BohnT wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

BohnT wrote: »

If you don't want to see any organized bigger group again just get rid of Rapids and one of their biggest advantage, their organized mobility and pressure, is lost and they are done

All you will see then is the 40-80m faction zerg. But tbh removing rapids would make no difference to organised groups XD

Without rapids it's much easier for the unorganised blob to separate single players from the group when they can't catch up again and depending who dies then it's the end for the group.

If rapids were removed people would just use forward momentum. If that was removed they would just move with purge. If that was removed with dodge roll/mist.

Etaniel wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

BohnT wrote: »

If you don't want to see any organized bigger group again just get rid of Rapids and one of their biggest advantage, their organized mobility and pressure, is lost and they are done

All you will see then is the 40-80m faction zerg. But tbh removing rapids would make no difference to organised groups XD

Those aren't even a problem anymore though.
But you're right, just like reducing group size, removing rapids wouldn't make a difference.
Removing destro ults, purge, proxys, healing springs, nothing can ever diminish them, because organised groups only rely on their skill and bare fists of course

Generally any decent players can adapt to a change yes.

Feanor wrote: »

That said, I like watching groups which try to fight twice or thrice their numbers, even it’s just proxy Det Destro Ult permafrost cheese. It’s amazing that PuGs never learn.

What would be the proper approach to destroy groups twice or thrice your numbers?

Etaniel wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

Friendly fire is the way to go in a controlled environment like private matches or on servers with admins present, but it would never work in ESO PVP as it is currently administered.

It can work but you all are thinking of instant cast AOE.

This change would have to be locked behind an expensive channel similar to inevitable Det. This way you can interrupt as counter play.

But would be sexy to charge up an AOE channel to then accidently hit your own team because you failed to share or time it correctly in large scale fights. Then we can do away with stupid player versus player seiges.

And in BGs running these abilities would be harder because no one is zerging or in a ball and coordinated single target pressure can only be alleviated by repositioning+healing. Plus the high cost would make it stupid to run, unless you can safely use it.

I don't see what the difference changing how AEs work would make. I am all for friendly fire, but it would make griefing far too easy in a game with no active administration at all. Plus this game is full of MMO/PVP noobs that would make friendly fire unbearable, even outside of griefing.

In GvG, without a doubt, it would be a huge improvement.

I just like to see the world burn sometimes lol.

Also here's a counter thought, of DMG can't be friendly fire, then why can aoe healing heal your allies

No, the actual question would be why doesn't aoe healing heal your enemies

In this scenario it should heal both enemies and friends, just as doing damage would harm enemies and friends. Part of the problem is skills like Boundless Storm or Cleansing ritual (the damage version). This game would require a huge overhaul.

@zyk

That’s the point. I think the best ball group players have their cohesive play automated and memorized to the points where they could play with closed eyes so to speak.

zyk wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

Yes yes. Still, would you say it’s interesting and skilled to coordinate everything on a call?

Skill is a subjective term. It's not the kind of skill that wins a 1v1, but it takes certain skills to be an effective ball group player. Just like it takes different skills to be a good chef and a good hockey player. I have seen strong solo players completely suck in ball groups.

Though, in any environment, if you spend if the majority of time competing against players you completely outclass in any terms (which is necessary to fight 2-3x your numbers), I would think the novelty should wear off pretty quickly. The saving grace in this scenario is map play.

Like I doubt Lebron James would enjoy 1vXing a beer league basketball team -- not that anyone here is anywhere near a Lebron James -- or the GSW would enjoy a 5v15 basketball game against amateurs, but whatever floats their boat I guess.. er floats their ball?

The Finals seemed like a 5v1 game against LeBron, but I digress

Pls Nerf Golden State,

A Salty Cleveland Fan.

Etaniel wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

BohnT wrote: »

If you don't want to see any organized bigger group again just get rid of Rapids and one of their biggest advantage, their organized mobility and pressure, is lost and they are done

All you will see then is the 40-80m faction zerg. But tbh removing rapids would make no difference to organised groups XD

Those aren't even a problem anymore though.
But you're right, just like reducing group size, removing rapids wouldn't make a difference.
Removing destro ults, purge, proxys, healing springs, nothing can ever diminish them, because organised groups only rely on their skill and bare fists of course

Generally any decent players can adapt to a change yes.

