[PODCAST] Dracast - Episode 6: The Bashening - How to adapt to change.

pieratsos · March 2018

Ranger209 wrote: »

show previous quotes

pieratsos wrote: »

LarsS wrote: »

Pieratos reducing group size does not solve anything, on the contrary, ungrouped an smallscalers go to next fight so the stacking will be worser. Larger organized groups can go anywhere om the map and do that, thus spreading the fighting.

The-Baconator summs up the argument for smaller groups ”I definitely believe”. We need to look at evidences not beliefes!

How do you even know that it doesnt solve anything? Do you have actual evidence to support that argument? Have you done any tests with reduced group size and changed objectives and it was the same? Do you play in a small group or solo? Why is ur word an evidence but baconator's word just his belief? If anything, its the exact opposite that is happening. He explained why he believes that this is the case with actual evidence from the live servers. You just repeat the same thing "it wont solve anything", you dont provide any evidence to back up ur argument and you ignore any points people make.

When at any given time there are just 2-3 fights on the map because 1 full group makes up a quarter of an entire faction's population then those solo/small group players dont have a choice as to where they should fight. They go where the rest of the groups are because thats the only option they have. This isnt a belief. This is evidence and common sense. I play solo and this is what is happening. I open the map and my only options are the bridge and maybe another keep fight where there is a full organised raid farming 50 pugs for like half an hour. Those are my options. Where am i supposed to go? And we are not even touching on group effectiveness and skill which reinforces the zerg/zergsurfing mentality.

You believe that it wont solve anything. And this belief is based on zero evidence. The only argument you made is that you want to play with ur friends. Which isnt even an argument cause no one is telling you not to. Feel free to play with 50 people if you want. Reducing group size doesnt prohibit you from doing that. You just have to make more groups.

I believe there is no evidence of it either way. While I wouldn't mind seeing group sizes reduced for other reasons, i don't think it will change anything numbers wise in an engagement.

Of course there is no evidence of it either way. No one can say with certainty how its going to affect the game. All we can do is just state our opinion and try to back it up with actual arguments. This is what i did. What i dont understand is why people are so adamant against this and dont even want to test it when one of the goals of their proposed changes is to spread the fights anw.

It seems like they want to make changes to "fix" PVP as long as those changes dont affect them in a "negative" way. If a proposed change affects them then its automatically considered a bad change and it wont do anything even tho there is no real evidence to back up that argument. If this is the mentality we are following then whats the point of asking for feedback.

pieratsos · March 2018

LarsS wrote: »

I give up! Just one last comment, people stack were the fight is regardless if they are solo, smale scale or larger group there is plenty of evidences for that, anyone in Cyro can see that. Thus group size cant be a major issue, the number of people in a small area is the real problem, so give us reasons to spread out like suggested in this proposal.

You dont have an infinite amount of people. Τhe number of people you have is a constant. Not a variable. You cant make people appear out of thin air to sustain the needs of multiple objectives. The more objectives you have, the more groups you need but the maximum number of people you can have doesnt change. Its always the same.

If you have 100 people and you want to spread them at 20 different locations for different objectives then you will need a lot more than 4 groups to do it. This is common sense. How can you still fail to grasp that concept. You cant send 4 groups at 20 different locations unless you cut those 4 groups in smaller groups. Which is the whole point. A lot of small/medium/"large" groups fighting at different objectives all over the map. Not huge groups going at each other in giant moshpits at a couple of locations.

Ranger209 · March 2018

pieratsos wrote: »

show previous quotes

Ranger209 wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

LarsS wrote: »

Pieratos reducing group size does not solve anything, on the contrary, ungrouped an smallscalers go to next fight so the stacking will be worser. Larger organized groups can go anywhere om the map and do that, thus spreading the fighting.

The-Baconator summs up the argument for smaller groups ”I definitely believe”. We need to look at evidences not beliefes!

How do you even know that it doesnt solve anything? Do you have actual evidence to support that argument? Have you done any tests with reduced group size and changed objectives and it was the same? Do you play in a small group or solo? Why is ur word an evidence but baconator's word just his belief? If anything, its the exact opposite that is happening. He explained why he believes that this is the case with actual evidence from the live servers. You just repeat the same thing "it wont solve anything", you dont provide any evidence to back up ur argument and you ignore any points people make.

