VaranisArano wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.

This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.

IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.

I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.

So why do you keep trying to lower pug groups like Big Bosses numbers so that you can beat them if you expect to lose these fights and are ok with it?

Sandman929 wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.

This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.

IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.

I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.

Zergs should always win? Interesting.

Strawman arguments much?


Read again. Understand what´s written. Realise what you bring up has nothing to do with what i wrote.

Theoretically speaking:
3 fighting 12 isn´t the same as 1group fighting an entire faction.
Why isn´t it the same? In our scenario they can bring more people. In your scenario there is a game/serverside limitation that doesn´t allow for that option.
Which is why i write that one group should not ever have the option to aim for being able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against them.

Or: If the numbers of a zerg are suffiently high it should take a zerg to defeat them. Maybe a better organized smaller one with 2 or 3 good groups in it vs 2 to 3 times their numbers - but never one group.

Well, we should really dial this in to exactly where you're comfortable. How many should a group of 12-16 be able to deal with?

I don't think he has a problem with the numerical value of people that a group is able to fight. 16 people fighting 60 enemies isn't a problem in itself - it is a problem if you consider that 60 people represent more than 50% of the entire enemy faction.

This^

if we´d have 500 people pvping per faction i wouldn´t think 24 man groups are too big (theoretically - ignoring lag in this scenario) and i´d be fine with 24 good organized players fighting 80 unorganised pugs - because that would still mean they´re only fighting ~ 20% of the whole faction.

If 24 players in an organized raid are fighting 80 players of your faction, and the organized raid is winning...

Then those 80 players of your faction aren't very good. Either they are trickling in, or not coordinating or just plain using bad tactics. Its got nothing to do with the % of your faction.

Ive been on both ends of that, the 24 man raid fighting a faction stack and winning (and losing) AND the zerging faction stack fighting the 24 man raid and winning (and losing). When that 24 man raid beats the faction stack, we generally had halfway decent support from our own PUGs and the enemy was just uncoordinated, disorganized, and generally not able to counter an organized group fighting them. When I've been on the faction stack side, we eventually beat the 24 man raid through persistence, not throwing ourselves at them stupidly, and actually acting semi-organized ourselves. Heck, that's what works even when I'm not in a faction stack. Smaller groups of PUGs can use smart play to take down organized raids too.

Or to put it another way, IMO, if a 24 man raid can manhandle your faction stack, the problem is not with the ability of 24 organized players to use their skills and tactics effectively. The problem is that 60-80 of your faction players cant manage to fight effectively or use decent tactics even when the numbers are in their favor.

You say that organized groups shouldn't expect to win every fight. I say that disorganized groups/zerg/faction stacks shouldn't expect to win many fights against a superiorly organized force if they aren't willing to play smart. There is not a point where sheer numbers but dumb play ought to automatically win against smaller numbers using smart, organized play. Because in my experience, if those sheer numbers are willing to use intelligent tactics themselves, the faction stack can and will beat the 24 man organized raid.

Now, the % of factions is something you'll have to take up with ZOS. But the principle is the same. If a raid of 24 are destroying 80 players, I'm questioning the tactics of the 80 players, not the 24. If those 80 (or 60 or 40 or 30) were playing smart, in my experience, the zerg or faction stack usually can beat the 24 man raid if they play smart.

Derra wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.

This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.

IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.

I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.

So why do you keep trying to lower pug groups like Big Bosses numbers so that you can beat them if you expect to lose these fights and are ok with it?

Sandman929 wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.

This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.

IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.

I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.

Zergs should always win? Interesting.

Strawman arguments much?


Read again. Understand what´s written. Realise what you bring up has nothing to do with what i wrote.

Theoretically speaking:
3 fighting 12 isn´t the same as 1group fighting an entire faction.
Why isn´t it the same? In our scenario they can bring more people. In your scenario there is a game/serverside limitation that doesn´t allow for that option.
Which is why i write that one group should not ever have the option to aim for being able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against them.

