Best Of
Re: How close are you to finishing the Subclassing grind?
I don't think there even is a "subclassing grind" because you don't need to get every skill line to rank 50 or every morph to rank 4.
I've passively leveled some skill lines I wanted or expect that I'll want, and won't bother with others until I might need them.
I've passively leveled some skill lines I wanted or expect that I'll want, and won't bother with others until I might need them.
Re: General crafting issue
Crafting has grinding to get levels, research, sets, etc.
Seems to me for most there isn't a lot of return. Crafting dailies are pretty iffy for what you get.
One possibility is crafting for selling - pretty involved and few want to do that.
Second is crafting your gear - but seems a lot easier to buy or find a crafter.
Anyone else see another side to it? That mainly leaves just 'if you want to do it', and how the game makes it part of the environment.
But it's a lot to then make a set of a gear for a char. That's not a lot of use.
You sound like someone who doesn't like to do your own crafting, which is perfectly fine.
But I don't know what gives you the confidence to think "most" players would agree with your opinion.
Because I'd be willing to bet a lot that most do not.
Grizzbeorn
15
Re: ROA changes
I have God Mode now so I don't need to. How's your ball group doing with its Gravity Crush practice drills?MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »The new rush is kinda balanced and easy to avoid, maybe just try it few times and you will manage it, the big red flashy aoe suggests to block. Good luck!
Re: Public formal confirmation that griefing and bullying isn't against Code of Conduct
ZOS_Hadeostry wrote: »I wanted to let @alakeyfox know that we have seen the post and are currently investigating the ticket you brought up. Everyone, please do not bring up side subjects or anything else off topic. We want to hear constructive feedback about the topic at hand.
What I don't understand is why this wasn't investigated when they raised the two initial tickets. Why now, after creating a forum post, is the matter being investigated? Were the initial tickets raised by OP even reviewed by a human or were they screened out by AI?
Raanbury
11
Re: ESO+ is disabled earlier than 10AM EST
Do you realize that no one outside the US uses US local time and is not required to know the nuances of switching to summer/winter time?Just google "10am EST UTC"...
The time is given in the news. It is incorrect. The only way to solve this problem is to give the correct time. And also, as correctly noted, the international format should be used for an international project.
Re: Main BG pain points
MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Ok so you do believe it's possible. I wish I did too.MincMincMinc wrote: »90% of people in queue are low MMR only there for rewards.MincMincMinc wrote: »Ok I'll just keep it in the other thread. Not trying to convince anyone of anything, just honestly looking for some answers.MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Once you understand all the four reasons you might change your mind about this. For all intents and purposes, 90% of ppl in BGs are only there for rewards. This is where we are right now. This is where we've always been. Talking about ''better MMR'' is all well and good, but it's been happening from the start, and it led absolutely nowhere. It's not impossible to put the 5000+ hours pvpers and newcomers in the same matches, because even if a few of them think they want to go 40/0/15 and then complain, there are pvpers who only want to kill each other by any means necessary, and maybe win the match while they're at it.MincMincMinc wrote: »ESO is not a competitive game by any means, so you first need to make a simple functional MMR system that is actually implementable before talking about the combat aspects. Because there shouldn't be 8v8 or 4v4 or 4v4v4 games where new pvp players ever fight someone with 5000+ hours of pvp.
Can you please explain how your MMR system would help with this problem , which is specific to 8v8?
The rest of the post explained it. By separating the leaderboard/rewards system from the MMR system you could then just have mmr based on simple concepts like KDA. Accounts would then just climb or lower on the ladder as such separating the new pvp and higher tier pvp players. Its not really specific to 8v8 or 4v4 or 4v4v4, the simplified system would work for all.
4v4v4 was not the silver bullet people remember. There were plenty of games that boiled down to spawn camping or pug stomping all the time. Sometimes it was even easier to go 40/0 because you had less allies stealing kills since it was 4v8 instead of 8v8.
