Where Are We Headed?

God_flakes

PosternHouse wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

I was unsure what to make for dinner tonight but then came here and was reminded how delicious Bulb's salty tears are.

When DC was complaining about alllllll this a year ago we were told to suck it up. By people like Bulb. So my sympathy meter is at an all time low. Peace.

So you're upset about people who told you to suck it up who were like OP but who weren't actually the same person as OP. Yeah, sounds totally reasonable. Your NaCl consumption is approaching dangerous quantities.

Bulby came here plenty of times and defended the ep Zerg trains. It's just, delicious tears and irony are delicious. Let DC have their moment in the sun.

Satiar

God_flakes wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

I was unsure what to make for dinner tonight but then came here and was reminded how delicious Bulb's salty tears are.

When DC was complaining about alllllll this a year ago we were told to suck it up. By people like Bulb. So my sympathy meter is at an all time low. Peace.

And than our entire guild rerolled to help out. lol

Irrelevant. Appreciated but irrelevant. Ya'll enjoyed over pop status for a looooooong time and got yo killz on for a looooooooong time before deciding to try to balance the scales. Let DC have their moment in the sun. I like that so much I'm gonna make it my signature.

Ah yes, my glorious overpopulated days of getting gate camped by DC on Bloodthorn. How could I forget

ataggs

God_flakes wrote: »

PosternHouse wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

I was unsure what to make for dinner tonight but then came here and was reminded how delicious Bulb's salty tears are.

When DC was complaining about alllllll this a year ago we were told to suck it up. By people like Bulb. So my sympathy meter is at an all time low. Peace.

So you're upset about people who told you to suck it up who were like OP but who weren't actually the same person as OP. Yeah, sounds totally reasonable. Your NaCl consumption is approaching dangerous quantities.

Bulby came here plenty of times and defended the ep Zerg trains. It's just, delicious tears and irony are delicious. Let DC have their moment in the sun.

Maybe try sobering up a bit before your next post.

frozywozy

x99Needles wrote: »

...It is no secret that Cyrodiil is in a poor state. Between the constant lag issues, the stale “how many can I stack and who’s got barrier” Meta, and the discouraged or tired out leaving Cyrodiil at a frightening rate leaves Cyrodiil feeling just a little emptier than it was before. I can agree as I think most all of us can that something needs to change. I mean we all wish the lag would be “fixed” or just go away but the reality of the situation is that the game cannot currently operate as was intended...

...The mentality that has evolved inside this game is almost unbelievable. You are playing an RvR Game. We are all playing a game designed around taking objectives inside Cyrodiil that revolve around at the very least 18 man groups. This game does not support dueling or arenas (yet as they say.) And here we are shaming players and groups for playing the way it was intended…

Can you be more contradictory ?

What I am more concerned about further each day I watch this game is where we are currently headed. The upcoming changes to Alliance War Skills and Siege Weapons inside Cyrodiil are excellent examples. We are reducing the effectiveness of skills meant to be used inside the alliance war and increasing the effectiveness of siege damage. Why? What’s the problem?

Siege damage is increased because with the state of the game right now, ballgroups can too easily get inside a keep without breaking an additional wall no matter the amount of defense inside. Bring me the argument that a proper bomb group staying on the other side of the breach can counter anything as much as you want, thruth is, we rarely see people dropping more than one single wall before getting inside a keep. This need to change.

Sometimes it works okay, sometimes it really sucks. It is not our fault, nor the players we are going up against that the game’s performance is poor.

No it's definitely not your fault, but after near 2years of playing in poor conditions, maybe it's time for you to realize that running in multiple 12-16men groups and hitting different objectives make the game much more enjoyable for everybody. I have fought CN 16men groups several times the past 2weeks at Dragon and we had a blast. No lag 16vs16. On Azura Star. At Primetime. With 3 factions max pop. I challenge you to give it a try only once. I know it's really hard for you to do it but I beg you to try it once even if you believe that the only cause of lag is having too many players on the screen at once.

You think I run 24 members so I can chase down 3 or 4 people in a field and exclaim, “Get rekt! We are so good!” That's it, I've been compiling footage for my Xv1 video for the past year and a half guys. No.

I see you guys chasing 1 and 2's with a full raid on a regular basis. It's obviously not the same people as the ones with different opinions in the forums amiright?

If you didn’t have large groups in Cyrodiil what a sad place it would be.

Actually, if every guild would run groups of 16 of less and hit objectives intelligently, I'm almost guaranteed that the server ping would never spike above 800ms in the exception of dethrones. By playing intelligently, I mean by that to communicate with other guilds constantly and hit different objectives. Keep thinking that 8 more players barely change anything though.

The removal of Prox Det as a skill entirely. No matter how you look at this skill or how many times you want to change it, it favors the group. It will never favor the smaller force enough to justify it. This is by far the best group AoE ever given to group players.