Or: If the numbers of a zerg are suffiently high it should take a zerg to defeat them. Maybe a better organized smaller one with 2 or 3 good groups in it vs 2 to 3 times their numbers - but never one group.

Well, we should really dial this in to exactly where you're comfortable. How many should a group of 12-16 be able to deal with?

I don't think he has a problem with the numerical value of people that a group is able to fight. 16 people fighting 60 enemies isn't a problem in itself - it is a problem if you consider that 60 people represent more than 50% of the entire enemy faction.

This^

if we´d have 500 people pvping per faction i wouldn´t think 24 man groups are too big (theoretically - ignoring lag in this scenario) and i´d be fine with 24 good organized players fighting 80 unorganised pugs - because that would still mean they´re only fighting ~ 20% of the whole faction.

If 24 players in an organized raid are fighting 80 players of your faction, and the organized raid is winning...

Then those 80 players of your faction aren't very good. Either they are trickling in, or not coordinating or just plain using bad tactics. Its got nothing to do with the % of your faction.

Ive been on both ends of that, the 24 man raid fighting a faction stack and winning (and losing) AND the zerging faction stack fighting the 24 man raid and winning (and losing). When that 24 man raid beats the faction stack, we generally had halfway decent support from our own PUGs and the enemy was just uncoordinated, disorganized, and generally not able to counter an organized group fighting them. When I've been on the faction stack side, we eventually beat the 24 man raid through persistence, not throwing ourselves at them stupidly, and actually acting semi-organized ourselves. Heck, that's what works even when I'm not in a faction stack. Smaller groups of PUGs can use smart play to take down organized raids too.

Or to put it another way, IMO, if a 24 man raid can manhandle your faction stack, the problem is not with the ability of 24 organized players to use their skills and tactics effectively. The problem is that 60-80 of your faction players cant manage to fight effectively or use decent tactics even when the numbers are in their favor.

You say that organized groups shouldn't expect to win every fight. I say that disorganized groups/zerg/faction stacks shouldn't expect to win many fights against a superiorly organized force if they aren't willing to play smart. There is not a point where sheer numbers but dumb play ought to automatically win against smaller numbers using smart, organized play. Because in my experience, if those sheer numbers are willing to use intelligent tactics themselves, the faction stack can and will beat the 24 man organized raid.

Now, the % of factions is something you'll have to take up with ZOS. But the principle is the same. If a raid of 24 are destroying 80 players, I'm questioning the tactics of the 80 players, not the 24. If those 80 (or 60 or 40 or 30) were playing smart, in my experience, the zerg or faction stack usually can beat the 24 man raid if they play smart.

I have no idea how you can write such a wall of text @VaranisArano but entirely miss the point i´ve made - except if it should be intentional.

Besided this i also think that you´re wrong in the relatively unrelated statements you make about fight dynamics (i agree for small numbers but not for large numbers) - because one of the key features what makes open pvp attractive for all kinds of players (good and bad) is the ability to tip the scales of a fight with numbers.
Good will seek challenge by reducing their own or increasing enemys numbers.
Bad players will try to overcome their shortcomings with mass - and that´s fine.

Having one group of good players being able to undermine the bad players ability to bring more people (with one group being the important part) destroys a large part of what makes open world pvp playable for everyone.
Especially if you consider that the good players/groups intentionally ignore other groups when bad players are around as was stated earlier in this topic.
The bad players get abandoned by their own factions good players and the game does not allow them to bring more people aswell because pop caps are too low in relation to groupsize.
That´s what´s happening currently in eso.
It´s idiotic.

Also numbers in my posts are completely arbitrairy and don´t relate to ingame experiences - they´re brought up to make the problem more accessible than purely discussing theory.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.

This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.

IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.

I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.

So why do you keep trying to lower pug groups like Big Bosses numbers so that you can beat them if you expect to lose these fights and are ok with it?

Sandman929 wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.

This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.

IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.

I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.

Zergs should always win? Interesting.

Strawman arguments much?


Read again. Understand what´s written. Realise what you bring up has nothing to do with what i wrote.