Did you click the explanation in the spoiler? The one about Magic Matchmaking?
Yeah I don't understand your point there. It relies on a poor MMR distribution of KDA on a team.....Fix the mmr system and you would see a more even distribution of KDA on each team regardless of team size.(except for healer players)
''It's not impossible to put the 5000+ hours pvpers and newcomers in the same matches, because even if a few of them think they want to go 40/0/15 and then complain, there are pvpers who only want to kill each other by any means necessary, and maybe win the match while they're at it.''
Regarding your KDA based MMR system, wouldn't the complaining pvper that targets newcomers have a much higher MMR than the pvper that only wants to kill him?
That complaining pvper being qued against new players would increase in mmr until they weren't qued against new players?
Eventually the pugstomper would only be matched up with high mmr players and will find their place in the ladder.
10% are BG regulars from various skill levels.
Not only you want to keep the 90% separated, it seems you want to split the remaining 10% into multiple tiers.
Population barely supports placing high and low MMR players together to make a team average, and here you are honestly thinking this is possible?
And you got these statistics from where?
And you assume the population of the game will forever be the same?
If you dont base the matchmaking on previous data, there is no way you would avoid pugstomping.....like how live is run right now. The matchmaking is not based on the most important data.
I think I still don't quite understand your proposed mmr system. Let's go back to the previous example: We have two equally skilled pvpers. One is a pugstomper that avoids pvpers, the other is a Chad that only cares about going after other pvpers. They start at zero MMR. The pugstomper consistently has a much higher KDA than Chad, because they're basically playing different games. How does Chad ever catch up to pugstomper while remaining true to himself?
There is no catching up, you are not understanding. In this scenario they both get higher KDA compared to the pugs and will both move up. Inevitably fighting each other. You are correct in that the pug stomper would get to higher mmr faster, but once at higher mmr they taper off in kills, so their mmr climb rate balances out in the end.
Chad is so obsessed with going after pvpers (pugstompers and other Chads alike) that the pugs in his team get better KDA than him. All his damage goes to pvpers and pvpers alone. What then?
He would still climb compared to the pugs? after however many games they literally never interact with pugs again.
The problem is you are taking a 16 player population and assuming these same 16 people are only going to be fighting the same 16 people......they wont and thats the point. The pug stompers quickly get forced to max mmr and only get into games against other 16 players at the same skill level.
It seems to me that it's entirely possible that Chad might get stuck fighting other Chads in lower or mid MMR. Don't you think we should just make Chad's life easier and give him everything he wants so he can go after pugstomper and put the disgusting rat in the ground where it belongs?
That's only possible if you assume everyone is perfectly equivalent and there are never group fights or objective fights ever. Basically hyper unrealistic. There is enough chaos that by the first day or two everyone would have already moved in a direction away from each other mmr wise.
Why not just make the mmr based on damage done or healing done, whichever is higher? And find away to fit shielders in there somehow.
Damage done and healing done only rewards aoe dot and aoe hot builds. If I run a direct damage only dizzy onslaught build I may get 20 kills in a match but have sub 500k damage. Where the next guy only closes out 10 kills with 2m damage.
Kills and Assists directly show your involvement in output. Did you actually close out kills, or just be supplemental in pressure?
Like I explained in the mmr post(now on post 1) zos can then check how many heals+shields you applied in a match to determine if you were a healer and can change the mmr to favor assists more since healers wont be closing out as many kills.
Rewarded with what? Inflated MMR, longer queue times and more difficult matches? And it would only affect a couple of playstyles. Seems worth it to me, since it's a lot simpler and wouldn't make Chad's life harder.
Why would that be a good thing to base the MMR system off of something not representative of player skill? What you are suggesting is that dot/hot builds should be high mmr and direct damage builds should be low mmr.
