Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

These changes aren't random. Its targeted destruction of group play...........It is ZoS orienting thier game. I don't doubt certain people are going to be very happy about it. I hate it though.

@Satiar I agree - the social aspect of group play (such as doing a shot every time Sarenvog swears) is the most fun that a lot of us have. Since the last major patch, @Lightingale only comes on to play for a few hours during "Drunk Victorem Raid Night" as the rest of the time it's not as much fun. For me, while it is entertaining running 2-6 person groups for a couple hours, it gets old very quickly without the bantering among the groups of 15 odd old timers who have all been friends for years. You can't do that when multiple groups are making different calls and both need battle comms in the same TS channel.

That's what's frustrating to me. There are so many games that cater to small teams, little elite groups of 4-8. There are so few quality games like this where you can have a big team.

This patch, I get the picture. ZoS doesn't want big groups. Message received, not welcome. Ok. It's sickening, though. There are so few games that had the promise this one did, and to me this really feels like the end as far as large group gameplay. I don't doubt I'll stick around for a while, but the moment CU beta drops or hell BDO, I'm done. Time to find a game that actually wants me in it.

As far as I'm concerned, they are so tangled up in amateur coding and lag problems they can't fix they've decided to turn on the player base they advertised to in the first place in a last ditch effort to make thier game halfway playable. And to all the players like me that hung on and convinced their guild and friends to hope for an eventual light at the end of the tunnel...well, there's the door. Goddammit

Rofl....

You think CU is going to cater to your large group?

.......

First of all..The game is going to end up with around 6-8 people as its group cap

Second of all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI250gU4Ct8

yea...don't get your hopes up on that.

Oh good, I was anxiously holding my breath waiting for you to turn this into a DaoC thread. Also until you have factual evidence that the group cap in CU will be 6-8, you may want to avoid getting you're hopes up there and remember how many times Mark Jacobs has stated that CU is not a reboot of DaoC. Now do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?

While he stated multiple times it´s not a reboot of daoc - i highly doubt they will provide and environment where numbers trump brains or coordination in the same way GW2 or ESO did.

It was announced to be developed with the ideas present in daoc in mind - that´s why it made it through kickstarter in the first place.

I don't think anyone wants a game where numbers matter more than anything, if we did we wouldn't be anxiously awaiting CU and we would continue playing this. I'm an officer in a guild that runs 24 man groups every night and balls up as tight as possible and I can honestly say that the meta of balling up is stupid but its effective, that's why we do it.

I have no doubt that the group size will be smaller than ESO but I HIGHLY doubt it will be 6-8, that doesn't make any sense for a game where a major selling point is hundreds pf players on screen at once. I'm guessing the cap will be around 16 but lets be honest, anytime we throw those numbers out we are just talking out of our asses.

I´m gonna be honest: I´ve played daoc with my guild since EU launch and we´ve all backed CU because of that on the first kickstarter day.
Most of those people will never ever touch that game if they implement grp sizes bigger than 8 into the games pvp. It was one of daocs defining rvr features to be balanced around the max grpsize and creating vaible synergies in that grp. This feeling is only generated if the grps are small enough to NOT have redundant positions to fill. If you made the decision to run a third healer it was sth. that significantly impacted grp performance.
I can´t see that happening in grps with more slots than there are classes and from the bottom of my heart hope there will be less slots in a grp than there are classes to choose from (because that´s what creates interesting theorycrafting - having to choose because you can´t fit in all available options).

I understand what you're saying and personally I love doing small man stuff, fighting outnumbered is a fun challenge, but i think the "zerg problem" that you all talk about here, is evidence to me that there are more people who prefer large group play than small group. It seems completely illogical to take a game that you build a custom engine for to handle 500+ people on screen at a time, then say you can only group with 8. I find it very hard to believe they will cap groups that low however I think they will provide tools to allow SKILLED small groups to counter big groups. I think Mark Jacobs is a smart enough guy to realize that group caps are the dumbest way combat the zerg.

I really hope they won´t simply because it eliminates the process of creating a working grp setup with great synergies if you don´t have to choose from the options presented.

If they go with big grpsizes this won´t happen as you´ll have multiple of each class not using their complete arsenal because it´s more efficient if one player uses spell a another uses spell b and the third of that class spell c.
Same with rotations for cooldown skills.

Having grps with a high amount of players in them (and as a result making it easier to organise them) lowers the quality of the gameplay. Largescale pvp is interesting when it´s not too well organised. You won´t achieve that with many players in a grp.
DAOC had gigantic pve raids btw (64 i think? - maybe 128). Thankfully they never implemented the raidframe into their frontier zone.

Ok so lets say its capped at 8, whats to stop the next Brandon South Ga from putting 10 groups in one spot?

Edit: as an EU player you will not understand that reference lol, but whatever.

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

These changes aren't random. Its targeted destruction of group play...........It is ZoS orienting thier game. I don't doubt certain people are going to be very happy about it. I hate it though.

@Satiar I agree - the social aspect of group play (such as doing a shot every time Sarenvog swears) is the most fun that a lot of us have. Since the last major patch, @Lightingale only comes on to play for a few hours during "Drunk Victorem Raid Night" as the rest of the time it's not as much fun. For me, while it is entertaining running 2-6 person groups for a couple hours, it gets old very quickly without the bantering among the groups of 15 odd old timers who have all been friends for years. You can't do that when multiple groups are making different calls and both need battle comms in the same TS channel.

That's what's frustrating to me. There are so many games that cater to small teams, little elite groups of 4-8. There are so few quality games like this where you can have a big team.