When at any given time there are just 2-3 fights on the map because 1 full group makes up a quarter of an entire faction's population then those solo/small group players dont have a choice as to where they should fight. They go where the rest of the groups are because thats the only option they have. This isnt a belief. This is evidence and common sense. I play solo and this is what is happening. I open the map and my only options are the bridge and maybe another keep fight where there is a full organised raid farming 50 pugs for like half an hour. Those are my options. Where am i supposed to go? And we are not even touching on group effectiveness and skill which reinforces the zerg/zergsurfing mentality.

You believe that it wont solve anything. And this belief is based on zero evidence. The only argument you made is that you want to play with ur friends. Which isnt even an argument cause no one is telling you not to. Feel free to play with 50 people if you want. Reducing group size doesnt prohibit you from doing that. You just have to make more groups.

I believe there is no evidence of it either way. While I wouldn't mind seeing group sizes reduced for other reasons, i don't think it will change anything numbers wise in an engagement.

Of course there is no evidence of it either way. No one can say with certainty how its going to affect the game. All we can do is just state our opinion and try to back it up with actual arguments. This is what i did. What i dont understand is why people are so adamant against this and dont even want to test it when one of the goals of their proposed changes is to spread the fights anw.

It seems like they want to make changes to "fix" PVP as long as those changes dont affect them in a "negative" way. If a proposed change affects them then its automatically considered a bad change and it wont do anything even tho there is no real evidence to back up that argument. If this is the mentality we are following then whats the point of asking for feedback.

Again, there are reasons I would like to see group sizes reduced, but not because I think it will spread people out on the map. I solo 80% of the time, and also fight in 40 v 40 fights or more 80% of the time. Pretty sure there is a significant amount of people out there just like me judging from the movement on the battlefield.

ChefZero · April 2018

Cyrodiil was designed for a huge amount of players compared to now so I think the map mechanics are irreparable broken. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to do. ZOS have to work around the problems. Instead of spreading the fights on a big underpopulated map the should spread the fights on the hotspots. I would wish they rework the keeps for example with 3 points to cap and hold to get the keep like capturing bases in Planetside 2.

montiferus · April 2018

Ranger209 wrote: »

Again, there are reasons I would like to see group sizes reduced, but not because I think it will spread people out on the map. I solo 80% of the time, and also fight in 40 v 40 fights or more 80% of the time. Pretty sure there is a significant amount of people out there just like me judging from the movement on the battlefield.

I’ve never claimed to be a math expert but I’m pretty sure your numbers don’t add up.

montiferus · April 2018

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Good stuff here Drac- regardless of the way some of the posts denigrate this play style, keep it up. The suggestions are well thought out and will create a much more dynamic strategy that will likely enhance the playability, even if the smaller groups are screaming it wont....they are wrong and have always been wrong when it comes to the behavior of players in this game. To see that one simply has to look at battlegrounds....terrible concept, badly rolled out and absolutely done to placate the small group players. They are still in cyro and not in battlegrounds to this day.

As I go down the list you put out I cant find anything that I disagree with or that I think would not enhance the experience players have here in Cyro. Well done.

I hear there are some “Drac” branded kneepads coming out. You should definitely buy a pair it will make it so much more comfortable for you.

Ranger209 · April 2018

montiferus wrote: »

show previous quotes

Ranger209 wrote: »

Again, there are reasons I would like to see group sizes reduced, but not because I think it will spread people out on the map. I solo 80% of the time, and also fight in 40 v 40 fights or more 80% of the time. Pretty sure there is a significant amount of people out there just like me judging from the movement on the battlefield.

I’ve never claimed to be a math expert but I’m pretty sure your numbers don’t add up.

Sure they do I'm solo aka not in a group yet fighting in a 40 v 40 fight at the same time.

Etaniel · April 2018

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Good stuff here Drac- regardless of the way some of the posts denigrate this play style, keep it up. The suggestions are well thought out and will create a much more dynamic strategy that will likely enhance the playability, even if the smaller groups are screaming it wont....they are wrong and have always been wrong when it comes to the behavior of players in this game. To see that one simply has to look at battlegrounds....terrible concept, badly rolled out and absolutely done to placate the small group players. They are still in cyro and not in battlegrounds to this day.

As I go down the list you put out I cant find anything that I disagree with or that I think would not enhance the experience players have here in Cyro. Well done.

"They are wrong and always have been" wow.
Concerning battlegrounds, I'm pretty sure most small scalers didn't want battlegrounds to end up this way, we all advocated for ranking and proper matchmaking systems based on skill for one. Everyone I play with always preferred open world pvp, and not instanced with crappy objectives.