Another solution, which is very similar to yours could be how most online games do it. No option for solo que, all are group que. Kills, wins, deaths all impact your MMR in different weights. Maybe winning is the highest metric, with kills next deaths, medal score last. Use those metrics to ensure that an endgame player doesn't end up fighting the new guy that just hit lv 50. As you get better and more experienced, you eventually fight better plays and can gradually improve at the game. Maybe even make MMR account wide versus character based so that you don't have Smurfs.
What is the core purpose of an MMR system?............think..................It is to separate the 10 year vets and new players for player retention purposes. So next, do you really think "winning" a bg or "losing" a bg shows player skill? No it doesn't in the slightest because endgame players have no reason to actually win objectively. Infact the opposite is true since objective win conditions just put you back in que again for 10-20 mins after a 1min objective game.
Do you think Call of Duty would be popular if you spent 90%-95% of your time sitting in que doing nothing? Is that what you want to do after you get home from school or work? AFK and do nothing?
Thus the leaderboard should be objective based giving out rewards and such. However you need to separate the playerbase using actual player skill based factors like KDA. If I go 40/0/20 in every match for a week there is an issue.
For the ques available this is simple. Zos needs to decide how many times they can divide the playerbase before the system doesn't work. They could also just make the que selection a "preference" setting to try and prefer solo matches.
Yes this mmr system should be account wide. 90% of technical knowledge translates to new characters. Also if you swap to a new character it would be better to play against the same players so you know how to adjust your build.MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Ok so you do believe it's possible. I wish I did too.MincMincMinc wrote: »90% of people in queue are low MMR only there for rewards.MincMincMinc wrote: »Ok I'll just keep it in the other thread. Not trying to convince anyone of anything, just honestly looking for some answers.MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Once you understand all the four reasons you might change your mind about this. For all intents and purposes, 90% of ppl in BGs are only there for rewards. This is where we are right now. This is where we've always been. Talking about ''better MMR'' is all well and good, but it's been happening from the start, and it led absolutely nowhere. It's not impossible to put the 5000+ hours pvpers and newcomers in the same matches, because even if a few of them think they want to go 40/0/15 and then complain, there are pvpers who only want to kill each other by any means necessary, and maybe win the match while they're at it.MincMincMinc wrote: »ESO is not a competitive game by any means, so you first need to make a simple functional MMR system that is actually implementable before talking about the combat aspects. Because there shouldn't be 8v8 or 4v4 or 4v4v4 games where new pvp players ever fight someone with 5000+ hours of pvp.
Can you please explain how your MMR system would help with this problem , which is specific to 8v8?
The rest of the post explained it. By separating the leaderboard/rewards system from the MMR system you could then just have mmr based on simple concepts like KDA. Accounts would then just climb or lower on the ladder as such separating the new pvp and higher tier pvp players. Its not really specific to 8v8 or 4v4 or 4v4v4, the simplified system would work for all.
4v4v4 was not the silver bullet people remember. There were plenty of games that boiled down to spawn camping or pug stomping all the time. Sometimes it was even easier to go 40/0 because you had less allies stealing kills since it was 4v8 instead of 8v8.
Did you click the explanation in the spoiler? The one about Magic Matchmaking?
Yeah I don't understand your point there. It relies on a poor MMR distribution of KDA on a team.....Fix the mmr system and you would see a more even distribution of KDA on each team regardless of team size.(except for healer players)
''It's not impossible to put the 5000+ hours pvpers and newcomers in the same matches, because even if a few of them think they want to go 40/0/15 and then complain, there are pvpers who only want to kill each other by any means necessary, and maybe win the match while they're at it.''
Regarding your KDA based MMR system, wouldn't the complaining pvper that targets newcomers have a much higher MMR than the pvper that only wants to kill him?
That complaining pvper being qued against new players would increase in mmr until they weren't qued against new players?
Eventually the pugstomper would only be matched up with high mmr players and will find their place in the ladder.
10% are BG regulars from various skill levels.