Theoretically speaking:
3 fighting 12 isn´t the same as 1group fighting an entire faction.
Why isn´t it the same? In our scenario they can bring more people. In your scenario there is a game/serverside limitation that doesn´t allow for that option.
Which is why i write that one group should not ever have the option to aim for being able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against them.

Or: If the numbers of a zerg are suffiently high it should take a zerg to defeat them. Maybe a better organized smaller one with 2 or 3 good groups in it vs 2 to 3 times their numbers - but never one group.

Well, we should really dial this in to exactly where you're comfortable. How many should a group of 12-16 be able to deal with?

I don't think he has a problem with the numerical value of people that a group is able to fight. 16 people fighting 60 enemies isn't a problem in itself - it is a problem if you consider that 60 people represent more than 50% of the entire enemy faction.

This^

if we´d have 500 people pvping per faction i wouldn´t think 24 man groups are too big (theoretically - ignoring lag in this scenario) and i´d be fine with 24 good organized players fighting 80 unorganised pugs - because that would still mean they´re only fighting ~ 20% of the whole faction.

If 24 players in an organized raid are fighting 80 players of your faction, and the organized raid is winning...

Then those 80 players of your faction aren't very good. Either they are trickling in, or not coordinating or just plain using bad tactics. Its got nothing to do with the % of your faction.

Ive been on both ends of that, the 24 man raid fighting a faction stack and winning (and losing) AND the zerging faction stack fighting the 24 man raid and winning (and losing). When that 24 man raid beats the faction stack, we generally had halfway decent support from our own PUGs and the enemy was just uncoordinated, disorganized, and generally not able to counter an organized group fighting them. When I've been on the faction stack side, we eventually beat the 24 man raid through persistence, not throwing ourselves at them stupidly, and actually acting semi-organized ourselves. Heck, that's what works even when I'm not in a faction stack. Smaller groups of PUGs can use smart play to take down organized raids too.

Or to put it another way, IMO, if a 24 man raid can manhandle your faction stack, the problem is not with the ability of 24 organized players to use their skills and tactics effectively. The problem is that 60-80 of your faction players cant manage to fight effectively or use decent tactics even when the numbers are in their favor.

You say that organized groups shouldn't expect to win every fight. I say that disorganized groups/zerg/faction stacks shouldn't expect to win many fights against a superiorly organized force if they aren't willing to play smart. There is not a point where sheer numbers but dumb play ought to automatically win against smaller numbers using smart, organized play. Because in my experience, if those sheer numbers are willing to use intelligent tactics themselves, the faction stack can and will beat the 24 man organized raid.

Now, the % of factions is something you'll have to take up with ZOS. But the principle is the same. If a raid of 24 are destroying 80 players, I'm questioning the tactics of the 80 players, not the 24. If those 80 (or 60 or 40 or 30) were playing smart, in my experience, the zerg or faction stack usually can beat the 24 man raid if they play smart.

I have no idea how you can write such a wall of text @VaranisArano but entirely miss the point i´ve made - except if it should be intentional.

Besided this i also think that you´re wrong in the relatively unrelated statements you make about fight dynamics (i agree for small numbers but not for large numbers) - because one of the key features what makes open pvp attractive for all kinds of players (good and bad) is the ability to tip the scales of a fight with numbers.
Good will seek challenge by reducing their own or increasing enemys numbers.
Bad players will try to overcome their shortcomings with mass - and that´s fine.

Having one group of good players being able to undermine the bad players ability to bring more people (with one group being the important part) destroys a large part of what makes open world pvp playable for everyone.
Especially if you consider that the good players/groups intentionally ignore other groups when bad players are around as was stated earlier in this topic.
The bad players get abandoned by their own factions good players and the game does not allow them to bring more people aswell because pop caps are too low in relation to groupsize.
That´s what´s happening currently in eso.
It´s idiotic.

Also numbers in my posts are completely arbitrairy and don´t relate to ingame experiences - they´re brought up to make the problem more accessible than purely discussing theory.

Honestly at this point you argue the same issue in every thread that others make regardless of what the thread is about. It begs the question why you don't just make your own thread and discuss the topic of Cyrodiil population and group sizes there where there could actually be a focused discussion on it.