This patch, I get the picture. ZoS doesn't want big groups. Message received, not welcome. Ok. It's sickening, though. There are so few games that had the promise this one did, and to me this really feels like the end as far as large group gameplay. I don't doubt I'll stick around for a while, but the moment CU beta drops or hell BDO, I'm done. Time to find a game that actually wants me in it.

As far as I'm concerned, they are so tangled up in amateur coding and lag problems they can't fix they've decided to turn on the player base they advertised to in the first place in a last ditch effort to make thier game halfway playable. And to all the players like me that hung on and convinced their guild and friends to hope for an eventual light at the end of the tunnel...well, there's the door. Goddammit

Rofl....

You think CU is going to cater to your large group?

.......

First of all..The game is going to end up with around 6-8 people as its group cap

Second of all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI250gU4Ct8

yea...don't get your hopes up on that.

Oh good, I was anxiously holding my breath waiting for you to turn this into a DaoC thread. Also until you have factual evidence that the group cap in CU will be 6-8, you may want to avoid getting you're hopes up there and remember how many times Mark Jacobs has stated that CU is not a reboot of DaoC. Now do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?

While he stated multiple times it´s not a reboot of daoc - i highly doubt they will provide and environment where numbers trump brains or coordination in the same way GW2 or ESO did.

It was announced to be developed with the ideas present in daoc in mind - that´s why it made it through kickstarter in the first place.

I don't think anyone wants a game where numbers matter more than anything, if we did we wouldn't be anxiously awaiting CU and we would continue playing this. I'm an officer in a guild that runs 24 man groups every night and balls up as tight as possible and I can honestly say that the meta of balling up is stupid but its effective, that's why we do it.

I have no doubt that the group size will be smaller than ESO but I HIGHLY doubt it will be 6-8, that doesn't make any sense for a game where a major selling point is hundreds pf players on screen at once. I'm guessing the cap will be around 16 but lets be honest, anytime we throw those numbers out we are just talking out of our asses.

I´m gonna be honest: I´ve played daoc with my guild since EU launch and we´ve all backed CU because of that on the first kickstarter day.
Most of those people will never ever touch that game if they implement grp sizes bigger than 8 into the games pvp. It was one of daocs defining rvr features to be balanced around the max grpsize and creating vaible synergies in that grp. This feeling is only generated if the grps are small enough to NOT have redundant positions to fill. If you made the decision to run a third healer it was sth. that significantly impacted grp performance.
I can´t see that happening in grps with more slots than there are classes and from the bottom of my heart hope there will be less slots in a grp than there are classes to choose from (because that´s what creates interesting theorycrafting - having to choose because you can´t fit in all available options).

I understand what you're saying and personally I love doing small man stuff, fighting outnumbered is a fun challenge, but i think the "zerg problem" that you all talk about here, is evidence to me that there are more people who prefer large group play than small group. It seems completely illogical to take a game that you build a custom engine for to handle 500+ people on screen at a time, then say you can only group with 8. I find it very hard to believe they will cap groups that low however I think they will provide tools to allow SKILLED small groups to counter big groups. I think Mark Jacobs is a smart enough guy to realize that group caps are the dumbest way combat the zerg.

I really hope they won´t simply because it eliminates the process of creating a working grp setup with great synergies if you don´t have to choose from the options presented.

If they go with big grpsizes this won´t happen as you´ll have multiple of each class not using their complete arsenal because it´s more efficient if one player uses spell a another uses spell b and the third of that class spell c.
Same with rotations for cooldown skills.

Having grps with a high amount of players in them (and as a result making it easier to organise them) lowers the quality of the gameplay. Largescale pvp is interesting when it´s not too well organised. You won´t achieve that with many players in a grp.
DAOC had gigantic pve raids btw (64 i think? - maybe 128). Thankfully they never implemented the raidframe into their frontier zone.

Ok so lets say its capped at 8, whats to stop the next Brandon South Ga from putting 10 groups in one spot?

Edit: as an EU player you will not understand that reference lol, but whatever.

That´s where @Xsorus video started with.

You will never organise 10x8 ppl with the same efficiency as 4x20 ppl. With proper way implemented to fight overwhelming numbers in a tight spot i´d choose 10x8 over 4x20 without any second though.

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

These changes aren't random. Its targeted destruction of group play...........It is ZoS orienting thier game. I don't doubt certain people are going to be very happy about it. I hate it though.

@Satiar I agree - the social aspect of group play (such as doing a shot every time Sarenvog swears) is the most fun that a lot of us have. Since the last major patch, @Lightingale only comes on to play for a few hours during "Drunk Victorem Raid Night" as the rest of the time it's not as much fun. For me, while it is entertaining running 2-6 person groups for a couple hours, it gets old very quickly without the bantering among the groups of 15 odd old timers who have all been friends for years. You can't do that when multiple groups are making different calls and both need battle comms in the same TS channel.

That's what's frustrating to me. There are so many games that cater to small teams, little elite groups of 4-8. There are so few quality games like this where you can have a big team.

This patch, I get the picture. ZoS doesn't want big groups. Message received, not welcome. Ok. It's sickening, though. There are so few games that had the promise this one did, and to me this really feels like the end as far as large group gameplay. I don't doubt I'll stick around for a while, but the moment CU beta drops or hell BDO, I'm done. Time to find a game that actually wants me in it.

As far as I'm concerned, they are so tangled up in amateur coding and lag problems they can't fix they've decided to turn on the player base they advertised to in the first place in a last ditch effort to make thier game halfway playable. And to all the players like me that hung on and convinced their guild and friends to hope for an eventual light at the end of the tunnel...well, there's the door. Goddammit

Rofl....

You think CU is going to cater to your large group?

.......

First of all..The game is going to end up with around 6-8 people as its group cap

Second of all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI250gU4Ct8

yea...don't get your hopes up on that.