Not only you want to keep the 90% separated, it seems you want to split the remaining 10% into multiple tiers.
Population barely supports placing high and low MMR players together to make a team average, and here you are honestly thinking this is possible?
And you got these statistics from where?
And you assume the population of the game will forever be the same?
If you dont base the matchmaking on previous data, there is no way you would avoid pugstomping.....like how live is run right now. The matchmaking is not based on the most important data.
I think I still don't quite understand your proposed mmr system. Let's go back to the previous example: We have two equally skilled pvpers. One is a pugstomper that avoids pvpers, the other is a Chad that only cares about going after other pvpers. They start at zero MMR. The pugstomper consistently has a much higher KDA than Chad, because they're basically playing different games. How does Chad ever catch up to pugstomper while remaining true to himself?
There is no catching up, you are not understanding. In this scenario they both get higher KDA compared to the pugs and will both move up. Inevitably fighting each other. You are correct in that the pug stomper would get to higher mmr faster, but once at higher mmr they taper off in kills, so their mmr climb rate balances out in the end.
Chad is so obsessed with going after pvpers (pugstompers and other Chads alike) that the pugs in his team get better KDA than him. All his damage goes to pvpers and pvpers alone. What then?
He would still climb compared to the pugs? after however many games they literally never interact with pugs again.
The problem is you are taking a 16 player population and assuming these same 16 people are only going to be fighting the same 16 people......they wont and thats the point. The pug stompers quickly get forced to max mmr and only get into games against other 16 players at the same skill level.
It seems to me that it's entirely possible that Chad might get stuck fighting other Chads in lower or mid MMR. Don't you think we should just make Chad's life easier and give him everything he wants so he can go after pugstomper and put the disgusting rat in the ground where it belongs?
That's only possible if you assume everyone is perfectly equivalent and there are never group fights or objective fights ever. Basically hyper unrealistic. There is enough chaos that by the first day or two everyone would have already moved in a direction away from each other mmr wise.
Why not just make the mmr based on damage done or healing done, whichever is higher? And find away to fit shielders in there somehow.
Damage done and healing done only rewards aoe dot and aoe hot builds. If I run a direct damage only dizzy onslaught build I may get 20 kills in a match but have sub 500k damage. Where the next guy only closes out 10 kills with 2m damage.
Kills and Assists directly show your involvement in output. Did you actually close out kills, or just be supplemental in pressure?
Like I explained in the mmr post(now on post 1) zos can then check how many heals+shields you applied in a match to determine if you were a healer and can change the mmr to favor assists more since healers wont be closing out as many kills.
Rewarded with what? Inflated MMR, longer queue times and more difficult matches? And it would only affect a couple of playstyles. Seems worth it to me, since it's a lot simpler and wouldn't make Chad's life harder.
Why would that be a good thing to base the MMR system off of something not representative of player skill? What you are suggesting is that dot/hot builds should be high mmr and direct damage builds should be low mmr.
Another solution, which is very similar to yours could be how most online games do it. No option for solo que, all are group que. Kills, wins, deaths all impact your MMR in different weights. Maybe winning is the highest metric, with kills next deaths, medal score last. Use those metrics to ensure that an endgame player doesn't end up fighting the new guy that just hit lv 50. As you get better and more experienced, you eventually fight better plays and can gradually improve at the game. Maybe even make MMR account wide versus character based so that you don't have Smurfs.
What is the core purpose of an MMR system?............think..................It is to separate the 10 year vets and new players for player retention purposes. So next, do you really think "winning" a bg or "losing" a bg shows player skill? No it doesn't in the slightest because endgame players have no reason to actually win objectively. Infact the opposite is true since objective win conditions just put you back in que again for 10-20 mins after a 1min objective game.
Do you think Call of Duty would be popular if you spent 90%-95% of your time sitting in que doing nothing? Is that what you want to do after you get home from school or work? AFK and do nothing?
