Would you like a Campaign that restricts the amount of players per group to 8 maximium?

Devilhand · June 2016

Hello everyone,
I been playing ESO since BETA, and ive experienced all the changes in pvp since the begining. At the end my biggest concern is lag or delay in pvp in this game, most associated to massive amount of players fighting in the same place of the HUGE map cyrodil is.

So, I was thinking, how can ZOS solve this issue... Well, clearly is NOT by taking sound out, beacuse you know sound is needed to actually pvp right, avoid skills, know what and who is hitting you, and dont die to invisible stuff. What about, making a new campaign with CP's that limits the amount of players that can join a group to 8 players, this should enfforce players to disperse more in the map, small scale pvp, and avoid or make more difficult zergs to show up.
Some players wont like this beacuse they used to play in huge zergs with +40 people around them and smash 1 bottom hoping in goes out, but hey the no limit amount of players per group campaign will be out there.

Zergs = lag.

New gear with anti zerg purpouse (Vicious Death) is not a solution to lag, neither zergs.

Hopefuly players forum like this, and ZOS actually implemented.

Cheers

Dyride · June 2016

No

Because I play a Massive Multiplayer Online game to be with friends. Plus with voice comms, people would just stack more than one 8 man in the same spot if they want to.

I would welcome campaigns with more variety in rule-sets and objectives but I don't think group size is the place to start.

I think objectives should be better designed to limit funneling and also the Emperor mechanics need to change so that you have to hold more than one keep to maintain emperor.

Ishammael's Suggestion for Cyrodiil Objectives would be an awesome place to start.

Also Imperial City still needs work. Kena has put forth some good suggestions and insight about IC.

obligatory @ZOS_JessicaFolsom and @ZOS_BrianWheeler tags.

The-Baconator · June 2016

No

You realize people would just stack ten groups of eight in one location instead on just three\four larger groups? It would be a waste of time.

Telel · June 2016

No

Telel has found that one of the contributing factors to 'zergs' is the lack of people willing ot lead groups.

This means you either have the few PUG wranglers being swamped with group requests, or the zone chat being filled with LFG spam as people lemming their way up to the nearest fight icon.

Needless to say this is how khajiit usually ends up leading a 24 man group even though they'd prefer to limite it to 12 guild members. It's either let the PUG grow or have zone chat, and a large chunk of potentially good players become useless.

And the longer a fight goes on the more non grouped randoms will be drawn to it simply because they have no other direction to work off of.

So unless you can promise this one that you will personally find a group for all those LFG spammers in all three factions this one must say that limiting group sizes wouldn't be all that helpful.

Telel will also reiterate the opinion that Cyrodiil needs a major revamp to make playing the map more appealing, and to spread people out across it.

Devilhand · June 2016

Yes

The-Baconator wrote: »

You realize people would just stack ten groups of eight in one location instead on just three\four larger groups? It would be a waste of time.

I dont think so.
Restrict the heals going only to players in you group and not random people of your alliance will fix that stacking of groups.

The fact that you wont have a crown for 24 people, instead 4 for the same 24, makes it different and harder to follow the leaders (in voice chat) directions. So I do think it will reduce the amount of zergs out there.

So, I will like not only reduce amount of player to group, also avoid heals or buffs apply to people outside your group (Who has not been annoyed about your healing ward heals some random person instead of you or your group member?)

For those like multiple (big) groups, you can play on regular campaigns with huge lag and no skill/real pvp what so ever.

Derra · June 2016

Yes

Devilhand wrote: »

The-Baconator wrote: »

You realize people would just stack ten groups of eight in one location instead on just three\four larger groups? It would be a waste of time.

I dont think so.
Restrict the heals going only to players in you group and not random people of your alliance will fix that stacking of groups.

The fact that you wont have a crown for 24 people, instead 4 for the same 24, makes it different and harder to follow the leaders (in voice chat) directions. So I do think it will reduce the amount of zergs out there.

So, I will like not only reduce amount of player to group, also avoid heals or buffs apply to people outside your group (Who has not been annoyed about your healing ward heals some random person instead of you or your group member?)

For those like multiple (big) groups, you can play on regular campaigns with huge lag and no skill/real pvp what so ever.

This.

Groundheals for everyone. Smartheals grp only. Support/Utility abilities grp only.