Oh good, I was anxiously holding my breath waiting for you to turn this into a DaoC thread. Also until you have factual evidence that the group cap in CU will be 6-8, you may want to avoid getting you're hopes up there and remember how many times Mark Jacobs has stated that CU is not a reboot of DaoC. Now do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?

While he stated multiple times it´s not a reboot of daoc - i highly doubt they will provide and environment where numbers trump brains or coordination in the same way GW2 or ESO did.

It was announced to be developed with the ideas present in daoc in mind - that´s why it made it through kickstarter in the first place.

I don't think anyone wants a game where numbers matter more than anything, if we did we wouldn't be anxiously awaiting CU and we would continue playing this. I'm an officer in a guild that runs 24 man groups every night and balls up as tight as possible and I can honestly say that the meta of balling up is stupid but its effective, that's why we do it.

I have no doubt that the group size will be smaller than ESO but I HIGHLY doubt it will be 6-8, that doesn't make any sense for a game where a major selling point is hundreds pf players on screen at once. I'm guessing the cap will be around 16 but lets be honest, anytime we throw those numbers out we are just talking out of our asses.

I´m gonna be honest: I´ve played daoc with my guild since EU launch and we´ve all backed CU because of that on the first kickstarter day.
Most of those people will never ever touch that game if they implement grp sizes bigger than 8 into the games pvp. It was one of daocs defining rvr features to be balanced around the max grpsize and creating vaible synergies in that grp. This feeling is only generated if the grps are small enough to NOT have redundant positions to fill. If you made the decision to run a third healer it was sth. that significantly impacted grp performance.
I can´t see that happening in grps with more slots than there are classes and from the bottom of my heart hope there will be less slots in a grp than there are classes to choose from (because that´s what creates interesting theorycrafting - having to choose because you can´t fit in all available options).

I understand what you're saying and personally I love doing small man stuff, fighting outnumbered is a fun challenge, but i think the "zerg problem" that you all talk about here, is evidence to me that there are more people who prefer large group play than small group. It seems completely illogical to take a game that you build a custom engine for to handle 500+ people on screen at a time, then say you can only group with 8. I find it very hard to believe they will cap groups that low however I think they will provide tools to allow SKILLED small groups to counter big groups. I think Mark Jacobs is a smart enough guy to realize that group caps are the dumbest way combat the zerg.

I really hope they won´t simply because it eliminates the process of creating a working grp setup with great synergies if you don´t have to choose from the options presented.

If they go with big grpsizes this won´t happen as you´ll have multiple of each class not using their complete arsenal because it´s more efficient if one player uses spell a another uses spell b and the third of that class spell c.
Same with rotations for cooldown skills.

Having grps with a high amount of players in them (and as a result making it easier to organise them) lowers the quality of the gameplay. Largescale pvp is interesting when it´s not too well organised. You won´t achieve that with many players in a grp.
DAOC had gigantic pve raids btw (64 i think? - maybe 128). Thankfully they never implemented the raidframe into their frontier zone.

Ok so lets say its capped at 8, whats to stop the next Brandon South Ga from putting 10 groups in one spot?

Edit: as an EU player you will not understand that reference lol, but whatever.

That´s where @Xsorus video started with.

You will never organise 10x8 ppl with the same efficiency as 4x20 ppl. With proper way implemented to fight overwhelming numbers in a tight spot i´d choose 10x8 over 4x20 without any second though.

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

These changes aren't random. Its targeted destruction of group play...........It is ZoS orienting thier game. I don't doubt certain people are going to be very happy about it. I hate it though.

@Satiar I agree - the social aspect of group play (such as doing a shot every time Sarenvog swears) is the most fun that a lot of us have. Since the last major patch, @Lightingale only comes on to play for a few hours during "Drunk Victorem Raid Night" as the rest of the time it's not as much fun. For me, while it is entertaining running 2-6 person groups for a couple hours, it gets old very quickly without the bantering among the groups of 15 odd old timers who have all been friends for years. You can't do that when multiple groups are making different calls and both need battle comms in the same TS channel.

That's what's frustrating to me. There are so many games that cater to small teams, little elite groups of 4-8. There are so few quality games like this where you can have a big team.

This patch, I get the picture. ZoS doesn't want big groups. Message received, not welcome. Ok. It's sickening, though. There are so few games that had the promise this one did, and to me this really feels like the end as far as large group gameplay. I don't doubt I'll stick around for a while, but the moment CU beta drops or hell BDO, I'm done. Time to find a game that actually wants me in it.

As far as I'm concerned, they are so tangled up in amateur coding and lag problems they can't fix they've decided to turn on the player base they advertised to in the first place in a last ditch effort to make thier game halfway playable. And to all the players like me that hung on and convinced their guild and friends to hope for an eventual light at the end of the tunnel...well, there's the door. Goddammit

Rofl....

You think CU is going to cater to your large group?

.......

First of all..The game is going to end up with around 6-8 people as its group cap

Second of all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI250gU4Ct8

yea...don't get your hopes up on that.

Oh good, I was anxiously holding my breath waiting for you to turn this into a DaoC thread. Also until you have factual evidence that the group cap in CU will be 6-8, you may want to avoid getting you're hopes up there and remember how many times Mark Jacobs has stated that CU is not a reboot of DaoC. Now do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?

While he stated multiple times it´s not a reboot of daoc - i highly doubt they will provide and environment where numbers trump brains or coordination in the same way GW2 or ESO did.

It was announced to be developed with the ideas present in daoc in mind - that´s why it made it through kickstarter in the first place.

I don't think anyone wants a game where numbers matter more than anything, if we did we wouldn't be anxiously awaiting CU and we would continue playing this. I'm an officer in a guild that runs 24 man groups every night and balls up as tight as possible and I can honestly say that the meta of balling up is stupid but its effective, that's why we do it.