Earlier you were complaining that they need to add another counter to ballgroups other than sieges which look like a lack of skills for you. Zenimax plans to redesign Prox Det in the next major update to deal minimal damage to few players and lot more than before to several players. This is how it should have worked since the beginning. It will still be a tool for large group against large group play and it will help smaller groups/solo players against larger groups. Why are you asking for it's total remove is a mistery. Oh wait, it is going to force you to spread out and once again, like the siege changes, you cannot conceive how to lead a group while asking your members to spread out from time to time. Gotta keep the ball tight gents.

I agree about the rest of your suggestions for the most part. I also hope that the siege changes are going to be tweaked around a little bit. In my opinion, the damage is fine but the ressource damage should be reduced by half. If they decide to keep the unpurgable effect by purge/cleanse, it should be at least purgable by Cleansing ritual or any synergy to Purge/Cleanse they could add and players using those abilities should be purged aswell but the aoe purge definitely needs to be removed.

Satiar wrote: »

Was not expecting a Bulb thread, but a lot in there I agree with.

I love the idea of fixing Steel Tornado, bringing it in line with other AoEs. I'd love a meta where burst is not King, where purge isn't so strong that CCs, debuffs, and roots were something that mattered. Longer fights, more strategy. But alas, we seem to simply being going towards more burst, less sustain, more dumbed down gameplay...

It gives me a sad

One of the main reason why 24men ballgroups are that successful right now is because people can't cc break in lag. Not sure what the problem is with CCs to be honest with you. Before they add more ccs, they need to fix performance issues.

Satiar

Before they do Anything they need to fix performance issues. That siege meta tho..

krim

Xsorus wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

As for siege changes... let's look at what actually happened the last time we buffed siege.



Good times good times.

I'm confused...is this video suppose to show something bad?

I see lots of people dying in a choke point that's being bombarded by siege?

That's pretty much suppose to be what happens....Not them stack up and run through it like nothing is going on.

It's not PvP. Dat left click spec is great though.

Only it is PvP....

Unless the PvP no longer means Player Vs Player.

Poodle vs Poodle?

In our case its pros vs plebs . Though I think what Mano is suggesting is, compared to our other videos we dont consider this pvp.

Best part about this siege topic is. We used siege in every fight pre 1.6. We had luvboard put down fire balistas and meatbags in every engagement. It was our not so secret to being so good. Now if only every pleb archer and low lvl would have dropped siege back then you might have a different opinion on how strong it actually was. I remember shouting in yell chat PUT DOWN SIEGE PLZ DO SOMETHING! Then i was like ok ill drop siege for you with my own AP. USE THE SIEGE PLEASE... and nothing. I hated you AD randos.

Siege had two effective uses pre 1.6 imo.
1. Knock down keep walls.
2. Turn the tide in a battle forcing people to constantly purge/cleanse, heal and not do dmg and run out of resources.

Then it turned into a primary option with crazy dmg instead of using skills to kill people.

The video is a mockery of ESO pvp and how crappy it turned to. Beside the fact of wiping the blue zerg i had zero fun during this video. I remember thinking wow that was lame.

zyk

I'm not sure everyone recalls that siege was actually significantly nerfed at the start of 1.6. That is why it was later buffed. When I started playing ESO PVP in 1.3 through 1.5, oil and siege were extremely effective.

Players certainly did not yawn at it.

frozywozy

Manoekin wrote: »

As for siege changes... let's look at what actually happened the last time we buffed siege.



Good times good times.

Great video man! Thanks for demonstrating what siege damage should do when people refuse to bring down an additional wall with a proper defense already deployed aiming at the breach.

frozywozy

CN_Daniel wrote: »

- Campaigns need a lower population cap
- We need dynamic ult regen, for obvious reasons
- Group size needs to be reduced to 16 or 20
- Seige damage should be roughly doubled from now, but the other new ideas are ridiculous and poorly thoughtout
- Delete one inactive campaign to condense populations on PC
- Remove AOE caps totally
- Increase AP gains for solo/small teamers, to encourage more groups (A change I now support, after thoroughly thinking about it and assessing campaign health through a solo player's eyes)
- Finish IC, make it so you can capture districts
- Make the PvP quest hubs so you can capture them
- Lock any faction out of IC who does not own all of their home keeps and make all campaigns lockable
- Add a cool down for cloak, reflect & Breathe of Life JUST like you did for streak (balance, since you want to derp one classes 'special' ability, all classes should have theirs on a cost cool down too)
- Add an execute to impulse or remove the execute from nado
- Remove proxy all together


I think Vulvasair is a jabroni, but I can't argue with his logic. Maybe the devs should listen JUST ONCE to the people who actually play the game, more than casually.

Been repeating these solutions in plenty of my posts but got barely no one to agree with. Guess it needs to come from someone leading large groups to make people realize it. Cheers

Zheg

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

As for siege changes... let's look at what actually happened the last time we buffed siege.



Good times good times.

Great video man! Thanks for demonstrating what siege damage should do when people refuse to bring down an additional wall with a proper defense already deployed aiming at the breach.