Except if you all slot forward momentum, then it's everyone needing to rebuff instead of 1 or 2 guys providing the buff to everyone. And just like that, your group starts to suffer the lag as much as every group that doesn't have dedicated roles.

Tbh all i want is for ball groups to actually realise how miserable it is when it lags, just like the rest of us do. Like really, there's nothing more irritating than what I described a little bit higher, we fail for an entire hour and keep wiping, and we come to roebeck to see that a ball group has been farming while we can't do sh**, because we rely on single target that gets quadruple dodged during lag while you guys rely on aoe dmg/heals.

And don't tell me that you are affected by lag as much as the rest, you wouldn't be able to farm a keep for an hour if you were

That's why we need all you single players to join us in BGs! Sure the cheese is ultra smelly, and you'll have to rebuild your Vivec build, but there's no lag! (unless you have truly potato comp/internet).

Vincelex wrote: »

It seems to me whenever people mention ball-groups there are specific ones in mind. all ball groups are not the same. I'm sure these comments aren't being made about pug and lfg groups even though, in my experience, ball up even more; as a bigger raid or with pugs around them. So are ball groups the issue or the way higher skilled ones operate? And that question goes back to if what people are asking for is to nerf the mechanic of groups or to nerf specific groups?

The problem there is that you can't nerf the very things that make organized raids effective: their organization and group cooperation.

Any thing you do to nerf groups in general, organized raids will adapt and overcome better than any disorganized group or zerg. Anything you do to nerf the skills that organized raids use, they'll adapt and overcome, finding solutions to address their weaknesses - again, better than disorganized group or zerg can.

For example, removing the AOE cap was sort of a buff to anyone who fights organized raids because you can now damage all of the raid, not just 6 players. But in practice, it's been a better buff for organized raids who can cover their weaknesses while making heavy use of their own AOEs on enemies.

Basically, in the PVP arms race, the organization and group cooperation of organized raids means they come out on top, again and again, despite many changes in the game.

zyk wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

The problem there is that you can't nerf the very things that make organized raids effective: their organization and group cooperation.

Remove Earthgore and watch most "organized raids" wipe to strong small groups or even strong randoms.

Yes, at least the organized raids that stack 14 Earthgore in 20 players. Fortunately, I've played both those types and the the types of organized raids that don't crutch on the FotM sets, and that's why I've got the opinion I do.

Additionally, some of those organized raids that enjoyed Earthgore a little too much have shifted away from it with the current nerfs and are still doing just fine. That's exactly my point - nerf what they rely on and they'll adapt and overcome because you can't nerf organization and group cooperation. Short of the PVP guilds that implode due to guild drama, the guild raids I fight regularly are still fighting strong despite major game changes. They've adapted to the changes and gear nerfs and still keep fighting well as an organized raid.

BohnT wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

BohnT wrote: »

If you don't want to see any organized bigger group again just get rid of Rapids and one of their biggest advantage, their organized mobility and pressure, is lost and they are done

All you will see then is the 40-80m faction zerg. But tbh removing rapids would make no difference to organised groups XD

Without rapids it's much easier for the unorganised blob to separate single players from the group when they can't catch up again and depending who dies then it's the end for the group.

Also a great way to make classes like Templar even less useful.

It's a sad state of affairs when people can somehow justify to themselves that the fundamental organizational grouping of players in a Alliance v Alliance v Alliance battleground on a map that's probably 8-10 miles on each side in a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME is illogical or harmful for that manner.

Of course it's fkin logical. It's the natural endstate for players in PVP. ESO was somewhat unique in that it enabled solo players to be effective on even a macro-scale and it has since done it's best to destroy that method of playing, but groups/ball groups are the logical endstate to Cyrodiil.


If you have problems with the effectiveness and efficiency of groups then that is a whole different subject. The onus of performance imbalance is not on the people who strive to be the most effective - it's on the people who create the parameters for effectiveness (i.e. devs).