Thus the leaderboard should be objective based giving out rewards and such. However you need to separate the playerbase using actual player skill based factors like KDA. If I go 40/0/20 in every match for a week there is an issue.
For the ques available this is simple. Zos needs to decide how many times they can divide the playerbase before the system doesn't work. They could also just make the que selection a "preference" setting to try and prefer solo matches.
Yes this mmr system should be account wide. 90% of technical knowledge translates to new characters. Also if you swap to a new character it would be better to play against the same players so you know how to adjust your build.
I agree, and personally I would not consider winning a factor as none of the top/endgame pvp players care about objective gaming. If it were deathmatch only, winning could be a good metric to use. However ZOS does care about objective pvp, so it's a factor that should be factored into the equation.
Well its that nobody cares about the objective until matches are all players of equal skill.
There are always other methods of pushing objectives on players like monetary rewards, or even something as goofy as tiered leaderboard placements. Practically the whole reason people play a lot of mobas or other competitive games is because they can say they are a "diamond" player or "global elite"
Much like how when you get emperor you can put the emperor title under your name. You'd have the current BG rank titles available ONLY when you hold that rank actively.
That would be very cool to have a system like that in ESO. Objectives just don’t serve a purpose in competitive gameplay at all however. Not a single competitive player cares about anything other than kills and deaths. There has never been a capture the flag tournament. They’ve all been DM.
Well yeah, cuz there has never been a reason to care about anything else. Pretty straight forward there, endgame pvp players need rewards.
What reasons are there to go do vet+ trials or dungeons? Why do endgame players care about those? Rewards, titles, motifs, etc.
Re: ROA changes
Turtle_Bot wrote: »Turtle_Bot wrote: »AngryPenguin wrote: »AngryPenguin wrote: »The change to RoA should have been to add "to monsters only" condition to the set. That is the only solution that makes any sense.
People say things like this because they think it is going to make ball groups just go away from PvP. I hate to break it to everyone but they could get rid of DC and ROA and there will still be ball groups. We will still find alternative sets. You're not going to b e able to get rid of a core group of 12 people who take pride in their comp.
No. That is not what I said or why I said it. Please try to be less presumptuous in the future.
I don't have a problem with comped groups. I used to run in one of the strongest comp groups in Cyrodiil. (Tyr) But that was before Dark Convergence and RoA. We could be killed with massive coordination and some well placed negates. Changes since then have made ball groups nearly invincible and 100x more trollish.
I don't want ball groups abolished or gone. I want them to be more fair and manageable.
Fair enough - I'm almost conditioned now to read "monster only" as someone crying about ball groups.
I used to run with Tyr back in the day fwiw. I agree, and have said a lot, thatrush is broken.. ball groups are too op and need to be tuned down, etc etc.
Sure, they can remove all the pulls... but then I'd argue they need to get rid of the charms and all the other "moveable" skills/sets because it's just pure chaos. Even if they did this (to your point) ball groups would still be a thing so those who (not you) cry about ball groups... still will have to find something to complain about because balls aren't going anywhere.
FWIW, (since we have butted heads in the past over ball groups), I never had an issue with ball groups in the past (pre-Rush/DC) since it was very possible to avoid their burst/turn and burn, and long before the HoT stacking (this includes all stacking, it's just easier to say HoTs than trying to list out the 100+ things ball groups get to stack that other playstyles cannot), but introduction of Rush and other mass pull sets has removed the counter-play to their offense, while the constantly stacked sticky HoTs (and everything else) that, thanks to U35 now lasts minimum of 10-15 seconds and not just 3-5 seconds from pre-U35, has removed the counter play options to ball groups defenses outside of a lucky blue moon lottery bomb (or another ball group) that happens to catch them with their own level of damage + a negate + CC while their buffs/heals are down.
