Derra wrote: »

Biro123 wrote: »

I can't say I agree with you in this, Derra. I personally think small-group is the most toxic kind of gameplay in cyrodiil.

But then I play alone. I can see a large group coming a mile away, easily avoid them, pick at the edges of them get some kills, distract a lot of people for a while. Often I'll make a mistake and die - but that's my fault.

But I see a friendly resource flip or a player or 2 in a distance, head out to engage and then get ganked bey an organised 4-6 man with their timed ulti-dumps, and synergising buffs/heals/tankiness making them indestructible vs one player...

And yes, there are plenty 'small-scale' groups who I see do nothing BUT prey on soloers. They add nothing to the campaign, nothing to their faction - just repeatedly lure out people in their ones and 2's then gang up and dish out a kicking. You especially see them hanging around an enemy keep late at night when population is really low, jumping on anybody who tries to exit said keep. These guys *think* they are the small-scale heroes - but really they are the worst form of zergling there is.

Are you really asking that the people on the receiving-end lose their ability to heal each other, while said toxic farmers get to keep theirs?

Not to mention that it takes a large group - especially when talking pugs - to even think about starting an attack on an enemy keep or opening up a new front. Without large groups, these 'small-scalers' would have no counter. No keeps would get sieged, fights would just run around resources.

I honestly don't know the population demographics in Vivec - but I suspect its maybe 30% large groups, 10% small groups playing alone, 58% soloers/small groups running with the zerg. This would probably make much of the 30% quit - and since the 10% then have no counters - much of the 58% quit too.

Will the smallgrp continue to camp the resource if they have the possibility to participate in large objectives though? From my experience current smallgrp behaviour is a direct result of larger grps just roflstomping them so they only go for sth they can handle.
It´s a hen or the egg kinda question.

I agree on latenight - but when there is no large grp present nothing changes in the first place.

I don´t think randoms need large groups to start a new front - because as you´ve said most zergs are one core with plenty of solo/duo zergsurfers in their wake - so nothing would really change in that regard apart from the core getting smaller (but also the defending numbers).

Also when you say these smallscalers have no counter - what is the current counter to large groups? Exactly another large grp or a real big zerg. Against a smallgrp you´d need another small grp or a smaller zerg. Not much changes there apart from the numbers game making achieving the counter easier.

I'm not so sure.. Yes once the faction-stack gets moving, it will automatically push on to the next keep in the emp-ring - but it will never switch to hit the other faction. Soloers and small groups can't do it - Only a large group can think about trying to re-take Ash while the rest of the faction is infected with Chalmania.. The fact that they usually don't is a different issue - one partly due to the design and spacing in cyro imho.

Large groups have plenty of counters though - ranging from other large groups (yep, the numbers game), to organised small-scale groups with randoms support, to mid-sized guild groups (12-man..ish), to just kiting them around the map. The only ones that don't are the full faction stacks and the really organized high-end ball-groups. I don't think either is good for the game, to be honest - and the answer lies in spreading out the combat more (which, oddly, I think needs a smaller cyrodilil).

For me, ESO is the only game I know of where I can play without a group - having nobody rely on me (and my sudden AFK's) - yet still be able to take part in large-scale combat and help my team with heals/buffs etc.. Maybe that makes it casual friendly - but its a unique (afaik) feature that I really, really like. Yes - I'm the averaqe 'Random' - but there are quite a lot of us.
Don't be a-trying to break my game!

I was listening/reading to the whole thing and I feel it deserves a lot of respect for effort, layout and structure. I usually don't waste time trying to be nice, but in this case I think it's well earned to give you guys some positive feedback. Great job!

Having said that, I just cannot identify myself with a lot of the suggestions being made. I get strong vibes of "coordinated large-scale pvpers with similar mindset regarding the game exchanging ideas in an isolated bubble without having any empathy for how other's might experience cyrodiil pvp".

Vilestride wrote: »

...
And to really re-iterate the point, I think we are forgetting the primary reason people play this game. Let's be honest, next to no one is playing this game because it's 'good'. The primary reason for PVP, for myself at least, and I have no doubt many others, is the community and people you get to raid and play with day to day. I just don't see ZoS taking the risk to compromise that.