Sometimes you make me wonder if you really believe the ridiculous things you say, or if you're just playing all of us. You keep harping on 'bringing down multiple walls hurr hurr'. Do you know what makes pvp a clustereff? When a keep is burst twice as long as it needs to be so that more and more people can pile up and flock to the shiny. Keep sieges (last emp keeps aside, which are an entirely different PITA that need to be addressed by ZOS) should be as fast and efficient as possible if you're hoping to keep lag down. If I want to take roebeck, I try to keep my group's movements under wraps as much as possible and get down as much siege as quickly as possible to burst the keep as quickly as possible. Once it's burst, you have a ticking clock before more and more and yet more enemy reinforcements show up (because the keep wasn't being well scouted and responded to in the first place) and the ping shoots up to obscene levels because now there are 3+ raids worth of pugs there to defend. The same applies for ally reinforcements. No one (except a select few) like to pvdoor, but fighting so that a keep is burst 2-5 times as long as it should be is just asking for the entire campaign to show up and crash the servers. Your insistence on the baseline for keep assaults being long sieges and multiple breaches is fundamentally flawed. If you want to defend a keep, post defenders, or at the very least keep a scout to run the walls and give a call out quickly enough for defenders to port in. A good defending group is what should make enemies pause and be reluctant to push through a breach, not a bunch of pugs left clicking overpowered siege. Siege should be a compliment to the group of defenders (and already is) that deters enemies from pushing breaches, it shouldn't be the main deterrent.

krim

zyk wrote: »

I'm not sure everyone recalls that siege was actually significantly nerfed at the start of 1.6. That is why it was later buffed. When I started playing ESO PVP in 1.3 through 1.5, oil and siege were extremely effective.

Players certainly did not yawn at it.

Was it nerfed? Or did they forget that they increased everyones health from 3k to 30k and forgot to adjust Then they adjusted it and messed it up even more.

frozywozy

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

As for siege changes... let's look at what actually happened the last time we buffed siege.



Good times good times.

Great video man! Thanks for demonstrating what siege damage should do when people refuse to bring down an additional wall with a proper defense already deployed aiming at the breach.

Sometimes you make me wonder if you really believe the ridiculous things you say, or if you're just playing all of us. You keep harping on 'bringing down multiple walls hurr hurr'. Do you know what makes pvp a clustereff? When a keep is burst twice as long as it needs to be so that more and more people can pile up and flock to the shiny. Keep sieges (last emp keeps aside, which are an entirely different PITA that need to be addressed by ZOS) should be as fast and efficient as possible if you're hoping to keep lag down. If I want to take roebeck, I try to keep my group's movements under wraps as much as possible and get down as much siege as quickly as possible to burst the keep as quickly as possible. Once it's burst, you have a ticking clock before more and more and yet more enemy reinforcements show up (because the keep wasn't being well scouted and responded to in the first place) and the ping shoots up to obscene levels because now there are 3+ raids worth of pugs there to defend. The same applies for ally reinforcements. No one (except a select few) like to pvdoor, but fighting so that a keep is burst 2-5 times as long as it should be is just asking for the entire campaign to show up and crash the servers. Your insistence on the baseline for keep assaults being long sieges and multiple breaches is fundamentally flawed. If you want to defend a keep, post defenders, or at the very least keep a scout to run the walls and give a call out quickly enough for defenders to port in. A good defending group is what should make enemies pause and be reluctant to push through a breach, not a bunch of pugs left clicking overpowered siege. Siege should be a compliment to the group of defenders (and already is) that deters enemies from pushing breaches, it shouldn't be the main deterrent.

Your whole paragraph, calling out my "stupidity" again because you can literally not write without insulting people in every single of your posts, illustrates the extreme opposite of what pvedoor is. You try to prove that buffing sieges is going to make every keep capture a struggle and a 2hours fight with the whole faction stacked there.

Here is how the new siege meta should works exactly in a couple scenarios :

Scenario #1 (Undefended keep a.k.a pvedoor)

1) 16men group assaults an undefended keep after scouting it properly
2) 99% of the time they end up capturing it and even with the new siege meta, it will probably be the same if they know how to 50/50 properly with the right siege placements

Scenario #2 (Relatively well defended keep)

1) 16men group assaults a relatively well defended keep
2) Outter wall goes down
3) 16men group stacking up getting ready to pop barrier and go in
4)The defenders (group of 6-12men ?pugs) inside knows how to deploy sieges properly aiming at the breach (mix of oil catapult, meatbag, fire balista)
5) 16men group scout the proper siege defense but decide to go in anyway
6) Defenders must manage to get a good volley at the right timing on the attackers (the attackers could easily fake their mouvements in to bait a siege volley, and then have plenty of time to run inside)

Let's be honest, chances that the attackers wipe are still pretty low. Defenders have to know how to deploy sieges properly, have a good timing on the volley (only one chance), and have people dealing enough damage to finish them.