In response to the general replies which range from "it shouldnt be possible to kill more players than yourselves in a group" and "numbers should always be able to win" I completely disagree.

The point is that you build in such a way that you have a decent chance for winning the fights you engage in. As a smallscale player you engage in smallscale fights, resource farms, kiting etc.. you build to try and win those encounters. as a Large scale group you build to try and win large scale objectives, for example taking a keep under pressure, defending, fighting enemy faction stacks, relieving map pressure areas to spread out fighting. etc...

The context of winning shifts depending on the objective. For example yes we might be able to kill multiple numbers of pugs and even some coordinated groups on top of those pugs but it might be unlikely that we take the keep in that situation. What it does mean however is that we can engage in a number of different fights around the map and have shifting objectives rather than focusing only on fighting a small-medium amount of pugs around a LOS heavy area and basically nothing else.

In addition there is ALWAYS the option to improve, group up, coordinate, siege, pull etc.. For you its only black and white "bring more players" to overcome a problem. I personally don't think that should be encouraged. ESO already has a huge problem with faction stacking and if there are no organised groups then those are the only things you see on the map. There is no reason to spread out otherwise.

I think your view is extremely short sighted and is a good example of why the game has changed in the poor ways it has for the past numerous patches. i.e. "deal with X problem" rather than think about the game as a whole or the ramifications of those decisions.

You have a point about the pop cap and group sizes it would be an interesting discussion to have but honestly after something like the 40th post you try to hijack over it I'm kind of a little bored to discuss it with you now.

VaranisArano wrote: »

ezeepeezee wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.

This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.

IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.

I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.

So why do you keep trying to lower pug groups like Big Bosses numbers so that you can beat them if you expect to lose these fights and are ok with it?

Sandman929 wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.

This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.

IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.

I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.

Zergs should always win? Interesting.

Strawman arguments much?


Read again. Understand what´s written. Realise what you bring up has nothing to do with what i wrote.

Theoretically speaking:
3 fighting 12 isn´t the same as 1group fighting an entire faction.
Why isn´t it the same? In our scenario they can bring more people. In your scenario there is a game/serverside limitation that doesn´t allow for that option.
Which is why i write that one group should not ever have the option to aim for being able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against them.

Or: If the numbers of a zerg are suffiently high it should take a zerg to defeat them. Maybe a better organized smaller one with 2 or 3 good groups in it vs 2 to 3 times their numbers - but never one group.

Well, we should really dial this in to exactly where you're comfortable. How many should a group of 12-16 be able to deal with?

I don't think he has a problem with the numerical value of people that a group is able to fight. 16 people fighting 60 enemies isn't a problem in itself - it is a problem if you consider that 60 people represent more than 50% of the entire enemy faction.

This^

if we´d have 500 people pvping per faction i wouldn´t think 24 man groups are too big (theoretically - ignoring lag in this scenario) and i´d be fine with 24 good organized players fighting 80 unorganised pugs - because that would still mean they´re only fighting ~ 20% of the whole faction.

If 24 players in an organized raid are fighting 80 players of your faction, and the organized raid is winning...

Then those 80 players of your faction aren't very good. Either they are trickling in, or not coordinating or just plain using bad tactics. Its got nothing to do with the % of your faction.

Ive been on both ends of that, the 24 man raid fighting a faction stack and winning (and losing) AND the zerging faction stack fighting the 24 man raid and winning (and losing). When that 24 man raid beats the faction stack, we generally had halfway decent support from our own PUGs and the enemy was just uncoordinated, disorganized, and generally not able to counter an organized group fighting them. When I've been on the faction stack side, we eventually beat the 24 man raid through persistence, not throwing ourselves at them stupidly, and actually acting semi-organized ourselves. Heck, that's what works even when I'm not in a faction stack. Smaller groups of PUGs can use smart play to take down organized raids too.