That coupled with the fact that it just became incredibly hard for the average joe to stick to one leader that has no highlight on his own UI. Coupled with not everyone in a 24man TS grp gets a marker on the map where one lagging behind died.

Very much yes. Give me that.

I can only laugh at the ppl claiming "i want to play with my friends".
There is nothing keeping you from doing that. Just organisation would be harder which in return would make it more fun and easier for people with less "friends" than 20 to play the game.

holosoul · June 2016

No

No.
There are already too many servers for the number of people PVPing.
People will still go to highlighted keeps and so there will still be 50 on 50 battles even if you force them into separate groups.

Blobsky · June 2016

No

It would be pointless, most these mega-zergs are just multiple small groups / solos running in 1 big blob

redspecter23 · June 2016

No

I don't think restricting group size would have any effect at all. You'd still have 2 - 3 of these smaller groups running together and communicating in teamspeak.

The problems listed are annoying but I just don't think restricting group size is the answer we're looking for. There needs to be an adjustment somewhere that de-incentivizes large group sizes from forming in the first place. Jamming an ineffective band aid down players throats isn't going to accomplish much.

Yes, lag sucks, but this is not the proper solution.

ToRelax · June 2016

Yes

Again and again I read here that this is not the right solution. So could someone please point me to where it was ever said to be?
I am also being told players don't run more than one "group" and they don't feel they are zerging because of that. Seems like a good enough reason to readjust the maximum group size to something I'd call a group as well.
People have been saying random zergs will still run together, albeit less organized if that is even possible. So what?

I would think such a rule would be aimed at the larger, organized groups. The kind I try not to fight if I can avoid it, because it consists of ever more people when you might gain the upper hand, and a rediculous amount of healing.
There seems to be little reason to join a campaign with a group limit of 8 when you want to play with 23 "friends". And I would also imagine it might be very much frowned upon to try to stack up multiple groups in such a campaign.

Ishammael · June 2016

No

OP: I think ~12/group is a good number.

Dyride wrote: »

Ishammael's Suggestion for Cyrodiil Objectives would be an awesome place to start.

Thanks for the plug!

Dyride wrote: »

Also Imperial City still needs work. Kena has put forth some good suggestions and insight about IC.

I also like Kena's suggestions!

Dyride wrote: »

obligatory @ZOS_JessicaFolsom and @ZOS_BrianWheeler tags.

Pls help us!!!!!!

Asmael · June 2016

No

Because it won't change a thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.

Devilhand · June 2016

Yes

holosoul wrote: »

No.
There are already too many servers for the number of people PVPing.
People will still go to highlighted keeps and so there will still be 50 on 50 battles even if you force them into separate groups.

Many servers?
At this time there has not been so few servers in the history of ESO.
Basically there 2 servers, True flame with huge amount of people and you wont fight less then 40 people (either zerg vs zerg or cant pvp, and no sound most of the time. And Haderus, which is barely less populated and most of streamers/good pvpers play (guess why? less lag, less zergs) but still, its not as populated beacuse which ever faction zerg from the start and have the upperhand, other alliances dont even try to change/win the campaign.

Almost no one plays in Azura Star (No CP's), and thats beacuse this game pvp its balanced with CP's now and people like to play with what they have work hard to get 501 CP's.

Again, for those who say i like to play with my friends.. I doubt anyone have 23 friends to play with, thats guild group. Im not saying you wont be able, all im asking for is to add a NEW campaign that restricts the number of players per group to 8, if you like to zerg and play with lag and no skill you can still play on regular ones.
Yes, maybe the group number restriction not enough, but if they implement what i suggested early (heals and bufs restricted to group members only, or in case your solo, to your self) those in combination will:

1) Reduce the amount of zergs, even if their not grouped. Since theres actually no benefit if your not in a group to have someone around you.
2) Reduce the amount of zerg healer leachers. (Mutangen/Rapid Regen sppamers)
3) Improve small scale pvp. since you wont have to sppam your skills to actually apply to your self or a group member.
4) people in Zone may join groups more, in order to have more heals. And having a limitation in cuantity, may make players disperse more around the map.
5) all of the others will translate in a lag reduction.