Scenario #3 (Very well defended keep)

As I've said multiple times in other siege threads, if the keep gets overwhelmed and too many defenders are present, that means you screwed up and didn't scout properly before you went in in the first time. Your choices are either to bring down additional walls or to accept the defeat and go hit a different objective.

Also, before you complain about the new siege meta, try having some of your healers running siege shield. When I run on wednesday, I usually have 3 templars running it and practicing for the patch coming up.

The whole point of the siege meta is to force ballgroups purge spammers to stop being invulnerable as they push inside a breach. This is ridiculous. Really tired to see that happening every single time.

TheBull

Where? Instead of 4 people spamming purge in a 24 man there will be 8 now that siege is purgable again. Where does this lead? Right were we are now.

Zheg

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

As for siege changes... let's look at what actually happened the last time we buffed siege.



Good times good times.

Great video man! Thanks for demonstrating what siege damage should do when people refuse to bring down an additional wall with a proper defense already deployed aiming at the breach.

Sometimes you make me wonder if you really believe the ridiculous things you say, or if you're just playing all of us. You keep harping on 'bringing down multiple walls hurr hurr'. Do you know what makes pvp a clustereff? When a keep is burst twice as long as it needs to be so that more and more people can pile up and flock to the shiny. Keep sieges (last emp keeps aside, which are an entirely different PITA that need to be addressed by ZOS) should be as fast and efficient as possible if you're hoping to keep lag down. If I want to take roebeck, I try to keep my group's movements under wraps as much as possible and get down as much siege as quickly as possible to burst the keep as quickly as possible. Once it's burst, you have a ticking clock before more and more and yet more enemy reinforcements show up (because the keep wasn't being well scouted and responded to in the first place) and the ping shoots up to obscene levels because now there are 3+ raids worth of pugs there to defend. The same applies for ally reinforcements. No one (except a select few) like to pvdoor, but fighting so that a keep is burst 2-5 times as long as it should be is just asking for the entire campaign to show up and crash the servers. Your insistence on the baseline for keep assaults being long sieges and multiple breaches is fundamentally flawed. If you want to defend a keep, post defenders, or at the very least keep a scout to run the walls and give a call out quickly enough for defenders to port in. A good defending group is what should make enemies pause and be reluctant to push through a breach, not a bunch of pugs left clicking overpowered siege. Siege should be a compliment to the group of defenders (and already is) that deters enemies from pushing breaches, it shouldn't be the main deterrent.

Your whole paragraph, calling out my "stupidity" again because you can literally not write without insulting people in every single of your posts, illustrates the extreme opposite of what pvedoor is. You try to prove that buffing sieges is going to make every keep capture a struggle and a 2hours fight with the whole faction stacked there.

Here is how the new siege meta should works exactly in a couple scenarios :

Scenario #1 (Undefended keep a.k.a pvedoor)

1) 16men group assaults an undefended keep after scouting it properly
2) 99% of the time they end up capturing it and even with the new siege meta, it will probably be the same if they know how to 50/50 properly with the right siege placements

Scenario #2 (Relatively well defended keep)

1) 16men group assaults a relatively well defended keep
2) Outter wall goes down
3) 16men group stacking up getting ready to pop barrier and go in
4)The defenders (group of 6-12men ?pugs) inside knows how to deploy sieges properly aiming at the breach (mix of oil catapult, meatbag, fire balista)
5) 16men group scout the proper siege defense but decide to go in anyway
6) Defenders manage to get a good volley at the right timing on the attackers (the attackers could easily fake their mouvements in to bait a siege volley, and then have plenty of time to run inside)

Let's be honest, chances that the attackers wipe are still pretty low. Why? Because they decided to go inside without bringing down an additional wall after scouting proper siege defense or without baiting the sieges properly.

Scenario #3 (Very well defended keep)

As I've said multiple times in other siege threads, if the keep gets overwhelmed and too many defenders are present, that means you screwed up and didn't scout properly before you went in in the first time. If the servers could handle it, I would tell you to bring as many walls down as possible, but with the actual game state, you should just accept the fact that u messed up and let the defenders have their d tick and go hit some place else.

Also, before you complain about the new siege meta, try having some of your healers running siege shield. When I run on wednesday, I usually have 3 templars running it and practicing for the patch coming up.

I called your opinion ridiculous, not stupid - though if that's the word that's at the forefront of your mind, maybe there's something there in regards to what you keep saying about siege. Your scenario 1 is just plain pvdoor, no defenders. Your only other scenario (2) is again fundamentally flawed. Firstly, with overpowered siege comes a reduction in a 16 man group's ability to take a partially defended keep - this means they're going to need to bring more people, and/or stack with other groups. Secondly, once a keep is burst, the 6-12 men defenders you 'pie-in-the-sky' mention do not remain 6-12, they rapidly grow in number to the point where ping goes up and any realistic chance of taking the keep goes down. Furthermore, you keep talking in idealistic situations, implying that successful keep sieges should be because of scouting and scouting alone. Are we not playing the same game? For a majority of the night, everyone and their mother can guess where the next push is going to be as the objectives funnel you from one spot to the next. In those cases, a single group has no real chance of taking the obvious next objective with your idealized pvp and will need to stack with other raids to take the keep.