I never had an issue with what ball groups used to be, sure they were annoying and frustrating to take on, but it was possible to learn how to counter play that playstyle (side-stepping the turn and burn, avoiding the obvious choke points they were leading their targets into, timing a negate with siege-fire to remove/nullify their ground based HoTs, etc), but the power creep and game-wide combat changes ZOS has introduced into the game over the past 5+ years has basically removed all counter play to that playstyle, to the point we see now where Cyro has become nothing but ball groups and faction stacks and a few top tier super sweat 1vXers that are now doing much more duo/small scale/zerg surfing instead of being true solo like before (which is not a good thing for the longevity of PvP in this game, let alone things like server performance).
What I would like to see ZOS do would be the following:
1. Make Rush/DC (and other mass pull effects) limited to PvE only (this means no guaranteed forced choke point for a bomb which forces the strategic use of terrain and obstacles to funnel in targets)
2. Make group based sticky HoTs/shields much weaker than ground based versions (re-introduces counter play to stacked defenses since negate removes ground based effects allowing for group counter damage methods (sieges/bombs) to do their job, this would probably have to include reducing the durations of group sticky HoTs/shields back down to 3-6 seconds from their current 10-15 seconds as well)
3. Adjust the speed cap for various movement types (mounted should be 250%, sprint the current 200%, run should be only 150%, this means things like snow treaders actually has a drawback and counter play that needs real decision making on taking its permanent snare/immobilize immunity).
4. Capped to 2-3 stacks max of the same effect (this means more coordination/organization is required than just slotting 12 vigors + 6-12 regens to cover the groups HoT requirements, also leads to more skills/morphs being looked at which helps build diversity)
Probably a few other things I'm forgetting, but these 4 changes alone would reign in the current power level of ball groups to more acceptable levels, reintroduce actual skill/knowledge based counter-play to that playstyle, all while keeping the playstyle strong and having it focus much more on tactics, teamwork, coordination and organization as it's strength/advantage instead of just stacking every buff possible to achieve stats that this game's PvP was never designed around.
TL//DR:
I (and likely the majority of those who have issues with modern ball groups) don't want ball groups to be removed (outside of 1-2 specific ones that are extremely toxic in how they "play" the game), I just want to see the playstyle returned to pre-2020 levels where there's real limits on how much of a raw direct power advantage they have over everyone else. Communication + coordination should already be the main advantage of being in a comp'd group, they shouldn't need or have access to levels of raw stacked stats/effects that vastly exceed anything that anyone else can dream of having access to, even something that is supposed to be overpowered e.g. Emperor bonus (yes ball group players have more raw stats than even emperors these days, it's reached that level of absurdity).
Honestly - I have zero issues with anything in this list.
There are about 20 different ways they could work on balancing out ball groups being OP while keeping ball groups still in the game. That could be changes to the pulls, CC immunity, removing rush/dc all together, hot stacks, etc, etc.
I'm supportive of your general sentiment in your message. The 2020 era was insanley fun as a ball group person (it was hard af to be a good ball group and "meet the standards"). Now - anyone can run a near unkillable ball group with zero time/dedication/skill (which is why you see so many balls now).
Fighting against ball groups back then was significantly more fun for the rest of us too.
Much larger groups/pops allowed true overwhelming numbers, people were actually starting to learn how to counter play ball groups (side stepping the turn and burn, negates, sieges, avoiding natural choke points, don't blindly chase, etc), it made for a really nice back and forth fight looking back on it. Of course the super top tier ball groups would still run over everyone, but you could see the skills of those players at work to achieve that and even they had their "max numbers" where they still had to disengage or face a wipe.
It made fighting them (or at least truly kicking them out of a keep instead of waiting for them to get bored and leave) seem feasible, even to the average/casual player, which is something that is key to retaining numbers required for healthy PvP (which is something that the vengeance tests (even with their issues) has only reinforced).
And yet even in those times the forums were filled with ballgroup nerf threads talking about how unkillable and unfair they were, etc. The more things change, the more things stay the same and all of that.