I have no doubt that the group size will be smaller than ESO but I HIGHLY doubt it will be 6-8, that doesn't make any sense for a game where a major selling point is hundreds pf players on screen at once. I'm guessing the cap will be around 16 but lets be honest, anytime we throw those numbers out we are just talking out of our asses.

I´m gonna be honest: I´ve played daoc with my guild since EU launch and we´ve all backed CU because of that on the first kickstarter day.
Most of those people will never ever touch that game if they implement grp sizes bigger than 8 into the games pvp. It was one of daocs defining rvr features to be balanced around the max grpsize and creating vaible synergies in that grp. This feeling is only generated if the grps are small enough to NOT have redundant positions to fill. If you made the decision to run a third healer it was sth. that significantly impacted grp performance.
I can´t see that happening in grps with more slots than there are classes and from the bottom of my heart hope there will be less slots in a grp than there are classes to choose from (because that´s what creates interesting theorycrafting - having to choose because you can´t fit in all available options).

I understand what you're saying and personally I love doing small man stuff, fighting outnumbered is a fun challenge, but i think the "zerg problem" that you all talk about here, is evidence to me that there are more people who prefer large group play than small group. It seems completely illogical to take a game that you build a custom engine for to handle 500+ people on screen at a time, then say you can only group with 8. I find it very hard to believe they will cap groups that low however I think they will provide tools to allow SKILLED small groups to counter big groups. I think Mark Jacobs is a smart enough guy to realize that group caps are the dumbest way combat the zerg.

I really hope they won´t simply because it eliminates the process of creating a working grp setup with great synergies if you don´t have to choose from the options presented.

If they go with big grpsizes this won´t happen as you´ll have multiple of each class not using their complete arsenal because it´s more efficient if one player uses spell a another uses spell b and the third of that class spell c.
Same with rotations for cooldown skills.

Having grps with a high amount of players in them (and as a result making it easier to organise them) lowers the quality of the gameplay. Largescale pvp is interesting when it´s not too well organised. You won´t achieve that with many players in a grp.
DAOC had gigantic pve raids btw (64 i think? - maybe 128). Thankfully they never implemented the raidframe into their frontier zone.

Ok so lets say its capped at 8, whats to stop the next Brandon South Ga from putting 10 groups in one spot?

Edit: as an EU player you will not understand that reference lol, but whatever.

That´s where @Xsorus video started with.

You will never organise 10x8 ppl with the same efficiency as 4x20 ppl. With proper way implemented to fight overwhelming numbers in a tight spot i´d choose 10x8 over 4x20 without any second though.

You make a good point about organization, I'm not going to try and argue that. But at a certain point, 80 people is 80 people and to be quite honest if there's a way for just a few players to kill that many then the game has some insane balance issues ( *cough* DK *cough* 1.4)

That´s what was fun about daoc. You could pull that off. Rarely but it was possible.

I´ve had countless fights where our grp wiped 20 to 40 ppl in seconds. More definetly required a good portion of luck and inability on the opponents part.

I´m gonna make a bold comparison: If you walk your platoon straight ahead into a nest of machine guns without cover you´re gonna have a bad time even if it´s only 8 ppl operating them.

Satiar wrote: »

I wish ESO could handle bigger groups and that the community didn't have such a hard on for small man. Imagine GvG open field with surrounding support and focus grouos, all with thier own leads coordinating and ... Oh god what could have been.

But yes. Let's small man all games forever. Big battles are for zergbads.

I love largescale pvp. I just don´t enjoy it with large grps because not running with the maximum grpsize in the end is always subpar. Larger grps just don´t have the same familiar feeling and eventually also some people you don´t really enjoy playing with aswell as completely different grp and builddynamics.
I think the mistake is thinking largescale = largegrp.

Minno wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Lots of great changes, but unreflectable meteor? Barrier only hitting 6? Both terrible ideas. Other ultimates have a way to avoid them, but Meteor is just gonna happen, no matter what? With its buggy CC, high initial damage, DoT component, etc., I'm incredibly skeptical that this is going to be a positive change. And barrier only hitting 6 is a nerf too far, I think. I'm all for it hitting fewer people, but 12 would have been a better balance point, I think.

Meteor did have a counter and viable rotation for it to hit. Unexpected buff tbh.

@Minno

Not sure what you mean by a "viable rotation for it to hit." Meteor is not currently guaranteed to hit specifically because it is reflectable. It might hit the target, it might hit the caster, it really depends on who has a reflect and who has ranged attacks to eat through an enemy's reflect pool so that they still get hit by the meteor. It's way too strong if it's unreflectable.

Tell that sorcs templars and NBs who had no reliable way of countering a DKs meteor. You´ll eventually learn to block it too.

@Derra I already do block it when I'm out of magical, I'm not an idiot. And people used to be able to re-reflect it back, which was cool and kept me on my toes. NB and Sorc can slot shield for the reflect. Not to mentioned if you see them flap you can just get off some other reflectable ranged attacks to seat through the reflect pool.

With the change to pts so projectiles can no longer be re-reflected it´s only logical to make meteor not reflectable. It´s a mandatory change because slotting a shield and reflecting that meteor back where it was intended to go is no longer an option (kind of sad bc with the changes on pts sorcs would finally have been able to run vaible 1h + shield builds).

But lets not make it a build discussion. I´m sure people will adapt eventually. A change they could do is increase dot dmg and reduce initial hit dmg.

@Derra I agree regarding the lamentable changes to number of reflects, but it still stands that neither reflect is guaranteed, provided you have other ranged abilities on your bar to soak up the opponent's reflect pool. In any case, though, the fact that it isn't reflectable now indicates to me that it needs some other counter, such as the initial hit being dodgeable. Having only block as an option is pretty terrible.