We've already run into plenty of scenarios where there is significant counter siege up, we have 20ish people and no support, and there are 10-20 defenders inside the keep at the start. People keep deluding themselves into believing that siege is currently useless because it doesn't one or twoshot people, and that should never be the intent. It's already strong, and when used properly - in addition to a well versed group of defenders, gives those defenders a high chance of success. How people insist on trying to refute that is truly beyond me.

krim

TheBull wrote: »

Where? Instead of 4 people spamming purge in a 24 man there will be 8 now that siege is purgable again. Where does this lead? Right were we are now.

I mean just look at the video again. At 1:20 a group does make it in spamming purge.. If you have a group running with rapid up spamming purge GL trying to get more than 2-3 direct hits simultaneously. Only time your going to kill someone with siege is if they are standing still which is what most people did in that video. This is why a smart leader pushes to the furthest siege in the back.

krim

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

As for siege changes... let's look at what actually happened the last time we buffed siege.



Good times good times.

Great video man! Thanks for demonstrating what siege damage should do when people refuse to bring down an additional wall with a proper defense already deployed aiming at the breach.

Sometimes you make me wonder if you really believe the ridiculous things you say, or if you're just playing all of us. You keep harping on 'bringing down multiple walls hurr hurr'. Do you know what makes pvp a clustereff? When a keep is burst twice as long as it needs to be so that more and more people can pile up and flock to the shiny. Keep sieges (last emp keeps aside, which are an entirely different PITA that need to be addressed by ZOS) should be as fast and efficient as possible if you're hoping to keep lag down. If I want to take roebeck, I try to keep my group's movements under wraps as much as possible and get down as much siege as quickly as possible to burst the keep as quickly as possible. Once it's burst, you have a ticking clock before more and more and yet more enemy reinforcements show up (because the keep wasn't being well scouted and responded to in the first place) and the ping shoots up to obscene levels because now there are 3+ raids worth of pugs there to defend. The same applies for ally reinforcements. No one (except a select few) like to pvdoor, but fighting so that a keep is burst 2-5 times as long as it should be is just asking for the entire campaign to show up and crash the servers. Your insistence on the baseline for keep assaults being long sieges and multiple breaches is fundamentally flawed. If you want to defend a keep, post defenders, or at the very least keep a scout to run the walls and give a call out quickly enough for defenders to port in. A good defending group is what should make enemies pause and be reluctant to push through a breach, not a bunch of pugs left clicking overpowered siege. Siege should be a compliment to the group of defenders (and already is) that deters enemies from pushing breaches, it shouldn't be the main deterrent.

The whole point of the siege meta is to force ballgroups purge spammers to stop being invulnerable as they push inside a breach. This is ridiculous. Really tired to see that happening every single time.

Really what you need is another force to meet them at the breach or where ever. Then what you need is all those people who arent contributing effectively because they are either low lvl, or use single target builds to get on siege and assist the group who is fighting said ball group.

Heres a good example. You have a 5 man alacrity group fighting a crystalized group. You see one fire balista and 15 people just standing around using weak single target skills on people who fight 1vx? Dont be brain dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wxqqe_ooMU

frozywozy

Zheg wrote: »

Firstly, with overpowered siege comes a reduction in a 16 man group's ability to take a partially defended keep - this means they're going to need to bring more people, and/or stack with other groups.

What the heck are you talking about ? If a 16men group including templars running siege shield and heals siege a relatively well defended keep, they should have no problem at all to bring the outter wall down in no time. Then, the 6-12men group inside defending get a first chance to counter the group by timing their sieges at the same time on the breach. If this fail, they must retreat to the inner because with aoe caps and no dynamic ulti gen, there is no chance to win out numbered against an organized group. Then they get an additional chance to wipe the group on the inner breach. At least, they have an option, unlike the actual meta.

For a majority of the night, everyone and their mother can guess where the next push is going to be as the objectives funnel you from one spot to the next. In those cases, a single group has no real chance of taking the obvious next objective with your idealized pvp and will need to stack with other raids to take the keep.

With the new introduction of forward camps, I agree that it will make keep defenses also easier, but it will also encourage groups to hit deep in enemy territory where they don't expect it.

frozywozy

krim wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

As for siege changes... let's look at what actually happened the last time we buffed siege.



Good times good times.

Great video man! Thanks for demonstrating what siege damage should do when people refuse to bring down an additional wall with a proper defense already deployed aiming at the breach.

