Jules wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Fyaal wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

This thread....

...the only time I ever wished the ZoS forum police would show up.

This game. It pains me to see people I respect and like allowing their frustrations to say things and act in ways I know are not in their character.

@ZOS_RichLambert - You are the creative director, no? How about you read the entirety of this thread, wake up to how toxic your PvP community is, and creatively figure out a way to implement gameplay mechanics to punish to this stupid meta.

Ah post-punk sucks anyway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j0x2SWbzZ4

That's not post-punk .

This is post punk:

http://youtu.be/9qTb5MVFuQU

And another step further, this is post-hardcore:

http://youtu.be/B3kFBT2NLDs

Two different tagents of musical time

frozywozy wrote: »

Things and Stuff

Real punk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrPm3SrXPyk

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

This thread needs moar Lemmy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcf7DnHi54g

I'm pretty sure lemmy was a 1vx'er.

Lemmy was so awesome that people thanked him for ambush spamming.

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Interesting how when we do run your magic number I have the same lag as when I'm in a group of 24, and interesting how there are times when in a group of 24 there's no lag whatsoever.

We play for about 5+ hours every night, 6 days a week, and I'll do smaller group stuff on the weekend mornings/days. On average, we're at full capacity for maybe half our play time, on good days. Some days we're typing "VE for pvp" in guild chat every 10 minutes trying to get more in group. I like how you know better than someone who actually raids with the group every night what our numbers are like - you're delusional.

Satiar wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

I run late night groups of 8-12 often, and we don't officially raid Sunday so I'll have smaller groups of 15 or so. Please get off your high horse and rethink your argument.

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Interesting how when we do run your magic number I have the same lag as when I'm in a group of 24, and interesting how there are times when in a group of 24 there's no lag whatsoever.

We play for about 5+ hours every night, 6 days a week, and I'll do smaller group stuff on the weekend mornings/days. On average, we're at full capacity for maybe half our play time, on good days. Some days we're typing "VE for pvp" in guild chat every 10 minutes trying to get more in group. I like how you know better than someone who actually raids with the group every night what our numbers are like - you're delusional.

houimetub17_ESO wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Interesting how when we do run your magic number I have the same lag as when I'm in a group of 24, and interesting how there are times when in a group of 24 there's no lag whatsoever.

We play for about 5+ hours every night, 6 days a week, and I'll do smaller group stuff on the weekend mornings/days. On average, we're at full capacity for maybe half our play time, on good days. Some days we're typing "VE for pvp" in guild chat every 10 minutes trying to get more in group. I like how you know better than someone who actually raids with the group every night what our numbers are like - you're delusional.

When attacked, he (frozn) point fingers around to other people to hide the fact he got all of his alliance ranks back at launch amongs the zerg of his. How dare other guilds to gain ranks the same way he did??

frozywozy wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

I run late night groups of 8-12 often, and we don't officially raid Sunday so I'll have smaller groups of 15 or so. Please get off your high horse and rethink your argument.

I'm not sitting on my high horse. Bulb literally said in his last reply to me that I totally ignored since it was full of insults and shaming comments that he would run a 16men group only when Zenimax would reduce the max group size and not before that. That sounded pretty clear to me that he was not interested to test the field and help at all.

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Interesting how when we do run your magic number I have the same lag as when I'm in a group of 24, and interesting how there are times when in a group of 24 there's no lag whatsoever.

We play for about 5+ hours every night, 6 days a week, and I'll do smaller group stuff on the weekend mornings/days. On average, we're at full capacity for maybe half our play time, on good days. Some days we're typing "VE for pvp" in guild chat every 10 minutes trying to get more in group. I like how you know better than someone who actually raids with the group every night what our numbers are like - you're delusional.

This is a good effort and I appreciate the concern. Now try running a 16men group at primetime when all factions are max pop with other organized groups running and creating a considerable amount of calculations on the server.

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Hey! I have a couple of facts too! I've ran in a 24 men group and experience zero lag and other days I've been doing my solo thing on ducking brindle farm, not a blue nearby and maybe 3 to 5 yellows, and my ping is going through the roof. I'm talking 600 to 1k ping for 20 minutes or something. Now that's a fact, not an opinion. What is an opinion is you pretending your little 16 men group is doing anything to improve lag. You can keep doing your cute small man and telling yourself "outnumbered! We so gud!", nobody cares. But you going on and on about this miracle fix for the game's performance has to stop.

Elong wrote: »

It doesn't matter if you run 8, 16, or 24. It's the amount of people congregating in one area. And in AZ, they follow the crossed swords and the AP. Leaders deciding to run smaller groups simply doesn't make a difference, pug aggro is the realist of the real on AZ.

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Hey! I have a couple of facts too! I've ran in a 24 men group and experience zero lag and other days I've been doing my solo thing on ducking brindle farm, not a blue nearby and maybe 3 to 5 yellows, and my ping is going through the roof. I'm talking 600 to 1k ping for 20 minutes or something. Now that's a fact, not an opinion. What is an opinion is you pretending your little 16 men group is doing anything to improve lag. You can keep doing your cute small man and telling yourself "outnumbered! We so gud!", nobody cares. But you going on and on about this miracle fix for the game's performance has to stop.

I'm not doing this to call myself "outnumbered!" or "We so gud!". My guild is casual and most players don't have the time to spend to be competitive so I could care less about that. I run 16men because I know by fact that it helps a ton server performances.

A fact not supported by any of my experiences in the game these past weeks. Just your own.

Sure let's call that a fact.

I suggest that you go watch the videos linked in comment #165 of this thread. My ping is constantly spiking between 300 and 600ms because of the 24+ ballgroup doing laps in Aleswell farm village. They are not even spamming aoes and fighting the few DCs yet. Just the fact that they are moving around in an area close to each other, it spikes my ping to 300-600ms. Now imagine an additional group of 24 being part of that and engaging each other in an aoe fight.. boom 1200-2k ms.

I'm gonna keep those videos coming and I will also stream my official weekly PvP event and show you how it goes when I run a 16men group. Huge difference.