This change is really going to suck for guild activities... 😣

xaraan wrote: »

I'm glad for the change. Despite the hate I'll get for daring to disagree with people. The defacto group size is better off at 12, capping it at that will maybe start letting pvpers know that it's staying for good. And frankly most pve activities are not impacted much. Easy to coordinate two 12 man groups (or more). I think folks are making it out to sound like a bigger problem than it is, but I can see why it's an annoyance to some activities. (Other activities, like farming bosses or dolmens, are better off at 12 IMO anyway). Sorry, just adding my two cents, don't expect to see anyone agreeing since the thread is about the opposite.

You're going to get a lot of disagreement because the people who do have experience coordinating multiple groups know it's a PITA.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong and you do have experience coordinating multiple groups of players through an activity without being able to track players on the map and being able to communicate in group chat. Maybe your experiences went great!

The Alikr Dolmems aren't a good example. Those are very much a case where everyone runs as fast as they can, with a clear goal, and nobody waits for stragglers. It's very much not a social activity.

I've done social activities with multiple groups. I've been in PVP groups that had to do it, well before the change to 12-man groups in Cyrodiil.

It's a PITA to coordinated multiple groups without a common group chat or the group markers on the map. This change means you can't share quests or even know that everyone is present for the World Boss fight.

But what about voice comms? Wouldn't that help?

If you use voice comms, people talk all over each other, and it's still super easy for the leader of Group 1 to leave Group 2 behind. Even when they don't, it's a constant stream of "Where are you?"/"We're here!"

"Are you all here?"
"Nope, waiting on two back at the wayshrine."
"Are you all here now?
"Yeah, we're all here now."

Imagine your voice comms filled with the equivalent of "Marco?" "Polo!" at regular intervals for the whole night. That's the closest I can get to describing what it was like.

It's a PITA.

But maybe I'm wrong, and you'll be happy to share your experiences leading and running in events that needed multiple groups, so you can convince all the other guild officers here that this isn't a terrible quality of life change for them and their guildmates who like running social activities.

The burden of this is mostly going to fall on the people who organize and lead activities for their guilds for fun and out of a desire to provide their guildies with a fun night. Make it too burdensome, and those people are going to stop leading those activities.

Companions, role playing.

Don't forget to BUY the new chapter so that you can take your companion to your group.

For those who dislike groups, I can see the change as something to be indifferent to, but not something to love. Where are the social players going to go if we can't group large? Hint: It's going to be the zone, guild, and house chats.

On a positive note, it may be enough to drive out some of the toxic zone chats that have plagued the game since day one. But I doubt that will happen. Instead you'll have multiple events competing for space in chat, which will mean it has to be mostly ignored anyway.

And if one is already ignoring things like zone chat, why care about this?

I will second JoHegl's comments that this change will make organizing group events that are not raids/trials much, much more difficult to do.

This AWESOME game admits to dozens of play-styles; the particular change to groups will help some but hinder a great many more players. I would suggest not reducing things until there is a way to satisfy those whose social game is being (I hate this word but it applies) 'nerfed'.

xaraan wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

I'm glad for the change. Despite the hate I'll get for daring to disagree with people. The defacto group size is better off at 12, capping it at that will maybe start letting pvpers know that it's staying for good. And frankly most pve activities are not impacted much. Easy to coordinate two 12 man groups (or more). I think folks are making it out to sound like a bigger problem than it is, but I can see why it's an annoyance to some activities. (Other activities, like farming bosses or dolmens, are better off at 12 IMO anyway). Sorry, just adding my two cents, don't expect to see anyone agreeing since the thread is about the opposite.

You're going to get a lot of disagreement because the people who do have experience coordinating multiple groups know it's a PITA.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong and you do have experience coordinating multiple groups of players through an activity without being able to track players on the map and being able to communicate in group chat. Maybe your experiences went great!

The Alikr Dolmems aren't a good example. Those are very much a case where everyone runs as fast as they can, with a clear goal, and nobody waits for stragglers. It's very much not a social activity.

I've done social activities with multiple groups. I've been in PVP groups that had to do it, well before the change to 12-man groups in Cyrodiil.

It's a PITA to coordinated multiple groups without a common group chat or the group markers on the map. This change means you can't share quests or even know that everyone is present for the World Boss fight.

But what about voice comms? Wouldn't that help?

If you use voice comms, people talk all over each other, and it's still super easy for the leader of Group 1 to leave Group 2 behind. Even when they don't, it's a constant stream of "Where are you?"/"We're here!"

"Are you all here?"
"Nope, waiting on two back at the wayshrine."
"Are you all here now?
"Yeah, we're all here now."

Imagine your voice comms filled with the equivalent of "Marco?" "Polo!" at regular intervals for the whole night. That's the closest I can get to describing what it was like.

It's a PITA.

But maybe I'm wrong, and you'll be happy to share your experiences leading and running in events that needed multiple groups, so you can convince all the other guild officers here that this isn't a terrible quality of life change for them and their guildmates who like running social activities.

The burden of this is mostly going to fall on the people who organize and lead activities for their guilds for fun and out of a desire to provide their guildies with a fun night. Make it too burdensome, and those people are going to stop leading those activities.

Yes, we've had to coordinate larger groups before, even going past 24 back in the day and more than 12 in pvp. Sure, it's a challenge, but I think it should be. And it's never more challenging than in the heat of combat IMO, when it's just about asking one leader if their group is at x spot or not, it's not as big a deal as it's being made out to be. I just personally feel like 12 is a good natural group size for this game. If you want to do more, then you gotta deal with it. Same as if you wanted to do more than 24 before.