Also this is the whole point of feedback. Constructive criticism is the only way to move forward on issues, and simply because people disagree doesn't mean they are raging little nerds with foam woming out of their mouths, hating because it's not their playstyle ( although I do admit some of these posts make me foam up a bit). I agree with most of what was proposed, and I appreciate the time they took to lay it out in such a manner, but like a lot of others, I think these changes will only provide the desired effect if paired with reduced group sizes.

pieratsos · April 2018

Ranger209 wrote: »

show previous quotes

pieratsos wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

LarsS wrote: »

Pieratos reducing group size does not solve anything, on the contrary, ungrouped an smallscalers go to next fight so the stacking will be worser. Larger organized groups can go anywhere om the map and do that, thus spreading the fighting.

The-Baconator summs up the argument for smaller groups ”I definitely believe”. We need to look at evidences not beliefes!

How do you even know that it doesnt solve anything? Do you have actual evidence to support that argument? Have you done any tests with reduced group size and changed objectives and it was the same? Do you play in a small group or solo? Why is ur word an evidence but baconator's word just his belief? If anything, its the exact opposite that is happening. He explained why he believes that this is the case with actual evidence from the live servers. You just repeat the same thing "it wont solve anything", you dont provide any evidence to back up ur argument and you ignore any points people make.

When at any given time there are just 2-3 fights on the map because 1 full group makes up a quarter of an entire faction's population then those solo/small group players dont have a choice as to where they should fight. They go where the rest of the groups are because thats the only option they have. This isnt a belief. This is evidence and common sense. I play solo and this is what is happening. I open the map and my only options are the bridge and maybe another keep fight where there is a full organised raid farming 50 pugs for like half an hour. Those are my options. Where am i supposed to go? And we are not even touching on group effectiveness and skill which reinforces the zerg/zergsurfing mentality.

You believe that it wont solve anything. And this belief is based on zero evidence. The only argument you made is that you want to play with ur friends. Which isnt even an argument cause no one is telling you not to. Feel free to play with 50 people if you want. Reducing group size doesnt prohibit you from doing that. You just have to make more groups.

I believe there is no evidence of it either way. While I wouldn't mind seeing group sizes reduced for other reasons, i don't think it will change anything numbers wise in an engagement.

Of course there is no evidence of it either way. No one can say with certainty how its going to affect the game. All we can do is just state our opinion and try to back it up with actual arguments. This is what i did. What i dont understand is why people are so adamant against this and dont even want to test it when one of the goals of their proposed changes is to spread the fights anw.

It seems like they want to make changes to "fix" PVP as long as those changes dont affect them in a "negative" way. If a proposed change affects them then its automatically considered a bad change and it wont do anything even tho there is no real evidence to back up that argument. If this is the mentality we are following then whats the point of asking for feedback.

Again, there are reasons I would like to see group sizes reduced, but not because I think it will spread people out on the map. I solo 80% of the time, and also fight in 40 v 40 fights or more 80% of the time. Pretty sure there is a significant amount of people out there just like me judging from the movement on the battlefield.

The idea is that relevant objectives + reduced group size is what is going to spread people. Not just reducing group size or just making objectives relevant but the combination of those two.

Im not saying that this will magically fix PVP and the entire map will be filled with fights cause the map is simply too big for the amount of players we have and even tho ZOS is highly unlikely to scale down the map, im prety sure we can do better than 100 player moshpits at two locations.

Maura_Neysa · April 2018

Yes, OMG yes

There was like one thing I disagreed with, but I have no idea what it is because I was so excited by the next idea. Please oh please ZoS, everything in here needs to go live.

Wycks · April 2018

ZOS is a victim of poor PvP design ( I don't blame them its hard) , for the first 1.5-2 years PVP was heavily unbalanced, full of bugs and obvious performance/exploit issues.

Rightly so they have tackled a lot of these issues as a priority, but at the expense of taking way to long to do so. Lots of players lost interest.

The effect is that Cyrdoil has became stale, ZOS manages features and improvements by putting out fires and appeasing players with a lack of direction, they are not pro-active, they don't take any risks, and lack solid testing / planning with regards to PvP.

Fingers can be pointed as to why this occurs, and how managements decisions prohibit the games from it full potential, but I will refrain.

At the very least they need to understand things are really boring and need a shake-up.

maybe they need a lil

To spice things up.

Agrippa_Invisus · April 2018

Wycks wrote: »

ZOS is a victim of poor PvP design ( I don't blame them its hard) , for the first 1.5-2 years PVP was heavily unbalanced, full of bugs and obvious performance/exploit issues.

Rightly so they have tackled a lot of these issues as a priority, but at the expense of taking way to long to do so. Lots of players lost interest.