I´ve only ever blocked meteor on my chars - too much of a risk to reflect it back and get doublereflected for more dmg.

I don´t think an ultimate should be easily counterable when it comes with a cost of 200 ultimate. Maybe they should reduce the initial hit dmg a little bit and increase the dot but dodging a one time use ultimate with that much of a cost investment is pretty much unacceptable.

I don't mean dodge it such that it doesn't hit the area it's supposed to land on, I mean dodge it so that you, the target, don't get the CC, don't stand in the DoT, and don't get the initial burst damage, same as for any other ultimate. It just occupies such a unique space in combat due to its instant CC, high damage, DoT, and ability to fire from the safety of range. Every other ultimate does only a couple of those things.

Nova hits from a range but you have to activate its synergy to do burst damage and CC component, for which you need to be standing in it. That gives opponents plenty of time to escape unless you're already right inside them and dropping it on yourself. Costs 50 more ultimate than Meteor and can be pretty much completely avoided beyond a couple ticks from the DoT. PVE/group specific ulti

Negate is ranged but does no damage, it only stops spells from going off, and it can be broken free from, granting actual CC immunity. Costs 25 more ultimate than Meteor. PVE/group specific ulti

DK Standard: DoT damage, caster-centered so you're at risk if you're using it, synergy allows immobilize, way different from a stun. 50 more ultimate than Meteor. PVE/group specific ulti

DK Leap: single-target AoE like Meteor is now, great damage, AoE knockup like Meteor, but is completely avoidable by dodging, doesn't hit if you try to use it against moving enemies from far away, no DoT component, literally takes you from the safety of range and lands you in the center of everything bad. Cheap as hell to compensate for some of those drawbacks, maybe too cheap but that could be adjusted. PVP/DMG specific ulti

Dawnbreaker: cone AoE damage, to be fair the most unavoidable one unless you preempt it, but cones are terrible, it has no CC unless you're a vampire and your opponent chose the morph that CC's undead, really only "strong" in niche circumstances that require the other player to be a vampire. Reliable burst I guess? PVP/DMG specific ulti

Meteor: Good AoE initial damage which is unavoidable, AoE CC on hit, follows target so it will always hit, AoE DoT, use from the complete safety of range for all components including the damage and the CC, no need for someone to synergize anything, lamentations of the fallen, probably global warming, idk.PVP/DMG specific ulti

It's pretty easy to see that it's overpowered in its current form.

Added some classifications in bold. Really like this post!

Can we talk about all the ultimates? I think we need this in order to debate the proper balance in both pvp and pve.

Because it's clear, for some classes, have more group oriented ultimates. To compensate, they seem to have added dawnbreaker and meteor for those classes to help with burst dmg.

Minno wrote: »

/group oriented. Meant in general its strength in pve but sees great results in pvp group fights.

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

These changes aren't random. Its targeted destruction of group play...........It is ZoS orienting thier game. I don't doubt certain people are going to be very happy about it. I hate it though.

@Satiar I agree - the social aspect of group play (such as doing a shot every time Sarenvog swears) is the most fun that a lot of us have. Since the last major patch, @Lightingale only comes on to play for a few hours during "Drunk Victorem Raid Night" as the rest of the time it's not as much fun. For me, while it is entertaining running 2-6 person groups for a couple hours, it gets old very quickly without the bantering among the groups of 15 odd old timers who have all been friends for years. You can't do that when multiple groups are making different calls and both need battle comms in the same TS channel.

That's what's frustrating to me. There are so many games that cater to small teams, little elite groups of 4-8. There are so few quality games like this where you can have a big team.

This patch, I get the picture. ZoS doesn't want big groups. Message received, not welcome. Ok. It's sickening, though. There are so few games that had the promise this one did, and to me this really feels like the end as far as large group gameplay. I don't doubt I'll stick around for a while, but the moment CU beta drops or hell BDO, I'm done. Time to find a game that actually wants me in it.

As far as I'm concerned, they are so tangled up in amateur coding and lag problems they can't fix they've decided to turn on the player base they advertised to in the first place in a last ditch effort to make thier game halfway playable. And to all the players like me that hung on and convinced their guild and friends to hope for an eventual light at the end of the tunnel...well, there's the door. Goddammit

Rofl....

You think CU is going to cater to your large group?

.......

First of all..The game is going to end up with around 6-8 people as its group cap

Second of all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI250gU4Ct8

yea...don't get your hopes up on that.

Oh good, I was anxiously holding my breath waiting for you to turn this into a DaoC thread. Also until you have factual evidence that the group cap in CU will be 6-8, you may want to avoid getting you're hopes up there and remember how many times Mark Jacobs has stated that CU is not a reboot of DaoC. Now do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?

While he stated multiple times it´s not a reboot of daoc - i highly doubt they will provide and environment where numbers trump brains or coordination in the same way GW2 or ESO did.

It was announced to be developed with the ideas present in daoc in mind - that´s why it made it through kickstarter in the first place.

I don't think anyone wants a game where numbers matter more than anything, if we did we wouldn't be anxiously awaiting CU and we would continue playing this. I'm an officer in a guild that runs 24 man groups every night and balls up as tight as possible and I can honestly say that the meta of balling up is stupid but its effective, that's why we do it.

I have no doubt that the group size will be smaller than ESO but I HIGHLY doubt it will be 6-8, that doesn't make any sense for a game where a major selling point is hundreds pf players on screen at once. I'm guessing the cap will be around 16 but lets be honest, anytime we throw those numbers out we are just talking out of our asses.