Again if you like to play in big groups with 24 people, you can still play in other campaigns. But let those who barely group (soloers, and small groups) a chance to actually enjoy the game with no lag, and with out getting zerged down by 24 people sppaming 1 skill.

redspecter23 wrote: »

I don't think restricting group size would have any effect at all. You'd still have 2 - 3 of these smaller groups running together and communicating in teamspeak.

The problems listed are annoying but I just don't think restricting group size is the answer we're looking for. There needs to be an adjustment somewhere that de-incentivizes large group sizes from forming in the first place. Jamming an ineffective band aid down players throats isn't going to accomplish much.

Yes, lag sucks, but this is not the proper solution.

Well, as i said restricting both skills (buffs and heals) only to group members and at same time group sizes will have an effect agaisnt zergs.
Its much harder to have 4 groups running with 3 different crowns (8 people per group) then 1 group with same amount of people and 1 leader (24 people per group, as its now).
I think doing the both above will actually impact the zerg formations, I cant think of another way to de-incentivizes large groups.

Also, your not jamming anyone, those players that like to zerg on massive groups are jamming them self now by not playing a pvp game as it suppouse to. Everyone have 5 skills + ultimate per bar, not just 1 sppamable skill and an ultimate if it goes off beacuse of lag. Learn to play.

You cant take both suggestions appart, if the heals can apply to any ally in or not in your group then nothing might change, zergs will still form since theres no benefit of grouping. In the other side if you avoid heals and buff to apply to people outside your group that will make everyone to join large groups, and in the end more zergs.

kinggingernator · June 2016

Yes

Why not just go all in and cut off groups entirely? People would still flock to the closest action but they would be up and attacking a couple people on the side won't reward you with them freaking out, saying guys there's only 5 of us and 1 of him and then having 24 people run over.

kinggingernator · June 2016

Yes

Honestly cyrodiil itself will never evolve into something that is fun for the small scale and solo players on a consistent basis. Every single patch since 1.5 has gotten worse than the last and the only reason I still play is for those rare moments when I an slip in a 1vX instead of getting 24v1ed. I want to quit as after yet another patch that was worse than the last I have lost every ounce of faith in zos but really there isn't anything else out there. Waiting for camelot unchained and crowfall at this point.

KenaPKK · June 2016

Yes

You would have to change this for all campaigns, else players would just avoid it, like Axe and Azura's.

Lord_Hev · June 2016

Yes

Yes, this needs to not be a single campaign tho. It should be the norm.

A fair number would be proper trial raid size(12). If you want to stack 24 now, it will actually require true coordination.

willklippsteinb14_ESO · June 2016

No

THis isn't going to change anything, multiple raid groups often communicate on TS3, whats going to stop them from being 3 groups of 8 on TS3, whilst traveling together? Its a complete waste of time, Only way to limit Zergs in this game would be some type of arena.

ethanthefox · June 2016

Devilhand wrote: »

The-Baconator wrote: »

You realize people would just stack ten groups of eight in one location instead on just three\four larger groups? It would be a waste of time.

I dont think so.
Restrict the heals going only to players in you group and not random people of your alliance will fix that stacking of groups.

The fact that you wont have a crown for 24 people, instead 4 for the same 24, makes it different and harder to follow the leaders (in voice chat) directions. So I do think it will reduce the amount of zergs out there.

So, I will like not only reduce amount of player to group, also avoid heals or buffs apply to people outside your group (Who has not been annoyed about your healing ward heals some random person instead of you or your group member?)

For those like multiple (big) groups, you can play on regular campaigns with huge lag and no skill/real pvp what so ever.

I don't agree with this , I love to go solo with my healer and tag along ramdom people to support them. That would really ruin it honestly and just take out the possibily of traveling alone while looking for small figth to join. The figth end we just take our way apart, I dont always want to be grouped and take orders. Say you make it to an under attack keep and theres 2 guys defending it with you. You need to be grouped to heal them? Not good

Satiar · June 2016

Lord_Hev wrote: »

Yes, this needs to not be a single campaign tho. It should be the norm.

A fair number would be proper trial raid size(12). If you want to stack 24 now, it will actually require true coordination.

It would be fun I think. I'd like the challenge of running two separate battle groups, could arguably be more effective too.

GreatWhite000 · June 2016

No

No, because there are guilds out there right now that actually run multiple groups. So, instead of 1 group of 16 people (all in the same guild or whatever), you'd just have 2 groups of 8 and the "problem" would still persist.