The effect is that Cyrdoil has became stale, ZOS manages features and improvements by putting out fires and appeasing players with a lack of direction, they are not pro-active, they don't take any risks, and lack solid testing / planning with regards to PvP.

Fingers can be pointed as to why this occurs, and how managements decisions prohibit the games from it full potential, but I will refrain.

There's really nothing to be gained by being kind to them.

Polite, sure. No need for name calling or foul language. That doesn't do anyone any good.

But kind? No.

As many of us (I sure am) are paying customers, we expect what we pay for to work as advertised.

What was advertised was massive PVP, sieges warfare, and good performance.

We did not get that. Therefore ZOS should expect heavy criticism. I have no interest in being particularly forgiving or engaging in protecting someone's thin skin. I will treat them as an adult and be honest about what my problems are, and if they can fix them, then they'll receive the respect they would earn by doing so. They haven't, so heavy criticism is the appropriate response.

What I want, and what the goal of many of us long term PVPers is, is to see a return to the performance that allowed for Wabbajack 1.0 to happen.

We want to be able to have full 24 man raid rosters in our guild and not feel like we have to artificially hold back to a) avoid external criticism and b) alleviate lag issues which is ZOS's fault, not a guild's.

We want massive siege warfare with 100+ from each side on the screen that works and performs well. It's worked before with ESO in the past and other games like Guild Wars 2 have similar, far better performing PVP systems than ESO currently has.

That ZOS continues on a month by month basis to continue to fail to deliver this is an indictment of their capabilities as a development studio. The reasons this has happened is decidedly and most certainly ZOS's fault, and they do not deserve whitewashing or forgiveness for it. To do so means nothing will get better without constant, incessant criticism concerning ongoing and long term failures.

Just because @ZOS_BrianWheeler finally posted something doesn't mean there is immediate forgiveness. The communication with the PVP community by the very devs assigned to us is terrible, and there have been months and months and months of silence prior to the sticked post at the top of this forum currently. That's not adding to the fact that @ZOS_Wrobel is still MIA as of this writing. That, too, deserves massive criticism. It's a complete failure to communicate openly with their playerbase about the ongoing and well known problems.

Do you want to see what open, good communication with an MMO developer looks like? Go look at Digital Extremes, the makers of Warframe. They have multiple department heads that live stream on Twitch on a regular basis, take open questions, and discuss player concerns and problems. They're not perfect, but when they mess up they explain what it was, why it was, and unlike ZOS, when a system turns out to not be working like they wanted they take it out, instead of forcing us to suffer with it (hello, lighting patch anyone?). They even ask for and act on player feedback out pricing and bundling of cash shop items, for skooma's sake, and even act on said feedback.

The failure to communicate on top of the failure to act and resolve the issues that continue to plague ESO's server performance are some of the biggest issues and problems with the game and its development staff through the lifetime of this game so far. Friends that ask about what MMO to play, I warn away from the PVP experience of ESO. I tell them it's a great PVE only game (which it is), but it has failed utterly at PVP. Better to go play Guild Wars 2 or Overwatch if you want to compete.

I hate having to say it, but it's the truth, and lies don't accomplish anything.

We are this harshly critical because in the end we do love this game, as we assume the developers do. Tough love is the best love, and not admitting what the game's faults are is looking at ZOS through rose colored glasses that actually hold it (and ZOS) back from getting better.

Soul_Demon · April 2018

montiferus wrote: »

show previous quotes

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Good stuff here Drac- regardless of the way some of the posts denigrate this play style, keep it up. The suggestions are well thought out and will create a much more dynamic strategy that will likely enhance the playability, even if the smaller groups are screaming it wont....they are wrong and have always been wrong when it comes to the behavior of players in this game. To see that one simply has to look at battlegrounds....terrible concept, badly rolled out and absolutely done to placate the small group players. They are still in cyro and not in battlegrounds to this day.

As I go down the list you put out I cant find anything that I disagree with or that I think would not enhance the experience players have here in Cyro. Well done.

I hear there are some “Drac” branded kneepads coming out. You should definitely buy a pair it will make it so much more comfortable for you.

Strange that you would be up to date on what kneepads are available for consumers....must be quite the aficionado. As far as what I can and should do- No thanks....you can be assured your position as knee pad expert isn't under threat from me.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · July 2019

Hey Everyone,

After a long break Dracast is back for a new episode aiming to help groups and guilds who are trying to adapt to changes in new patches and fix problems in groups.

Any questions or comments let us know! - you can find out more info in the original post and watch previous episodes.

https://youtu.be/tgOmN6zFhnA