Ghost-Shot 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. Now if you wanna run in a 24men group and think you are totally blameless, by all mean do it but don't come and insult me if I decide to run 16 for the sake of better performances.

Are you trying to say that every ember of the red glory zerg we see you with every night are so bad that they only count as 16? Good to know, we will be less cautious next time we farm them in that case.

frozywozy wrote: »

Ghost-Shot 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. Now if you wanna run in a 24men group and think you are totally blameless, by all mean do it but don't come and insult me if I decide to run 16 for the sake of better performances.

Are you trying to say that every ember of the red glory zerg we see you with every night are so bad that they only count as 16? Good to know, we will be less cautious next time we farm them in that case.

That argument is totally out of subject and trying to flame more than anything, ignored.

Leovolao wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Ghost-Shot 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. Now if you wanna run in a 24men group and think you are totally blameless, by all mean do it but don't come and insult me if I decide to run 16 for the sake of better performances.

Are you trying to say that every ember of the red glory zerg we see you with every night are so bad that they only count as 16? Good to know, we will be less cautious next time we farm them in that case.

That argument is totally out of subject and trying to flame more than anything, ignored.

What?! I would never. And how is it out of subject when you literally just said you only run with 16, which is simply not true. All those people around you not in group still count.

Frozn riding the red zerg? Never!

Takllin wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Ghost-Shot 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. Now if you wanna run in a 24men group and think you are totally blameless, by all mean do it but don't come and insult me if I decide to run 16 for the sake of better performances.

Are you trying to say that every ember of the red glory zerg we see you with every night are so bad that they only count as 16? Good to know, we will be less cautious next time we farm them in that case.

That argument is totally out of subject and trying to flame more than anything, ignored.

What?! I would never. And how is it out of subject when you literally just said you only run with 16, which is simply not true. All those people around you not in group still count.

Frozn riding the red zerg? Never!

C'mon guys, we all know that it doesn't cause any lag, it's the 24 group boogey man that does! Not the unorganized zerg of 40+ people.

frozywozy wrote: »

Keep putting the blame on anybody else and avoiding the fact that running in a large group of 24men does exactly the same results as running a 16men group without even experimenting it yourself or bring proofs of it when I did on my side.

Takllin wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Keep putting the blame on anybody else and avoiding the fact that running in a large group of 24men does exactly the same results as running a 16men group without even experimenting it yourself or bring proofs of it when I did on my side.

So you agree that 24 or 16 man, it results in the same effect???

Oh my lord guys we made a breakthrough!!!!! We finally did it!!!!

Takllin wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Keep putting the blame on anybody else and avoiding the fact that running in a large group of 24men does exactly the same results as running a 16men group without even experimenting it yourself or bring proofs of it when I did on my side.

So you agree that 24 or 16 man, it results in the same effect???

Oh my lord guys we made a breakthrough!!!!! We finally did it!!!!

Elong wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Make Cyrodiil a 1v1 instance, lag and zergs will go away and we will have very compelling game play.

Re-installs Skyrim.

Its just so hard to find pvp in that game, i wandered around for days and nothing.

It's feeling that way in ESO right now, it's not so much pvp as blob and dump and hope you win through the lag, prime time anyway. All 3 sides see it as the key to success.

frozywozy wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Keep putting the blame on anybody else and avoiding the fact that running in a large group of 24men does exactly the same results as running a 16men group without even experimenting it yourself or bring proofs of it when I did on my side.

So you agree that 24 or 16 man, it results in the same effect???

Oh my lord guys we made a breakthrough!!!!! We finally did it!!!!

I edited my previous post. You replied 5seconds after I posted it.

Most of your last comments (you & ghost-shot) are polluting this thread, are not being constructive at all and don't bring us anywhere close to a solution, but by all mean keep going if you like.

sixuponthelot wrote: »

so what have we learned today? . . .

Ghostbane wrote: »

sixuponthelot wrote: »

so what have we learned today? . . .

Spaghetti is treacherous.