But, maybe they will and you'll have the cyrodil you envision.

Basically, the "we know it all" attitude that is being displayed very well here in the quote, shines through. But...thats not how I feel about the game. I don't log for social aspects, I log in for the combat which is still fun and good enough for me to get my PvP fix, preferrably solo.

The problems that are really bothering my personal playing experience are not represented and/or the solutions suggested are clearly coming from someone who isn't experiencing those issues. I personally would not support this agenda, or just parts of it because I tend to think the concept would neither improve my personal playing experience nor the overall quality of gameplay (simple examples for such no-no's: top heavy reward schemes based on AP and stronger NPCs).

Apart from that, Derra has pointed out very well, why PvP is lacking from the POV of a non-largescale-player, I agree with him.

Biro123 wrote: »

For me, ESO is the only game I know of where I can play without a group - having nobody rely on me (and my sudden AFK's) - yet still be able to take part in large-scale combat and help my team with heals/buffs etc.. Maybe that makes it casual friendly - but its a unique (afaik) feature that I really, really like. Yes - I'm the averaqe 'Random' - but there are quite a lot of us.
Don't be a-trying to break my game!

To be honest - i think smaller groups and less possible organisation would greatly improve the game for players like you (or me when i play solo).

Organisation of many is the enemy of the few. Removing the tools to organize many gives more points of attack for someone soloing/duoing.

Vilestride wrote: »

usmcjdking wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

usmcjdking wrote: »

I actually like the ideas but not in the context that was given. The patch notes, the post and the discussion did not lend to me understanding why more people will go into Cyrodiil to fight.

I'm with Derra on this one. From the outside looking in and not having spent much more than 10 minutes pontificating (so take it for what it's worth) the suggested changes are aimed more towards having the winner win harder and the losers lose more(r?). You are incentivizing people to win the campaign - you are not incentivizing people to fight. Nothing in that discussion makes me want to go fight other players any more or less than I currently do.

The changes you are looking for need to incentivize fighting players.

The changes actually give an incentive to spreading fights around the map as resources have a real impact and take time to regain their points value. Additionally if players focus on one keep too much they will lose others leading to further loss of points. Campaign play has always been the way to spread fights out more. The only reason people turtle into keeps is to get the tick / because they don't know any better. If you look at the topics we covered the general aims are 1) focusing on giving a reason to care about the campaign score because that promotes a lot of good gameplay. 2) giving less impact to numbers and nightcapping and 3) more depth of mechanics. By definition incentivising winning the campaign promotes fighting especially with a shorter timer (5m during primetime) players would have to fight and hold keeps and resources to make score.

With the group size argument, i'd say that comes more under combat balancing which we haven't covered. I can agree with some points that group size could potentially be due a change however the only really strong argument for this in my eyes is because of the server population being lower now then it was at launch. 24 man is a larger % of the overall population thus in order to spread fights out smaller groups may be beneficial. I would argue that lower than 12 would be fairly detrimental imo. I disagree completely with limiting healing and support to within groups personally because I feel like that would put the majority of players at an overall disadvantage.

I mean I see what you guys are saying.

I also think you are either discounting or unaware of the impact this will have on your average garden variety farmed pugvegetable. The average cyro pug will not see a spread out map. They will see multiple guild groups running over pugs uncontested because no one can effectively mass enough forces in a single location without paying a huge price.

And because of that, guilds and coordinated groups have a much more lasting and pronounced effect against an enemy faction while the pug's primary effect has been whittled down significantly.

I'm reading this as more available space to destrofarm ungrouped players, not provide more engaging & competetive fights across the map.

So, do you not agree that having more meaningful objectives for small scale groups would have a positive affect on smallscale PVP?

or is it that you just don't think objective based gameplay has anything to do ith good smallscale PVP?

It should have a positive effect on small scale, and a positive effect on large scale.

It should have an adverse effect on map and faction population/combined faction power for reasons I previously stated.

However I don't have a crystal ball here and I could be entirely wrong. It's up to you guys to determine whether the risk is worth the reward.