I don't think zerging is the issue. It's the lack of ability to fight zergs with smaller numbers.

Joy_Division · June 2016

No

Devilhand wrote: »

The-Baconator wrote: »

You realize people would just stack ten groups of eight in one location instead on just three\four larger groups? It would be a waste of time.

Restrict the heals going only to players in you group and not random people of your alliance will fix that stacking of groups.

No thanks. Some people actually like to heal and contribute to the Alliance War by aiding allies who are not necessarily in thir group.

Also if you limit the PuG herders to 8, that is asking an awful lot of them to actually have a presence in map control. As it is with 24, they have trouble taking Dragonclaw or Drake if there is any opposition.

I think the best solution is to disincentivize the stack on crown blobs of 24 and make it such those players and guilds who min-max and want to win will spread out because it is the best strategy, not because they are forced to. This is something that can be achieved by removing AoE caps, implementing more strategic objectives in Cyrodiil (that do more than simply add points to an Alliance War scoreboard), and revisiting something along the line of dynamic ultimate (not crit based but something else) which gave smaller groups tangible advantages over larger zergs.

Devilhand · June 2016

Yes

ethanthefox wrote: »

Devilhand wrote: »

The-Baconator wrote: »

You realize people would just stack ten groups of eight in one location instead on just three\four larger groups? It would be a waste of time.

I dont think so.
Restrict the heals going only to players in you group and not random people of your alliance will fix that stacking of groups.

The fact that you wont have a crown for 24 people, instead 4 for the same 24, makes it different and harder to follow the leaders (in voice chat) directions. So I do think it will reduce the amount of zergs out there.

So, I will like not only reduce amount of player to group, also avoid heals or buffs apply to people outside your group (Who has not been annoyed about your healing ward heals some random person instead of you or your group member?)

For those like multiple (big) groups, you can play on regular campaigns with huge lag and no skill/real pvp what so ever.

I don't agree with this , I love to go solo with my healer and tag along ramdom people to support them. That would really ruin it honestly and just take out the possibily of traveling alone while looking for small figth to join. The figth end we just take our way apart, I dont always want to be grouped and take orders. Say you make it to an under attack keep and theres 2 guys defending it with you. You need to be grouped to heal them? Not good

Been a healer and not been in group has been one of the best ways to get easy and fast AP in this game, basically your a leacher following zergs. If you like to solo, then you should have dps and heals to be able to defeat enemy players and survive, expecting for random people to heal you is poitless and brings hell of problem when your actual heals goes to the lowest health target instead of you or your group members.
Ask any solo sorceror or magicka nightblade or actually anyone that had to sppam hes healing ward or heals to actually heal up (him, as solo) beacuse it ends in some random folk 20 yards away with no competence to heal him self.

If you want to be a full time healer, find a group and heal YOUR group, thats team work and how it suppouse to be in the first place.

Devilhand · June 2016

Yes

Joy_Division wrote: »

Devilhand wrote: »

The-Baconator wrote: »

You realize people would just stack ten groups of eight in one location instead on just three\four larger groups? It would be a waste of time.

Restrict the heals going only to players in you group and not random people of your alliance will fix that stacking of groups.

No thanks. Some people actually like to heal and contribute to the Alliance War by aiding allies who are not necessarily in thir group.

Also if you limit the PuG herders to 8, that is asking an awful lot of them to actually have a presence in map control. As it is with 24, they have trouble taking Dragonclaw or Drake if there is any opposition.

I think the best solution is to disincentivize the stack on crown blobs of 24 and make it such those players and guilds who min-max and want to win will spread out because it is the best strategy, not because they are forced to. This is something that can be achieved by removing AoE caps, implementing more strategic objectives in Cyrodiil (that do more than simply add points to an Alliance War scoreboard), and revisiting something along the line of dynamic ultimate (not crit based but something else) which gave smaller groups tangible advantages over larger zergs.

What? taking a keep with 8 people is super easy with no opposition.
Right now anyone should be able to take a resource by it self if playing properly, maybe 2 people if need help. I ownt say nothing else, thats another issue called L2P.