Sometimes you make me wonder if you really believe the ridiculous things you say, or if you're just playing all of us. You keep harping on 'bringing down multiple walls hurr hurr'. Do you know what makes pvp a clustereff? When a keep is burst twice as long as it needs to be so that more and more people can pile up and flock to the shiny. Keep sieges (last emp keeps aside, which are an entirely different PITA that need to be addressed by ZOS) should be as fast and efficient as possible if you're hoping to keep lag down. If I want to take roebeck, I try to keep my group's movements under wraps as much as possible and get down as much siege as quickly as possible to burst the keep as quickly as possible. Once it's burst, you have a ticking clock before more and more and yet more enemy reinforcements show up (because the keep wasn't being well scouted and responded to in the first place) and the ping shoots up to obscene levels because now there are 3+ raids worth of pugs there to defend. The same applies for ally reinforcements. No one (except a select few) like to pvdoor, but fighting so that a keep is burst 2-5 times as long as it should be is just asking for the entire campaign to show up and crash the servers. Your insistence on the baseline for keep assaults being long sieges and multiple breaches is fundamentally flawed. If you want to defend a keep, post defenders, or at the very least keep a scout to run the walls and give a call out quickly enough for defenders to port in. A good defending group is what should make enemies pause and be reluctant to push through a breach, not a bunch of pugs left clicking overpowered siege. Siege should be a compliment to the group of defenders (and already is) that deters enemies from pushing breaches, it shouldn't be the main deterrent.

The whole point of the siege meta is to force ballgroups purge spammers to stop being invulnerable as they push inside a breach. This is ridiculous. Really tired to see that happening every single time.

Really what you need is another force to meet them at the breach or where ever. Then what you need is all those people who arent contributing effectively because they are either low lvl, or use single target builds to get on siege and assist the group who is fighting said ball group.

Heres a good example. You have a 5 man alacrity group fighting a crystalized group. You see one fire balista and 15 people just standing around using weak single target skills on people who fight 1vx? Dont be brain dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wxqqe_ooMU

If you can bring me the same video in 2.2.9 instead of 1.5 with dynamic ulti gen I promise to give it a try. Until that happens, I will gladly take the siege changes coming up, even if I just learned that it will only promote more purge spam and more calculations to the server.

Thanks Zenimax.

krim

frozywozy wrote: »

krim wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

As for siege changes... let's look at what actually happened the last time we buffed siege.



Good times good times.

Great video man! Thanks for demonstrating what siege damage should do when people refuse to bring down an additional wall with a proper defense already deployed aiming at the breach.

Sometimes you make me wonder if you really believe the ridiculous things you say, or if you're just playing all of us. You keep harping on 'bringing down multiple walls hurr hurr'. Do you know what makes pvp a clustereff? When a keep is burst twice as long as it needs to be so that more and more people can pile up and flock to the shiny. Keep sieges (last emp keeps aside, which are an entirely different PITA that need to be addressed by ZOS) should be as fast and efficient as possible if you're hoping to keep lag down. If I want to take roebeck, I try to keep my group's movements under wraps as much as possible and get down as much siege as quickly as possible to burst the keep as quickly as possible. Once it's burst, you have a ticking clock before more and more and yet more enemy reinforcements show up (because the keep wasn't being well scouted and responded to in the first place) and the ping shoots up to obscene levels because now there are 3+ raids worth of pugs there to defend. The same applies for ally reinforcements. No one (except a select few) like to pvdoor, but fighting so that a keep is burst 2-5 times as long as it should be is just asking for the entire campaign to show up and crash the servers. Your insistence on the baseline for keep assaults being long sieges and multiple breaches is fundamentally flawed. If you want to defend a keep, post defenders, or at the very least keep a scout to run the walls and give a call out quickly enough for defenders to port in. A good defending group is what should make enemies pause and be reluctant to push through a breach, not a bunch of pugs left clicking overpowered siege. Siege should be a compliment to the group of defenders (and already is) that deters enemies from pushing breaches, it shouldn't be the main deterrent.

The whole point of the siege meta is to force ballgroups purge spammers to stop being invulnerable as they push inside a breach. This is ridiculous. Really tired to see that happening every single time.

Really what you need is another force to meet them at the breach or where ever. Then what you need is all those people who arent contributing effectively because they are either low lvl, or use single target builds to get on siege and assist the group who is fighting said ball group.

Heres a good example. You have a 5 man alacrity group fighting a crystalized group. You see one fire balista and 15 people just standing around using weak single target skills on people who fight 1vx? Dont be brain dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wxqqe_ooMU

If you can bring me the same video in 2.2.9 instead of 1.5 with dynamic ulti gen I promise to give it a try. Until that happens, I will gladly take the siege changes coming up, even if I just learned that it will only promote more purge spam and more calculations to the server.

Thanks Zenimax.

Its not about us and dynamic ult gen. Its about the tards standing around thinking they are doing something. We dont need siege changes we need people who know what to do in any given situation when their build isnt working effectively.