This thread is what ZOS proposed patch note discussions should look like. A massive thread of nopes. Probably the single best thread I've seen IRT to PVP.

Sandman929 wrote: »

I'm not sure why everyone is focused on group size. Reading the document, I see a lot of changes to campaign rewards and objective value that I think would definitely revitalize objective based play in Cyrodiil and make campaign rewards meaningful and sought after.

yep looks really familiar

Derra wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

I'm not sure why everyone is focused on group size. Reading the document, I see a lot of changes to campaign rewards and objective value that I think would definitely revitalize objective based play in Cyrodiil and make campaign rewards meaningful and sought after.

The problem with this is: On objective based fights the alpha and omega are large organised groups.
The only "counter" to a large organised group is another large organised group.

So these changes would greatly benefit these groups as they´re able to dictate the pvp reality around objectives.

The size of these groups makes it very hard or impossible for casual players to participate in a successful manner - while the groups that already do reap in the new rewards.

Shame upon him who thinks evil upon it.

I'll reply to all the points but wanted to start with this.

• There should be different objectives which are aimed at different group sizes. We have suggested what we beleive to be a *start* to making changes for this.
  
• It is not correct that the only counter to a large organised group is another large organised group. This is just wrong and multiple players who play within such groups can tell you this.
  
• These changes are primarily aimed at creating more emphasis on campaign play. A byproduct of true campaign play is that it spreads fights out and allows more variety of group size and roles(roles as in holding a resource, ganking backlines etc not healer). Incentivising overall map dominance rather than resource flipping every hour and zerg the next keep between those times which we have now in my opinion is a benefit.
  
• The question is very simple. Do you like what we have now? If they answer is No then we move on to the next, Was there a time which you preferred in ESO? assuming the answer is yes nearer launch then we look at the reasoning behind this, from our discussions these reasons generally revolve around the higher population and more active map as to a greater 'variety' of fights.
  
• The 'coordinated Largescale / Smallscale and 1vX' playstyles are byproducts of a skill gap between the high end players who have good game awareness and knowledge vs more casual players who are less familiar with this.
  This was heightened at the launch of the game by both the game being new and also a number of tool which were available and have been removed. In my opinion there should be a reward to coordination and grouping using the tools they have been given. I don't think the answer is saying they shouldn't have the tools in the first place. There should be a progression between someone coming in and throwing LFG into zone and someone coming joining a guild or static group and improving from there. The problem is that these groups often are not fighting eachother because there is no reward to doing so.
  
• You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] The question is very simple. Do you like what we have now? If they answer is No then we move on to the next, Was there a time which you preferred in ESO? assuming the answer is yes nearer launch then we look at the reasoning behind this, from our discussions these reasons generally revolve around the higher population and more active map as to a greater 'variety' of fights.

The answer is no indeed.
But the reasoning is not the one you´re suggesting as they are far more selfish and purely based on combat feeling. Balance wise the game has improved with every patch since homestead imo.
Personally i can see none of your proposed changes do anything that would make me prefer them to the current status quo. So i´m not happy with how it is - i´d be not happy with the changes aswell.

Higher population is something that would help alleviate the current issues large groups present (being able to fight too high of a %age of the total population).
However what speaks against this is performance. The game can´t handle the current status quo.
Which suggests that decreasing numbers in engagements while trying to spread out players and keeping total numbers would be a preferable solution to keeping numbers in engangements the same while increasing total numbers of players.

Also largegroups still present a participation hinderance for anyone not in such a grp that´s not desireable imo.
I firmly do not believe in different objectives for different groupsizes. I believe in objectives creating scenarios with chances for participation for all players in their vicinity. Currently with large groups as they are this couldn´t be further from ingame reality.

It´s kinda futile to argue with players that enjoy largegrp play as much as you do though.
It´s like arguing with a king about creating democratic structures instead of his totalitarianism.
I don´t blame anyone for wanting to keep a status quo they enjoy and pushing for changes that would reinforce their position as godkings of pvp.
I just think labeling this as having everyone best interest in mind is a little far fetched.