Or to put it another way, IMO, if a 24 man raid can manhandle your faction stack, the problem is not with the ability of 24 organized players to use their skills and tactics effectively. The problem is that 60-80 of your faction players cant manage to fight effectively or use decent tactics even when the numbers are in their favor.

You say that organized groups shouldn't expect to win every fight. I say that disorganized groups/zerg/faction stacks shouldn't expect to win many fights against a superiorly organized force if they aren't willing to play smart. There is not a point where sheer numbers but dumb play ought to automatically win against smaller numbers using smart, organized play. Because in my experience, if those sheer numbers are willing to use intelligent tactics themselves, the faction stack can and will beat the 24 man organized raid.

Now, the % of factions is something you'll have to take up with ZOS. But the principle is the same. If a raid of 24 are destroying 80 players, I'm questioning the tactics of the 80 players, not the 24. If those 80 (or 60 or 40 or 30) were playing smart, in my experience, the zerg or faction stack usually can beat the 24 man raid if they play smart.

I have no idea how you can write such a wall of text @VaranisArano but entirely miss the point i´ve made - except if it should be intentional.

Besided this i also think that you´re wrong in the relatively unrelated statements you make about fight dynamics (i agree for small numbers but not for large numbers) - because one of the key features what makes open pvp attractive for all kinds of players (good and bad) is the ability to tip the scales of a fight with numbers.
Good will seek challenge by reducing their own or increasing enemys numbers.
Bad players will try to overcome their shortcomings with mass - and that´s fine.

Having one group of good players being able to undermine the bad players ability to bring more people (with one group being the important part) destroys a large part of what makes open world pvp playable for everyone.
Especially if you consider that the good players/groups intentionally ignore other groups when bad players are around as was stated earlier in this topic.
The bad players get abandoned by their own factions good players and the game does not allow them to bring more people aswell because pop caps are too low in relation to groupsize.
That´s what´s happening currently in eso.
It´s idiotic.

Also numbers in my posts are completely arbitrairy and don´t relate to ingame experiences - they´re brought up to make the problem more accessible than purely discussing theory.

Honestly at this point you argue the same issue in every thread that others make regardless of what the thread is about. It begs the question why you don't just make your own thread and discuss the topic of Cyrodiil population and group sizes there where there could actually be a focused discussion on it.

In response to the general replies which range from "it shouldnt be possible to kill more players than yourselves in a group" and "numbers should always be able to win" I completely disagree.

The point is that you build in such a way that you have a decent chance for winning the fights you engage in. As a smallscale player you engage in smallscale fights, resource farms, kiting etc.. you build to try and win those encounters. as a Large scale group you build to try and win large scale objectives, for example taking a keep under pressure, defending, fighting enemy faction stacks, relieving map pressure areas to spread out fighting. etc...

The context of winning shifts depending on the objective. For example yes we might be able to kill multiple numbers of pugs and even some coordinated groups on top of those pugs but it might be unlikely that we take the keep in that situation. What it does mean however is that we can engage in a number of different fights around the map and have shifting objectives rather than focusing only on fighting a small-medium amount of pugs around a LOS heavy area and basically nothing else.

In addition there is ALWAYS the option to improve, group up, coordinate, siege, pull etc.. For you its only black and white "bring more players" to overcome a problem. I personally don't think that should be encouraged. ESO already has a huge problem with faction stacking and if there are no organised groups then those are the only things you see on the map. There is no reason to spread out otherwise.

I think your view is extremely short sighted and is a good example of why the game has changed in the poor ways it has for the past numerous patches. i.e. "deal with X problem" rather than think about the game as a whole or the ramifications of those decisions.

You have a point about the pop cap and group sizes it would be an interesting discussion to have but honestly after something like the 40th post you try to hijack over it I'm kind of a little bored to discuss it with you now.

Just want to say that it seems to me that, in the absence of an already outfitted and coordinated ~16 man group, faction stacking is literally the only answer to these ball groups that run through the map unimpeded. Most mid-long term players just feel exasperated and bored when it's that time, and leave.