I´m gonna be honest: I´ve played daoc with my guild since EU launch and we´ve all backed CU because of that on the first kickstarter day.
Most of those people will never ever touch that game if they implement grp sizes bigger than 8 into the games pvp. It was one of daocs defining rvr features to be balanced around the max grpsize and creating vaible synergies in that grp. This feeling is only generated if the grps are small enough to NOT have redundant positions to fill. If you made the decision to run a third healer it was sth. that significantly impacted grp performance.
I can´t see that happening in grps with more slots than there are classes and from the bottom of my heart hope there will be less slots in a grp than there are classes to choose from (because that´s what creates interesting theorycrafting - having to choose because you can´t fit in all available options).

I understand what you're saying and personally I love doing small man stuff, fighting outnumbered is a fun challenge, but i think the "zerg problem" that you all talk about here, is evidence to me that there are more people who prefer large group play than small group. It seems completely illogical to take a game that you build a custom engine for to handle 500+ people on screen at a time, then say you can only group with 8. I find it very hard to believe they will cap groups that low however I think they will provide tools to allow SKILLED small groups to counter big groups. I think Mark Jacobs is a smart enough guy to realize that group caps are the dumbest way combat the zerg.

I really hope they won´t simply because it eliminates the process of creating a working grp setup with great synergies if you don´t have to choose from the options presented.

If they go with big grpsizes this won´t happen as you´ll have multiple of each class not using their complete arsenal because it´s more efficient if one player uses spell a another uses spell b and the third of that class spell c.
Same with rotations for cooldown skills.

Having grps with a high amount of players in them (and as a result making it easier to organise them) lowers the quality of the gameplay. Largescale pvp is interesting when it´s not too well organised. You won´t achieve that with many players in a grp.
DAOC had gigantic pve raids btw (64 i think? - maybe 128). Thankfully they never implemented the raidframe into their frontier zone.

Ok so lets say its capped at 8, whats to stop the next Brandon South Ga from putting 10 groups in one spot?

Edit: as an EU player you will not understand that reference lol, but whatever.

That´s where @Xsorus video started with.

You will never organise 10x8 ppl with the same efficiency as 4x20 ppl. With proper way implemented to fight overwhelming numbers in a tight spot i´d choose 10x8 over 4x20 without any second though.

You make a good point about organization, I'm not going to try and argue that. But at a certain point, 80 people is 80 people and to be quite honest if there's a way for just a few players to kill that many then the game has some insane balance issues ( *cough* DK *cough* 1.4)

Xsorus wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

These changes aren't random. Its targeted destruction of group play...........It is ZoS orienting thier game. I don't doubt certain people are going to be very happy about it. I hate it though.

@Satiar I agree - the social aspect of group play (such as doing a shot every time Sarenvog swears) is the most fun that a lot of us have. Since the last major patch, @Lightingale only comes on to play for a few hours during "Drunk Victorem Raid Night" as the rest of the time it's not as much fun. For me, while it is entertaining running 2-6 person groups for a couple hours, it gets old very quickly without the bantering among the groups of 15 odd old timers who have all been friends for years. You can't do that when multiple groups are making different calls and both need battle comms in the same TS channel.

That's what's frustrating to me. There are so many games that cater to small teams, little elite groups of 4-8. There are so few quality games like this where you can have a big team.

This patch, I get the picture. ZoS doesn't want big groups. Message received, not welcome. Ok. It's sickening, though. There are so few games that had the promise this one did, and to me this really feels like the end as far as large group gameplay. I don't doubt I'll stick around for a while, but the moment CU beta drops or hell BDO, I'm done. Time to find a game that actually wants me in it.

As far as I'm concerned, they are so tangled up in amateur coding and lag problems they can't fix they've decided to turn on the player base they advertised to in the first place in a last ditch effort to make thier game halfway playable. And to all the players like me that hung on and convinced their guild and friends to hope for an eventual light at the end of the tunnel...well, there's the door. Goddammit

Rofl....

You think CU is going to cater to your large group?

.......

First of all..The game is going to end up with around 6-8 people as its group cap

Second of all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI250gU4Ct8

yea...don't get your hopes up on that.

Oh good, I was anxiously holding my breath waiting for you to turn this into a DaoC thread. Also until you have factual evidence that the group cap in CU will be 6-8, you may want to avoid getting you're hopes up there and remember how many times Mark Jacobs has stated that CU is not a reboot of DaoC. Now do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?

While he stated multiple times it´s not a reboot of daoc - i highly doubt they will provide and environment where numbers trump brains or coordination in the same way GW2 or ESO did.

It was announced to be developed with the ideas present in daoc in mind - that´s why it made it through kickstarter in the first place.

I don't think anyone wants a game where numbers matter more than anything, if we did we wouldn't be anxiously awaiting CU and we would continue playing this. I'm an officer in a guild that runs 24 man groups every night and balls up as tight as possible and I can honestly say that the meta of balling up is stupid but its effective, that's why we do it.

I have no doubt that the group size will be smaller than ESO but I HIGHLY doubt it will be 6-8, that doesn't make any sense for a game where a major selling point is hundreds pf players on screen at once. I'm guessing the cap will be around 16 but lets be honest, anytime we throw those numbers out we are just talking out of our asses.

I´m gonna be honest: I´ve played daoc with my guild since EU launch and we´ve all backed CU because of that on the first kickstarter day.
Most of those people will never ever touch that game if they implement grp sizes bigger than 8 into the games pvp. It was one of daocs defining rvr features to be balanced around the max grpsize and creating vaible synergies in that grp. This feeling is only generated if the grps are small enough to NOT have redundant positions to fill. If you made the decision to run a third healer it was sth. that significantly impacted grp performance.
I can´t see that happening in grps with more slots than there are classes and from the bottom of my heart hope there will be less slots in a grp than there are classes to choose from (because that´s what creates interesting theorycrafting - having to choose because you can´t fit in all available options).