I understand where you are coming from, but i doubt reducing group size would lead to the desired results. Those who enjoy solo or small scale play are already limiting their own group size. And those who don't enjoy small scale pvp can't be forced into it.
Organized groups will still be able to organize zergs bigger than the actual group size thanks to voice communication. Maybe slightly less effective, but they could still run arround with 20+ players like they can now and they could still farm randoms who will be less organized too. Because unlike organized guilds those randoms won't form multiple small groups instead of one big "lfg zerg". I can see this very well on Sotha/DC. Often there is no big PuG zerg where all those "lfg" spammers get invited. So what do they do? They go to the nearest crossed swords and stack there together with guilds and other ungrouped randoms or - if there is nothing to stack with - they leave and go to another campaign/faction or log off. But they definitely don't form small groups and spread out. Because forming groups requires someone who takes the initiative and those are rare. Especially among randoms, casuals and new players.

So the question shouldn't be "How can players be forced into more small scale fights?", because that's not going to work. At best it doesn't change much, at worst it drives players away. The question should be "Why aren't there more players who enjoy small scale PvP and what could make it more enjoyable for those who don't like it now?" And the answers will differ greatly depending on who you ask ...

For example, for me personally there are two points (lags and bugs aside - those are by far the worst issues) that come into my mind first when thinking about what annoys me when playing solo or in a small group:

Huge map size and the resulting emptiness and long travel times
Escape options - or more the lack of thereof
The alternative to better escape options would be better fighting options when outnumbered, which i guess is what you are trying to achieve by reducing group size, but again, i'm afraid zergs would just try to compensate with even more numbers and if it doesn't work out, people become frustrated and stop playing. So even as someone who doesn't enjoy zerging, i'm not sure if "weakening zergs" is actually that desireable. It could very well backfire ...

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] The question is very simple. Do you like what we have now? If they answer is No then we move on to the next, Was there a time which you preferred in ESO? assuming the answer is yes nearer launch then we look at the reasoning behind this, from our discussions these reasons generally revolve around the higher population and more active map as to a greater 'variety' of fights.

So i´m not happy with how it is - i´d be not happy with the changes aswell.

Higher population is something that would help alleviate the current issues large groups present (being able to fight too high of a %age of the total population).
However what speaks against this is performance. The game can´t handle the current status quo.
Which suggests that decreasing numbers in engagements while trying to spread out players and keeping total numbers would be a preferable solution to keeping numbers in engangements the same while increasing total numbers of players.

Also largegroups still present a participation hinderance for anyone not in such a grp that´s not desireable imo.
I firmly do not believe in different objectives for different groupsizes. I believe in objectives creating scenarios with chances for participation for all players in their vicinity. Currently with large groups as they are this couldn´t be further from ingame reality.

It´s kinda futile to argue with players that enjoy largegrp play as much as you do though.
It´s like arguing with a king about creating democratic structures instead of his totalitarianism.
I don´t blame anyone for wanting to keep a status quo they enjoy and pushing for changes that would reinforce their position as godkings of pvp.
I just think labeling this as having everyone best interest in mind is a little far fetched.

The question you would need to ask yourself is that if you are not happy now and you still wouldnt be happy after these changes. Is the situation better, worse or no different?

These changes in our opinion would improve gameplay by offering you more fights where you could participate in the type of engagements you enjoy as well as rewarding you better for them.

I'm sure there are a set of changes (for example reducing group size might be one of them) which would specifically enhance your preferred area of play and we can of course discuss them but it shouldn't take away from the others it should add to it.

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.
[/list]

Adjusting to that would precisely end in what i think is problematic in current eso pvp: Bring more people.

You kinda proved my point for me there

Unfortunately this isn't the case. The answer "Bring more people" isn't always the solution to a problem. For example, knowing that you might fight vastly outnumbered you can alter many things, for example: Build, Roles, Environment. Bringing more is certainly one factor but its no more valid then any of the others.

I think the thing it comes down to is expectations. The vast majority of players seem to think that they should always be able to win a fight by having a 1vX setup with an AOE ulti that they can coordinate. This isn't always the case.

One such change if you were constantly being zerged down would be to bring a nb bomber instead of a different class (as an example).