Counters to a ball group that I've seen work:
1. Another organized raid
2. A faction stack
3. PUG groups or a zerg that actually played smart

The smarter and more organized people play, the less numbers they need. Let's not pretend that the only answer is an organized raid or a faction stack with nothing in between.

Now, its entirely possible that asking a zerg or large group of PUGs to play smart is asking the impossible...but I've seen it happen.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

I think your view is extremely short sighted and is a good example of why the game has changed in the poor ways it has for the past numerous patches. i.e. "deal with X problem" rather than think about the game as a whole or the ramifications of those decisions.

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

An you guys back there ... Arguing with each other over group size ... Just stop . We do this every time . We get told performance is going to improve . Instead it gets worse . When the dev won't chime in to dozens of threads the PvP players turn inward an attack each other . Nothing improves . Nothing changes .

Keep the fire on ZoS's feet . Stay focused .

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

An you guys back there ... Arguing with each other over group size ... Just stop . We do this every time . We get told performance is going to improve . Instead it gets worse . When the dev won't chime in to dozens of threads the PvP players turn inward an attack each other . Nothing improves . Nothing changes .

Keep the fire on ZoS's feet . Stay focused .

Completely agree with you. Not actually arguing over group size. I think all playstyles and group sizes should be supported and viable. They all currently have their place the only issues atm is really game performance as you mention.

You should really get out of ur raid more often if you actually believe that the only issues are with performance and that every playstyle has its place.

Feel free to elaborate on the problem. 90% of the problems with the game stem from its poor performance imo. What do you feel the problems are.

pieratsos wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

An you guys back there ... Arguing with each other over group size ... Just stop . We do this every time . We get told performance is going to improve . Instead it gets worse . When the dev won't chime in to dozens of threads the PvP players turn inward an attack each other . Nothing improves . Nothing changes .

Keep the fire on ZoS's feet . Stay focused .

Completely agree with you. Not actually arguing over group size. I think all playstyles and group sizes should be supported and viable. They all currently have their place the only issues atm is really game performance as you mention.

You should really get out of ur raid more often if you actually believe that the only issues are with performance and that every playstyle has its place.

Feel free to elaborate on the problem. 90% of the problems with the game stem from its poor performance imo. What do you feel the problems are.

I don't even know where to begin. From itemization to core game mechanics and abilities you name it.

You are playing in raids with dedicated healers making you immune to every debuff in the game and dedicated dmg dealers doing a surplus of dmg, melting everyone in ur path. Of course you would think that everything is fine. Step out of ur raid and when u start getting hit with procs, poisons, defiles, earthgores, roots, snares, siphoner, sloads, troll kings and every other bs in the game we will see if everyone have their place in cyrodil.

You run around in cyrodil and you hit some random guy with everything u have and you tickle his hp. Then u go to the next guy and you one shot him without an ult. You see a random guy spamming 15k burst heals and then the next guy who can't heal for ****.

The overall balance is so out of control to the point where it's easier to list the things that are actually OK than those that are not. All the classes feel OP and useless at the same time. Then u can add all the bugs, glitches, lag and fps drops that can actually get u killed if u are not in a group and u are lucky if you find a couple of decent fights every night.

pieratsos wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

An you guys back there ... Arguing with each other over group size ... Just stop . We do this every time . We get told performance is going to improve . Instead it gets worse . When the dev won't chime in to dozens of threads the PvP players turn inward an attack each other . Nothing improves . Nothing changes .

Keep the fire on ZoS's feet . Stay focused .

Completely agree with you. Not actually arguing over group size. I think all playstyles and group sizes should be supported and viable. They all currently have their place the only issues atm is really game performance as you mention.

You should really get out of ur raid more often if you actually believe that the only issues are with performance and that every playstyle has its place.

Feel free to elaborate on the problem. 90% of the problems with the game stem from its poor performance imo. What do you feel the problems are.

I don't even know where to begin. From itemization to core game mechanics and abilities you name it.

You are playing in raids with dedicated healers making you immune to every debuff in the game and dedicated dmg dealers doing a surplus of dmg, melting everyone in ur path. Of course you would think that everything is fine. Step out of ur raid and when u start getting hit with procs, poisons, defiles, earthgores, roots, snares, siphoner, sloads, troll kings and every other bs in the game we will see if everyone have their place in cyrodil.