I understand what you're saying and personally I love doing small man stuff, fighting outnumbered is a fun challenge, but i think the "zerg problem" that you all talk about here, is evidence to me that there are more people who prefer large group play than small group. It seems completely illogical to take a game that you build a custom engine for to handle 500+ people on screen at a time, then say you can only group with 8. I find it very hard to believe they will cap groups that low however I think they will provide tools to allow SKILLED small groups to counter big groups. I think Mark Jacobs is a smart enough guy to realize that group caps are the dumbest way combat the zerg.

I really hope they won´t simply because it eliminates the process of creating a working grp setup with great synergies if you don´t have to choose from the options presented.

If they go with big grpsizes this won´t happen as you´ll have multiple of each class not using their complete arsenal because it´s more efficient if one player uses spell a another uses spell b and the third of that class spell c.
Same with rotations for cooldown skills.

Having grps with a high amount of players in them (and as a result making it easier to organise them) lowers the quality of the gameplay. Largescale pvp is interesting when it´s not too well organised. You won´t achieve that with many players in a grp.
DAOC had gigantic pve raids btw (64 i think? - maybe 128). Thankfully they never implemented the raidframe into their frontier zone.

Ok so lets say its capped at 8, whats to stop the next Brandon South Ga from putting 10 groups in one spot?

Edit: as an EU player you will not understand that reference lol, but whatever.

That´s where @Xsorus video started with.

You will never organise 10x8 ppl with the same efficiency as 4x20 ppl. With proper way implemented to fight overwhelming numbers in a tight spot i´d choose 10x8 over 4x20 without any second though.

You make a good point about organization, I'm not going to try and argue that. But at a certain point, 80 people is 80 people and to be quite honest if there's a way for just a few players to kill that many then the game has some insane balance issues ( *cough* DK *cough* 1.4)

There was nothing unbalanced about it.. 80 people is 80 people like you said... If those 80 people weren't killed in the very first seconds of the fight the 8 man usually died from it... However the game allowed for an 8 man to blow them up if they were stacked close enough like the video.. Which allowed them to kill the rest if they could. This meant running with a giant Zerg wasn't always just the best tactic.. You basically had to consider 8 mans to be your special forces.

What generally happened when there was Zerg vs Zerg fights going on the Zerg leader would ask the 8 mans of his realms side to circle his Zerg and engage any other 8 mans... Generally you had two types of 8 mans.. Ones designed to fight other 8 mans and ones designed to fight zergs (lots of pbae)

The Zerg protected 8 man fighting groups from zergs and they protected the Zerg from the bomb groups.

Satiar wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

These changes aren't random. Its targeted destruction of group play...........It is ZoS orienting thier game. I don't doubt certain people are going to be very happy about it. I hate it though.

@Satiar I agree - the social aspect of group play (such as doing a shot every time Sarenvog swears) is the most fun that a lot of us have. Since the last major patch, @Lightingale only comes on to play for a few hours during "Drunk Victorem Raid Night" as the rest of the time it's not as much fun. For me, while it is entertaining running 2-6 person groups for a couple hours, it gets old very quickly without the bantering among the groups of 15 odd old timers who have all been friends for years. You can't do that when multiple groups are making different calls and both need battle comms in the same TS channel.

That's what's frustrating to me. There are so many games that cater to small teams, little elite groups of 4-8. There are so few quality games like this where you can have a big team.

This patch, I get the picture. ZoS doesn't want big groups. Message received, not welcome. Ok. It's sickening, though. There are so few games that had the promise this one did, and to me this really feels like the end as far as large group gameplay. I don't doubt I'll stick around for a while, but the moment CU beta drops or hell BDO, I'm done. Time to find a game that actually wants me in it.

As far as I'm concerned, they are so tangled up in amateur coding and lag problems they can't fix they've decided to turn on the player base they advertised to in the first place in a last ditch effort to make thier game halfway playable. And to all the players like me that hung on and convinced their guild and friends to hope for an eventual light at the end of the tunnel...well, there's the door. Goddammit

Rofl....

You think CU is going to cater to your large group?

.......

First of all..The game is going to end up with around 6-8 people as its group cap

Second of all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI250gU4Ct8

yea...don't get your hopes up on that.

Oh good, I was anxiously holding my breath waiting for you to turn this into a DaoC thread. Also until you have factual evidence that the group cap in CU will be 6-8, you may want to avoid getting you're hopes up there and remember how many times Mark Jacobs has stated that CU is not a reboot of DaoC. Now do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?

While he stated multiple times it´s not a reboot of daoc - i highly doubt they will provide and environment where numbers trump brains or coordination in the same way GW2 or ESO did.

It was announced to be developed with the ideas present in daoc in mind - that´s why it made it through kickstarter in the first place.

I don't think anyone wants a game where numbers matter more than anything, if we did we wouldn't be anxiously awaiting CU and we would continue playing this. I'm an officer in a guild that runs 24 man groups every night and balls up as tight as possible and I can honestly say that the meta of balling up is stupid but its effective, that's why we do it.

I have no doubt that the group size will be smaller than ESO but I HIGHLY doubt it will be 6-8, that doesn't make any sense for a game where a major selling point is hundreds pf players on screen at once. I'm guessing the cap will be around 16 but lets be honest, anytime we throw those numbers out we are just talking out of our asses.

