word zerg has for many of them.

Manoekin wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

So much wasted discussion time on literally a moot point on how to define a zerg (6 groups? 2 raids? 7 bushels?). It is ignorant to define every 24 man raid a zerg. It's easy to tell a coordinated 24 man raid by movement, heals and AoE DPS apart from a 24 man zerg of VR4 wildlings wielding two handers and Inner Fire spam. Come play some SC2 and I'll show you some OG zerging.

As far as AP gains go it would be almost impossible to test in a controlled environment. Those fabled players worth 2,888 AP might be running in a solid group that's accumulated a high net worth of AP to which only that 24 man raid could best.

Yep it´s easy to tell a coordinated guildzerg from a random pugzerg. Coordination does not change that people in the full raidgrp are considered a zerg for many players.
What about that is ignorant?
These people don´t like to get called zerg because of the negative connotation the word zerg has for many of them.

<insert racist analogy here>

I don't go around calling everyone not in my group a filthy ganker who can't kill anyone without the help of his two buddies or abusing camo hunter.

Well for me zerg is not negative per se. So idk.

In my book ganking requires element of suprise or other odds in your favor to be an applicable term - so it´s not really fitting the scenario unless those players utilize stealth.