I also feel like I'm taking crazy pills here with people talking about unkillable groups. Every night you see literally every ballgroup on the map get zerged-down at some point or another (unless they are dodging fights) after biting-off more than they can chew. The zone players always win in the end.
Re: QoL: Repeatable Dungeon Quests
I swear I read a Dev post, or something somewhere, in which they said that this was on their radar or they are actively planning/working on it.
But I've not been able to find it, so now I'm thinking it was just a pleasant dream I had one night. LOL
ESO launcher (steam) has to be force shut down
Since recently I often have to shut down the launcher via task manager to close it down. It seems that some processes hang up during closing procedure... anyone else?
Re: Public formal confirmation that griefing and bullying isn't against Code of Conduct
katanagirl1 wrote: »AngryPenguin wrote: »A couple days ago one of the pledges was City of Ash II. The dungeon used to be pretty challenging, but now days with modern builds even pugs should be able to get through a vet CoAII run without too many issues.
So there I was on my fully subclassed dps warden/necro/acanist that has 36.5k health. Yes, it's a PvP build, but with a few tweaks is plenty strong dps in PvE especially for a dungeon that, while long, isn't very hard anymore. Some pug comes into the group, complains about my "40k health on a dps" and immediately leaves the group. So the healer, tank and me finished the dungeon with just the three of us, hard mode and all....with me being the only dps on a PvP build. The player left the group before even seeing what my dps actually was. ...and what it was was plenty enough for vCoAII HM with me being the only dps in the group.
Long story short, people like to claim PvP players are the most toxic group in game. But my experience has been by far, hands down, no contest, the newer dungeon runners who think they've got everything all figured out when in fact they can't even create their own build that is better than most you find online that prove to be the most toxic.
Newbs are not toxic, cocky perhaps, ignorant to the reality perhaps, but not toxic. I believe toxic is when a player thinks themselves better than others and are using boisterous claims to boost their own persona while belittling others. Being rude or demeaning has never resolved a conflict but some fall into that mode every disagreement. I can see why the group finder is ineffective. There is much 'my way or the highway' attitude moving; then the shade falls upon those who choose the highway.
I think those that dropped out of group before the fight began because they didn't like your build are no different than those who kick players because they don't like their build. Perhaps those that dropped out before the fight are more mature in their behavior.
I also believe that group dungeons should be ended. Remove the group-checks, and open them to the public. Just make them level two Public dungeons.
New players can be toxic is they are doing such low dps that the group is carrying them (without their knowledge of course, because of their ignorance) and they refuse to learn how to do better. Since they are being carried and it seems easy they assume they are doing just fine. Then they’ll get into another group where the overall dps is not high and blame the others for not doing well. This is as bad as toxic elitist attitude because it is completely false.
A new player is not going to know their dps is low unless they are told; not everyone has a test dummy in their closet. Unfortunately 'learning how to do better' usual includes instructions toward min/max builds that most people don't want to do. Instructions to a new dungeon player should be advice regarding gaming skills, like don't stand in the red, kill the adds, or heal the tank first. If they are being told to pull these skills and wear that armor or drop some kind of pot, the instructions could be overwhelming a player that does not have the ability to follow those instructions. Maybe a training version of the dungeons that players go test solo or with a companion or friend. (I say solo or with a friend because no one wants to fail before strangers.)
Long time ago, I was running a solo-survivalist build in another game. I was often invited to run special dungeons with the guild members. My position was DPS. I did not do as much damage as the other two DPS players. BUT, my build and skills allowed me to do damage while healing our healer. He was a great healer (mostly) but he was too focused on keeping the tank alive that he forgot to cover his own tail. Without me, the healer would fall, without the healer, the tank would fall, without the tank, the DPS would not survive. As awkward as it all sounded to new commers, it was the path we took. I tell this story to point out why telling new players to change gear or skills isn't really helping them.
shadoza
2