Another example might be having a dedicated healer instead of someone else to account for the times where your own defences are overwhelmed and you cannot be supported by simply another hybrid damage dealer.

Moving the fight to terrain which favours you, places you can streak or kite around and reduce the numbers allowing you to pick off ones and twos etc.

For me the argument there lies on the fact that you consider the answer to only be "bring more" is more likely to be the reason why you struggle in that scenario then the fact you are overwhelmed.

Its like groups who say "oh my god we got zerged" and complain about it, what were you aiming to fight by going to faregyl as a back keep (just an example).

In our case, as a 4 man group that can take on about 4 times our numbers usually (granted they aren't of similar skill of course), if we wipe to such numbers yeah we usually try to figure out what went wrong, we didn't move back fast enough, we should have that that skill slotted, or this set would be more appropriate, let's go farm it. But we're all veteran players.

What happens if we are 4 new players trying pvp for the time in the group format that dungeons taught us? What happens when we end up facing a 20 man group? That's when the answer picked is most likely to be "bring more people".

And "bring more people" is definitely the choice that most players choose when they face us and wipe. I remember loads of fight where the pugs we killed 3 min ago come back with 10 more people, but I have almost no recollection of any group coming back and trying a different approach against us.

Etaniel wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] The question is very simple. Do you like what we have now? If they answer is No then we move on to the next, Was there a time which you preferred in ESO? assuming the answer is yes nearer launch then we look at the reasoning behind this, from our discussions these reasons generally revolve around the higher population and more active map as to a greater 'variety' of fights.

So i´m not happy with how it is - i´d be not happy with the changes aswell.

Higher population is something that would help alleviate the current issues large groups present (being able to fight too high of a %age of the total population).
However what speaks against this is performance. The game can´t handle the current status quo.
Which suggests that decreasing numbers in engagements while trying to spread out players and keeping total numbers would be a preferable solution to keeping numbers in engangements the same while increasing total numbers of players.

Also largegroups still present a participation hinderance for anyone not in such a grp that´s not desireable imo.
I firmly do not believe in different objectives for different groupsizes. I believe in objectives creating scenarios with chances for participation for all players in their vicinity. Currently with large groups as they are this couldn´t be further from ingame reality.

It´s kinda futile to argue with players that enjoy largegrp play as much as you do though.
It´s like arguing with a king about creating democratic structures instead of his totalitarianism.
I don´t blame anyone for wanting to keep a status quo they enjoy and pushing for changes that would reinforce their position as godkings of pvp.
I just think labeling this as having everyone best interest in mind is a little far fetched.

The question you would need to ask yourself is that if you are not happy now and you still wouldnt be happy after these changes. Is the situation better, worse or no different?

These changes in our opinion would improve gameplay by offering you more fights where you could participate in the type of engagements you enjoy as well as rewarding you better for them.

I'm sure there are a set of changes (for example reducing group size might be one of them) which would specifically enhance your preferred area of play and we can of course discuss them but it shouldn't take away from the others it should add to it.

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.
[/list]

Adjusting to that would precisely end in what i think is problematic in current eso pvp: Bring more people.

You kinda proved my point for me there

Unfortunately this isn't the case. The answer "Bring more people" isn't always the solution to a problem. For example, knowing that you might fight vastly outnumbered you can alter many things, for example: Build, Roles, Environment. Bringing more is certainly one factor but its no more valid then any of the others.

I think the thing it comes down to is expectations. The vast majority of players seem to think that they should always be able to win a fight by having a 1vX setup with an AOE ulti that they can coordinate. This isn't always the case.

One such change if you were constantly being zerged down would be to bring a nb bomber instead of a different class (as an example).

Another example might be having a dedicated healer instead of someone else to account for the times where your own defences are overwhelmed and you cannot be supported by simply another hybrid damage dealer.

Moving the fight to terrain which favours you, places you can streak or kite around and reduce the numbers allowing you to pick off ones and twos etc.

For me the argument there lies on the fact that you consider the answer to only be "bring more" is more likely to be the reason why you struggle in that scenario then the fact you are overwhelmed.