The more numbers the stronger your group, that has always been the case even before 1.6. Except now you cant hold your ground with less numbers at all. So the solution is to make siege super strong to fight large groups who understand now more than ever a zerg is stronger than anything? Yeah thats not going to fix a damn thing, but that fits ZOS's M-O

What we need is everyone to be on board with a 1.5 revert.

x99Needles

frozywozy wrote: »

x99Needles wrote: »

...It is no secret that Cyrodiil is in a poor state. Between the constant lag issues, the stale “how many can I stack and who’s got barrier” Meta, and the discouraged or tired out leaving Cyrodiil at a frightening rate leaves Cyrodiil feeling just a little emptier than it was before. I can agree as I think most all of us can that something needs to change. I mean we all wish the lag would be “fixed” or just go away but the reality of the situation is that the game cannot currently operate as was intended...

...The mentality that has evolved inside this game is almost unbelievable. You are playing an RvR Game. We are all playing a game designed around taking objectives inside Cyrodiil that revolve around at the very least 18 man groups. This game does not support dueling or arenas (yet as they say.) And here we are shaming players and groups for playing the way it was intended…

Can you be more contradictory ?

What I am more concerned about further each day I watch this game is where we are currently headed. The upcoming changes to Alliance War Skills and Siege Weapons inside Cyrodiil are excellent examples. We are reducing the effectiveness of skills meant to be used inside the alliance war and increasing the effectiveness of siege damage. Why? What’s the problem?

Siege damage is increased because with the state of the game right now, ballgroups can too easily get inside a keep without breaking an additional wall no matter the amount of defense inside. Bring me the argument that a proper bomb group staying on the other side of the breach can counter anything as much as you want, thruth is, we rarely see people dropping more than one single wall before getting inside a keep. This need to change.

Sometimes it works okay, sometimes it really sucks. It is not our fault, nor the players we are going up against that the game’s performance is poor.

No it's definitely not your fault, but after near 2years of playing in poor conditions, maybe it's time for you to realize that running in multiple 12-16men groups and hitting different objectives make the game much more enjoyable for everybody. I have fought CN 16men groups several times the past 2weeks at Dragon and we had a blast. No lag 16vs16. On Azura Star. At Primetime. With 3 factions max pop. I challenge you to give it a try only once. I know it's really hard for you to do it but I beg you to try it once even if you believe that the only cause of lag is having too many players on the screen at once.

You think I run 24 members so I can chase down 3 or 4 people in a field and exclaim, “Get rekt! We are so good!” That's it, I've been compiling footage for my Xv1 video for the past year and a half guys. No.

I see you guys chasing 1 and 2's with a full raid on a regular basis. It's obviously not the same people as the ones with different opinions in the forums amiright?

If you didn’t have large groups in Cyrodiil what a sad place it would be.

Actually, if every guild would run groups of 16 of less and hit objectives intelligently, I'm almost guaranteed that the server ping would never spike above 800ms in the exception of dethrones. By playing intelligently, I mean by that to communicate with other guilds constantly and hit different objectives. Keep thinking that 8 more players barely change anything though.

The removal of Prox Det as a skill entirely. No matter how you look at this skill or how many times you want to change it, it favors the group. It will never favor the smaller force enough to justify it. This is by far the best group AoE ever given to group players.

Earlier you were complaining that they need to add another counter to ballgroups other than sieges which look like a lack of skills for you. Zenimax plans to redesign Prox Det in the next major update to deal minimal damage to few players and lot more than before to several players. This is how it should have worked since the beginning. It will still be a tool for large group against large group play and it will help smaller groups/solo players against larger groups. Why are you asking for it's total remove is a mistery. Oh wait, it is going to force you to spread out and once again, like the siege changes, you cannot conceive how to lead a group while asking your members to spread out from time to time. Gotta keep the ball tight gents.

I agree about the rest of your suggestions for the most part. I also hope that the siege changes are going to be tweaked around a little bit. In my opinion, the damage is fine but the ressource damage should be reduced by half. If they decide to keep the unpurgable effect by purge/cleanse, it should be at least purgable by Cleansing ritual or any synergy to Purge/Cleanse they could add and players using those abilities should be purged aswell but the aoe purge definitely needs to be removed.

Satiar wrote: »

Was not expecting a Bulb thread, but a lot in there I agree with.

I love the idea of fixing Steel Tornado, bringing it in line with other AoEs. I'd love a meta where burst is not King, where purge isn't so strong that CCs, debuffs, and roots were something that mattered. Longer fights, more strategy. But alas, we seem to simply being going towards more burst, less sustain, more dumbed down gameplay...

It gives me a sad

One of the main reason why 24men ballgroups are that successful right now is because people can't cc break in lag. Not sure what the problem is with CCs to be honest with you. Before they add more ccs, they need to fix performance issues.