I´m gonna be honest: I´ve played daoc with my guild since EU launch and we´ve all backed CU because of that on the first kickstarter day.
Most of those people will never ever touch that game if they implement grp sizes bigger than 8 into the games pvp. It was one of daocs defining rvr features to be balanced around the max grpsize and creating vaible synergies in that grp. This feeling is only generated if the grps are small enough to NOT have redundant positions to fill. If you made the decision to run a third healer it was sth. that significantly impacted grp performance.
I can´t see that happening in grps with more slots than there are classes and from the bottom of my heart hope there will be less slots in a grp than there are classes to choose from (because that´s what creates interesting theorycrafting - having to choose because you can´t fit in all available options).

I understand what you're saying and personally I love doing small man stuff, fighting outnumbered is a fun challenge, but i think the "zerg problem" that you all talk about here, is evidence to me that there are more people who prefer large group play than small group. It seems completely illogical to take a game that you build a custom engine for to handle 500+ people on screen at a time, then say you can only group with 8. I find it very hard to believe they will cap groups that low however I think they will provide tools to allow SKILLED small groups to counter big groups. I think Mark Jacobs is a smart enough guy to realize that group caps are the dumbest way combat the zerg.

I really hope they won´t simply because it eliminates the process of creating a working grp setup with great synergies if you don´t have to choose from the options presented.

If they go with big grpsizes this won´t happen as you´ll have multiple of each class not using their complete arsenal because it´s more efficient if one player uses spell a another uses spell b and the third of that class spell c.
Same with rotations for cooldown skills.

Having grps with a high amount of players in them (and as a result making it easier to organise them) lowers the quality of the gameplay. Largescale pvp is interesting when it´s not too well organised. You won´t achieve that with many players in a grp.
DAOC had gigantic pve raids btw (64 i think? - maybe 128). Thankfully they never implemented the raidframe into their frontier zone.

Ok so lets say its capped at 8, whats to stop the next Brandon South Ga from putting 10 groups in one spot?

Edit: as an EU player you will not understand that reference lol, but whatever.

That´s where @Xsorus video started with.

You will never organise 10x8 ppl with the same efficiency as 4x20 ppl. With proper way implemented to fight overwhelming numbers in a tight spot i´d choose 10x8 over 4x20 without any second though.

You make a good point about organization, I'm not going to try and argue that. But at a certain point, 80 people is 80 people and to be quite honest if there's a way for just a few players to kill that many then the game has some insane balance issues ( *cough* DK *cough* 1.4)

That´s what was fun about daoc. You could pull that off. Rarely but it was possible.

I´ve had countless fights where our grp wiped 20 to 40 ppl in seconds. More definetly required a good portion of luck and inability on the opponents part.

I´m gonna make a bold comparison: If you walk your platoon straight ahead into a nest of machine guns without cover you´re gonna have a bad time even if it´s only 8 ppl operating them.

Satiar wrote: »

I wish ESO could handle bigger groups and that the community didn't have such a hard on for small man. Imagine GvG open field with surrounding support and focus grouos, all with thier own leads coordinating and ... Oh god what could have been.

But yes. Let's small man all games forever. Big battles are for zergbads.

I love largescale pvp. I just don´t enjoy it with large grps because not running with the maximum grpsize in the end is always subpar. Larger grps just don´t have the same familiar feeling and eventually also some people you don´t really enjoy playing with aswell as completely different grp and builddynamics.
I think the mistake is thinking largescale = largegrp.

Both should exist. You should have your big groups and your small groups. Demonizing one or the other is counterproductive. We all want to go into an outnumbered fight and win, we are just quibbling on scale and preference

Recremen wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

/group oriented. Meant in general its strength in pve but sees great results in pvp group fights.

Okay yeah, and I'm talking specifically about how meteor is OP in group fights right now by comparing how it performs to other skills used in groups. If anything, Meteor's effectiveness in both group and solo play further highlights its advantages over other ultimates. If it's not reflectable, then something else needs to change about it to bring it back in line with other ultimates.

Minno wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

/group oriented. Meant in general its strength in pve but sees great results in pvp group fights.

Okay yeah, and I'm talking specifically about how meteor is OP in group fights right now by comparing how it performs to other skills used in groups. If anything, Meteor's effectiveness in both group and solo play further highlights its advantages over other ultimates. If it's not reflectable, then something else needs to change about it to bring it back in line with other ultimates.

Yea based on the rundown of all ultimates, it needs another catch 22. If though (devil's advocate) the reflect was a lag issue idea, what is a proper con to add? Decreased dmg? Remove knockbak? No AOE component?

Zheg wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

No demoninzing going on.

You say you prefer larger grps. I´m saying if it´s going to have similar mechanics in how grps work to daoc then having large grps that can fit every possible class/spec/role into them the game is going to be a stillbirth.
What made daoc fun was having specific well optimised grp setups with up and downsides. If you´re able to take everything along you´re loosing that - you no longer have to sacrifice specific feats to be better in another department.

This is not about preference but simply about numbers. If you can fit in a backup for every role into your grp you can create failsafe mechanisms that should not exist imo.

It´s not about preference but balancing grp dynamics in a fun and challenging way.

If people actually had any experience running in large groups, they'd know that group comp is still VERY dynamic and very customized - within your own group and against your opponents. You'd be able to tell when groups are magicka or stam heavy, when they're speed heavy, when they're bombard heavy, when they're heal heavy, and each has it's up and downsides. You may have a token prox det in a full stam dps raid, but that doesn't really mean anything, you're still 'sacrificing specific feats' because you can't move as a prox det bomb efficiently enough for it to be impactful compared to a group heavy on magicka users.

I'd also point out to you, and the other usual suspects who continue to talk about daoc like that one time at band camp, that ESO has 4 classes, and daoc had how many? Right, 16. Different game, completely different pvp, completely different class and combat system, and you're going to have to end up running everything to have a group of a size that can actually accomplish something. There are FOUR classes in the game FFS, that's a FOURTH of the total classes in the completely different game people keep talking about.