Its like groups who say "oh my god we got zerged" and complain about it, what were you aiming to fight by going to faregyl as a back keep (just an example).

In our case, as a 4 man group that can take on about 4 times our numbers usually (granted they aren't of similar skill of course), if we wipe to such numbers yeah we usually try to figure out what went wrong, we didn't move back fast enough, we should have that that skill slotted, or this set would be more appropriate, let's go farm it. But we're all veteran players.

What happens if we are 4 new players trying pvp for the time in the group format that dungeons taught us? What happens when we end up facing a 20 man group? That's when the answer picked is most likely to be "bring more people".

And "bring more people" is definitely the choice that most players choose when they face us and wipe. I remember loads of fight where the pugs we killed 3 min ago come back with 10 more people, but I have almost no recollection of any group coming back and trying a different approach against us.

I see that happen a lot from the other side - but I don't think its a conscious 'lets bring more people' decision - you're giving people too much credit. I honestly think its more like an organic increase... I mean if you take a resource around an enemy keep - somebody will arrive first to take it back. These are usually soloers/randoms - since they require no communication/co-ordination, they often move around the map and react to stuff the quickest.

You then outnumber and beat them down. They respawn, thinking.. 'right - I know what I'm facing now - gonna be a bit more careful'.. and come back.. By then a few others have spotted the wrong-coloured resource as they die - and decided to respawn close-by to flip it back - and come out of the keep more-or less with those first responders...
Then a crossed-swords appears - which only attracts more of the ungrouped randoms or small-scalers.

Nobody asked for more people to come. It just happened. The only solution imho is for stuff to be more spread out - for stuff to be happening in many different places at once - so you get less people reacting to each 'thing' - cos everybody can't be everywhere.. Not sure how Zos can encourage that.. maybe increase rewards for defending? (but don't want to stop people from attacking either) - maybe make cyro smaller? Maybe add a lot more spawn points along with it being smaller?.. idk..

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.
[/list]

Adjusting to that would precisely end in what i think is problematic in current eso pvp: Bring more people.

You kinda proved my point for me there

Unfortunately this isn't the case. The answer "Bring more people" isn't always the solution to a problem. For example, knowing that you might fight vastly outnumbered you can alter many things, for example: Build, Roles, Environment. Bringing more is certainly one factor but its no more valid then any of the others.

I think the thing it comes down to is expectations. The vast majority of players seem to think that they should always be able to win a fight by having a 1vX setup with an AOE ulti that they can coordinate. This isn't always the case.

One such change if you were constantly being zerged down would be to bring a nb bomber instead of a different class (as an example).

Another example might be having a dedicated healer instead of someone else to account for the times where your own defences are overwhelmed and you cannot be supported by simply another hybrid damage dealer.

Moving the fight to terrain which favours you, places you can streak or kite around and reduce the numbers allowing you to pick off ones and twos etc.

For me the argument there lies on the fact that you consider the answer to only be "bring more" is more likely to be the reason why you struggle in that scenario then the fact you are overwhelmed.

Its like groups who say "oh my god we got zerged" and complain about it, what were you aiming to fight by going to faregyl as a back keep (just an example).

This is the equivalent of me trying to lecture sanct about largegrp pvp.

Sometimes you just better say nothing at all.

I think everyone bringing a sensible argument can be listened to even if not agreed with, lets agree to disagree since the discussion is off the topic of these specific changes anyway

Is Camelot Unchained out yet?

how do you decide who's top tier and who's not ? I mean, the issue I have with that it that it implies that you can use a ranking system different from the one we have right now. Cause AP made doesn't exactly mean something in a campaign.
I, for instance, only log in from 20 to 23 everyday (or close) for raid and I stopped smallscaling quite a long time ago. I still make more ap than 90% of the server population. Do I deserve a spot in the competitive campaign because I run with a highly efficient group ? There's better player than me out here, they just don't care too much about AP rate or K/D ratio. So how do you decide who's in and who's not ?

A campaign with 20 people in it sounds pretty boring tbh... Unless you get 100's of pugs to join the server to boost the numbers but then like how is that different to what we already have?