You run around in cyrodil and you hit some random guy with everything u have and you tickle his hp. Then u go to the next guy and you one shot him without an ult. You see a random guy spamming 15k burst heals and then the next guy who can't heal for ****.

The overall balance is so out of control to the point where it's easier to list the things that are actually OK than those that are not. All the classes feel OP and useless at the same time. Then u can add all the bugs, glitches, lag and fps drops that can actually get u killed if u are not in a group and u are lucky if you find a couple of decent fights every night.

It's alarming how uninformed you are about group play whilst criticising it so heavily. Raids are by no way immune to debuffs. We actually probably receive more debuffs in our fights than you would ever encounter when 1vXing or surfing. The difference is that we actively work to mitigate them in the way that any level of organisation could do.

For example let's take a 1v1 vs someone running forward momentum. They are completely immune to snares and roots whilst being able to damage. They can pick the location they fight avoiding siege and kiting enemies to avoid dmg. Sure you can be overwhelmed and unable to deal with the situation very easily but that's not unique to any playstyle.

Compare this to a group, we are often fighting inside objectives such as keeps with 10-20 siege surrounding us. We are fighting approximately 30-40 players normally each casting different debuffs and poisons etc.
We use retreating maneouvers for more optimal bar setups but that gives us the weakness that whenever we dmg or heal we lose our root and snare immunity. We often fight inside an unflagging keep where enemies can freely respawn if they are unable to simply res due to their excessive numbers as we move around. (Harder to keep on top of 30 players than just 2-3)

Finally Mmos will always have balancing issues and meta changes. It's part of what keeps them unique. Dealing with these changes is part of what makes good players a step above the bad. Cyro is an openworld game meaning that you will encounter good and bad players as well as varied fights, it's up to you as a player to gear and play effectively for those situations. You are more limited if you CHOOSE not to play in a group. Just as you face different challenges if you do between large, small groups and solo.

The majority of the time to core issue is that the game doesn't perform well so that you are unable to react to situations you would normally be able to manage. This is the advantage of group play. Someone has your back if you cant do something. The disadvantage is that those situations occur more and more based on the fights you are taking as a group.

When I say you are immune to debuffs it means That u have a way to deal them. Aka you have people purging you. You literally admitted that u have people giving u rapids. You don't have that luxury while playing solo. The vast majority of builds playing solo don't have access to purge. Do you even pay attention to the dozens of threads about sloads defiles etc? Or do u just simply ignore them because u don't really feel them?

Calling people uninformed while believing that those debuffs affect groups more than solo players is the definition of irony. Even in the most normal fights u can literally have 10 different debuffs on u. Major defile is like the most common debuff u have when playing solo. It's so funny to the point that even purge wouldn't help u cause all the debuffs will instantly reapply on you. And those debuffs are 100 times more effective when u are playing solo. If you have cost poisons on u and u run out of resources u will prob die. If u are in a group and u run out u still have dedicated healers with you.

You can choose to defend all that crap for whatever reason. Maybe u believe they are good for the game maybe not. But that's not what this is about. The point you made was all playstyles having a place. Which is flatout false. For better or for worse solo play relies on skill to overcome numbers. When u have all that skilless crap like oblivion dmg that were literally designed for Xv1 raining down on you and you end up playing with sload stacks cost poisons while ur healing is reduced by 80% then it's kinda obvious what is going to happen.

It's widely known that solo play is slowly becoming harder in every single patch and u are here calling me misinformed while u actually believe that lethal arrow and major defile affect more ur group than the solo player.

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Ball groups didn't cause that lag. The pug zerg and zone groups were 100% to blame the lag didn't stop until we prevented them from respawning and faction stacking without groups you would have the same effect almost constantly.

ballgroups the cure to lag

idk what to say anymore - apart from factions stacks can be too well organised too - but they´d be affected by the same things that´d affect ballgrps.