I don't understand how people can object to the 12-max group proposal on the basis people can still zerg by coordinating multiple groups. It's a change that will make it harder for people to zerg effectively, so surely it helps to some extent to mitigate the zergingly menace, and that has to be a good thing.

It's like people that object to gun controls cos criminals will ignore laws anyway. But surely less guns in a population = less gun crime.

... I probably shouldn't have opened that can of worms.

No.

Almost all of the people I see that have epeen contests over who can run 1.36 players less than the other group do so while enveloping themselves in a never-ending mass of pugs and/or other groups. I see people advocating for smaller group sizes, and then come up with excuses when running in the middle of 3-4+ stacked raids in a single keep. The lunacy, and hypocrisy surrounding group size is truly remarkable.

People still think having 24 players all within 20 meters causes the majority of the lag, and are either willfully ignorant or not intelligent enough to realize that the super majority of the lag comes from having insane numbers all stacked up in a keep, regardless of group size; this happens because people are all funneled to only a few important objectives, and because people just don't give an eff. Over the past two nights, I've come up against yellow and red groups stacking 4 raids in a single keep (when it wasn't even close to being the last emp keep); blue does it as well. THESE are the situations that cause crashes, 999+ ping, slideshow performance, and a deep longing for camelot unchained to come out.

As most have already said, changing the group size to 12 is a superficial band-aid that will have zero effect on the performance, ZERO. If 40 people want to go to ash to fight, they're going to end up there and degrade the ping by the same amount as they would if they were in 2 groups all within 20 meters of each other or if they were all solo. Anyone who continues to refute that simple fact either doesn't pvp all that much and doesn't know as much as they think they do, or is being disingenuous. All threads like this do is continue the false narrative focusing on arbitrary group sizes and detract from the more impactful suggestions like providing strong incentives to hit multiple keeps at once, reducing the total number of players in a campaign to prevent situations that even allow players to stack 4 raids in a keep, and just scrapping the entire emperor system so yahoos night-capping emp don't make prime-time unplayable because that alliance is now stacking hordes of players in the last emp keep. I both /rage and /lul when I see people arguing over running 16 over 24 players (or whatever other absurd number they deemed the soup of the day), and then both intentionally or accidentally stack with other players to the extent that 70+ roll up to the same keep and then make excuses when called out on it.

I think part of the problem is that the (mostly) legitimate arguments against aoe caps and disorganized players struggling to take on a coordinated group have bled into these same groups somehow being the sole cause or biggest cause of the lag, even though performance has always been derived from total players in a relative area. Combat problems surrounding smaller vs larger groups are mutually exclusive from lag problems. I'll keep repeating this until players stop parroting the wholly inaccurate talking points, lag is caused by total number of players in an area, regardless of who is grouped with who.

Btw I'm a solo/small group player and I think this is pointless. People will still follow wherever the action is & plus guild chat and area chat is a thing. I already see group leaders following each other, so yeah. It's the way the majority of the community decides to play which also contributes to the lag.