Well, yea i expect people to be against it and i respect that, but yet not even one has been abe to give a solution just repeat the same vague ideas. This is a simple and fast thing ZOS can test to reduce lag in cyrodil, rather then adding 100 new towers in the map that wont change anything beacuse people will be able to join 24 man group and heal tag along (= zerg).

Devilhand · June 2016

Yes

GreatWhite000 wrote: »

No, because there are guilds out there right now that actually run multiple groups. So, instead of 1 group of 16 people (all in the same guild or whatever), you'd just have 2 groups of 8 and the "problem" would still persist.

I don't think zerging is the issue. It's the lack of ability to fight zergs with smaller numbers.

Really? How do you beat 24 people with only 4 people in your group?
You cant, beacuse those 24 people sppam 1 skill each, like it is a work or something, "yo, you have to sppam BoL, you 6 jesus beam, and you 4 bombard..."

I dont expect to survive that many if my group is way way smaller beacuse theres no point behind it, its not logic. Yet, the goal of this poll/discussion is to reduce the lag issues by restricting the amount of players per group to 8 (small scale) and avoid getting buffs or heals from random people (restrict it to your self (solo) or group).

Who remember Barrier before Thieves guild? free +20k shield to everyone. mhm... wrong
Yes, this is a social game and it suppouse to be running with more people, but it should be limited to your group not to everyone else.
Even if they stack 3 groups of 8 (24 people), the heals and buff will be limited to that independent group, hence its dfferent than now where any healer nearby will actually help out the zerg.

Satiar · June 2016

ESO has such a tragic problem: lots and lots of players who want to group up and play group content together.

Ghost-Shot · June 2016

Satiar wrote: »

ESO has such a tragic problem: lots and lots of players who want to group up and play group content together.

Those are called zerglings Steve, they are evil people and I honestly don't know wtf they were thinking playing a MMO in the first place.

Ghost-Shot · June 2016

Devilhand wrote: »

GreatWhite000 wrote: »

No, because there are guilds out there right now that actually run multiple groups. So, instead of 1 group of 16 people (all in the same guild or whatever), you'd just have 2 groups of 8 and the "problem" would still persist.

I don't think zerging is the issue. It's the lack of ability to fight zergs with smaller numbers.

Really? How do you beat 24 people with only 4 people in your group?
You cant, beacuse those 24 people sppam 1 skill each, like it is a work or something, "yo, you have to sppam BoL, you 6 jesus beam, and you 4 bombard..."

I dont expect to survive that many if my group is way way smaller beacuse theres no point behind it, its not logic. Yet, the goal of this poll/discussion is to reduce the lag issues by restricting the amount of players per group to 8 (small scale) and avoid getting buffs or heals from random people (restrict it to your self (solo) or group).

Who remember Barrier before Thieves guild? free +20k shield to everyone. mhm... wrong
Yes, this is a social game and it suppouse to be running with more people, but it should be limited to your group not to everyone else.
Even if they stack 3 groups of 8 (24 people), the heals and buff will be limited to that independent group, hence its dfferent than now where any healer nearby will actually help out the zerg.

The better question is why do you think 4 should be able to beat 24 competent players? How does that even make sense?

And FYI if you find a group of 24 that are honestly spamming 1 skill, you can kill those because they are all bad.

Decado · June 2016

Wouldn't change a thing, like blobs said these mega zergs are already multiple groups,

The group size is a max of 24 yet I see red/yellow zergs of 40-60 people on an almost daily basis, and I'm sure other factions experience the same with blues,

My record amount of reds in one keep (glade) was 107 I think I hit in total

Satiar · June 2016

Decado wrote: »

Wouldn't change a thing, like blobs said these mega zergs are already multiple groups,

The group size is a max of 24 yet I see red/yellow zergs of 40-60 people on an almost daily basis, and I'm sure other factions experience the same with blues,

My record amount of reds in one keep (glade) was 107 I think I hit in total

Pretty much. We had confirmed over 120 AD at Aleswell to dethrone AoE BBQ.

That said, it really doesn't matter. At this point in the game it'd almost be fun to do just as something different.

tist · June 2016

No

No. I am all for small groups but people should decide how they want to play.

The Elder Scrolls Online

Would you like a Campaign that restricts the amount of players per group to 8 maximium?

Would you like a Campaign that restricts the amount of players per group to 8 maximium? 83 votes