And I like I said, I didn't expect anyone here to agree, and you are wasting your time arguing with me as much as I am arguing with you I'm sure. My point is just to say there are a lot of us out here who are good with the change despite the fact we don't bother arguing in these threads.

Not trying to take your argument away from you. You do you, fight your fight. Just saying there are a lot out here who like the change too.

You are not required to fill a 24 person group if you don't wish to. If 12 is your desired limit, then keep your groups to 12. Why would anyone want to impose a more restrictive limit on OTHER PEOPLES groups?

Lol!!!

This is going to be one of the admittedly rare occasions where I take to the forums. In the seven years since I first initially played in the closed beta as part of the Sanguine's Testers group. My last post was in 2015. If nothing else, I hope this little tidbit of information should bring to light at least some measure of how important I consider adding my voice to the myriad of others who have voiced their discontent with the upcoming reduction in group size.

I wholeheartedly disagree with any such measure that reduces the maximum size of groups as it will provide an unnecessary burden for guilds and other such organized groups who regularly run events, both social and combat-oriented that run with over 12 people. If there is a balancing issue at play here, such as the introduction of the companion system causing problems, perhaps a better solution as has already been mentioned at least once might be to simply prevent players in groups of a given size from bringing companions while a member of that group.

I can see no situation in which a reduction of the size of a group helps anyone. Star Wars Galaxies did something similar in an update back in 2005, during a major overhaul of the game that was, at the time, widely criticized. The maximum number of players in a group at any given time dropped from 20 to 8, when various content-oriented events regularly ran on more populated servers with numbers that high. It ended up being a hassle for everyone involved, though over time folks learned to adapt. I said it then and will say it again now, this change is stupid.

I would strongly urge the development team to reconsider this change and consider an alternative approach to whatever issue prompted this change.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom
I think the primary conclusion here is that this change needs some narrative with it. It's clear that either the community is misinterpreting the patch notes or you guys are misinterpreting how player communities socialise!
If there is a critical reason for reducing the group cap, it needs to be made known so people can have some context as to why they need to swallow this huge inconvenience to guild social activities.
Otherwise, if it was just a poorly thought out decision that stemmed from not really understanding how players engage in guild events, it needs to be undone.
On a separate note.... at the end of the day, this is the purpose of the PTS! ZOS propose changes and we give feedback. Sometimes they change things as a result of the feedback and sometimes they don't. It depends on the extent of the feedback. If this truly is a big issue for your guild, I suggest you go back to your guild an encourage your members to give feedback to ZOS.
BUT... please, everyone, hold fire until the PTS is back online and we can test group-ups just in case we are all misinterpreting the notes.

What is the point of a change like this in an MMO, where it will make organising social guild events a huge pain in the butt? Trying to organise separate groups in WB runs, fishing etc is going to be so much fun when you can't conveniently see if everyone is online, arrived to the destination, or even in the same instance. Please revert this change.

Occupy Alikr movement when?
Rise up dolmen farmers!
Srsly tho, I laughed so hard when I saw this change in the notes xD.

Restore large groups please

It's already been said by others why this is a bad thing, but I was on my phone yesterday which is why my post was so short.

I'll use my own personal experiences. I run an Orc RP Guild. Our RP is very uh... brutal, in line with the lore of The Elder Scrolls. My guild is NOT a massive guild. But if we're in the open world, and we have more than twelve people come on, that creates a conundrum. Could I say "hey guild chat is for narration?" Sure. I could. But guild chat is usually reserved for the goofing off and social part of a RP night. Party chat is exactly for said narrations.

But let's say I have an event that is more than just my guild. Perhaps we do something with a Reachmen or a Nord RP guild. We have more than 12 people. What are we supposed to do? Yes, we could in theory send the narration to the other group lead who then posts it... but what's the cost? The cost is an event runs way later than it should. Some people are slow typers. Some people are multitaskers.

Again, that leaves /yell. And as we've seen time and time again, there's a lot of unfortunate people who are very hostile to roleplayers in spite of it having no effect on them whatsoever. Events are going to get trolled if not out right shut down by people who see excessive yelling, do /report, or yell stupid stuff themselves to try and be funny.

Yes, being able to create custom chat channels is a valid solution! So please, if for whatever reason, reversing this change is not feasible, than yes, custom chat channels would be a very valid compromise. But we cannot leave it just as is without it hurting a lot of communities - not just RP, but other social communities.

I am still in disbelief about this.

Is there an addon that can fix this? Is it possible? I know that is of little help to the console communities...

oh great! Now I can only ever have 12 guildies in 1 guild activity...

Zypheran wrote: »

On a separate note.... at the end of the day, this is the purpose of the PTS! ZOS propose changes and we give feedback. Sometimes they change things as a result of the feedback and sometimes they don't. It depends on the extent of the feedback. If this truly is a big issue for your guild, I suggest you go back to your guild an encourage your members to give feedback to ZOS.

There in lies a problem with this "proposed" change - how many guilds have a bunch of people on the PTS for us to even test this change. I think out of the almost 500 people in my guild there are just a handful of us on the PTS. And with few testing it then they assume that we don't object and go thru with the change.

But I agree that if they'd give us some kind - any kind! - of explanation for this change, there wouldn't be quite as much descension. It's the fact that they don't communicate why they feel the need to change this. Is it performance? As others said, that makes no sense. Instead of 3 groups of 24 people at an Alik'r dolmen you're just now going to have 6 groups of 12, it's still the same amount of people.

Just some explanation, even if we don't like it, would be courteous. It's like a parent telling a child "cuz I said so" when the child asks why.