Coming from someone who doesn't know how to keep to his word in any sense, I hope you don't expect me to take you seriously. Also, quoting me repeating my point in a different context and asking if I can be more contradictory? Can you be more ignorant? You are on the forums in different threads constantly changing your opinion on multiple matters, seems the only real thing you can hold yourself to is whatever tickles your fancy in the immediate moment. Let me break down my quote for you, since you were incapable.
...It is no secret that Cyrodiil is in a poor state. Between the constant lag issues, the stale “how many can I stack and who’s got barrier” Meta, and the discouraged or tired out leaving Cyrodiil at a frightening rate leaves Cyrodiil feeling just a little emptier than it was before. I can agree as I think most all of us can that something needs to change. I mean we all wish the lag would be “fixed” or just go away but the reality of the situation is that the game cannot currently operate as was intended...

...The mentality that has evolved inside this game is almost unbelievable. You are playing an RvR Game. We are all playing a game designed around taking objectives inside Cyrodiil that revolve around at the very least 18 man groups. This game does not support dueling or arenas (yet as they say.) And here we are shaming players and groups for playing the way it was intended…

By taking pieces of what I was saying completely out of context and trying to make it look like I contradicted myself, you have failed miserably. I agree the current Meta Barrier should change. This does not change the fact that you are playing an RVR game and group size is going to be large. And my point was we should not be hating or shaming players for it.

Also, you have absolutely no idea how I run my raids and I'd like to ask you to refrain from spouting any further ignorance. We spread out in fights when it is necessary. Upcoming prox det changes will not result in any different effect than there is now. Ball groups will use it, it will be most effective in 24 man raids no matter how you look at it. As for running 16, I'll only run 16 when the game's group size is reduced. You mention max pop across all three factions, do you think everyone else runs around in 16 man groups? I'm the only one in cyrodiil that runs 24? Everything would be just fine if I ran 16? If you want smaller groups, take it up with ZOS.

"By playing intelligently." Frozen. You are reaching levels of stupidity I cannot begin to fathom. You seriously think running 16 is going to stop ALL lag? Are you that naive? You think we intentionally ask the faction to rally in one spot? While it is true people have rallied their factions before, that in and of itself is proof enough what you are ignorantly advocating will never work. People are going to STACK IN AN RVR GAME. Cyrodiil WAS INTENDED FOR YOU TO CAPTURE KEEPS. There was never a limit to the number allowed. Because that is the silliest idea ever. "You, you cannot play the game inside this keep because 16 ppl are already here. Sorry, you'll have to run somewhere else or log off." Seriously frozen, use that brain of yours, you have a degree remember? But hey, 8 more players in a group is the difference between 800ping and playable. I hope people read this and laugh at how ridiculous you sound.

The Siege damage changes being implemented to further damage players is because we only siege one wall down? ....???????????????????? So when siege does more damage Against Players...we will somehow be forced to knock more walls down...?????????????????? Siege damage is being increased on players. Not walls. I don't even know what else to say, you have the least amount of logic in your posts it's getting to the point of bad for my blood pressure. Even if we wanted to knock more walls down, how is that going to fix anything related to what I'm worried about? You're just going to stack fire balista, meat bags, and oil cats, with oil on the ledges inside the inner. You know, the choke with only two walls. Or have you forgotten keep layouts already? I think the only reason you want these siege changes is because like most others who want it, its the only way you kill things.

All your post says is, "the game would work fine if you all played the way I want you to play." Honestly, its Mystery* (not mistery) that anyone considers what you have to say when it is always directly biased on whatever you feel at the time with zero loyalty to even your own points. I'm asking where is the game headed like this, all you did here was try to justify changes we havent even tested yet and tell me it would work fine if everyone played your way. You'll have to forgive me for not taking you seriously, in any capacity.

x99Needles

God_flakes wrote: »

I was unsure what to make for dinner tonight but then came here and was reminded how delicious Bulb's salty tears are.

When DC was complaining about alllllll this a year ago we were told to suck it up. By people like Bulb. So my sympathy meter is at an all time low. Peace.

Quote me on the forums where I told DC to suck it up. Just once. Thank you Jauriel.

BigTone

CN_Daniel wrote: »

- Campaigns need a lower population cap
- We need dynamic ult regen, for obvious reasons
- Group size needs to be reduced to 16 or 20
- Seige damage should be roughly doubled from now, but the other new ideas are ridiculous and poorly thoughtout
- Delete one inactive campaign to condense populations on PC
- Remove AOE caps totally
- Increase AP gains for solo/small teamers, to encourage more groups (A change I now support, after thoroughly thinking about it and assessing campaign health through a solo player's eyes)
- Finish IC, make it so you can capture districts
- Make the PvP quest hubs so you can capture them
- Lock any faction out of IC who does not own all of their home keeps and make all campaigns lockable
- Add a cool down for cloak, reflect & Breathe of Life JUST like you did for streak (balance, since you want to derp one classes 'special' ability, all classes should have theirs on a cost cool down too)
- Add an execute to impulse or remove the execute from nado
- Remove proxy all together


I think [snip]OP[/snip] is a jabroni, but I can't argue with his logic. Maybe the devs should listen JUST ONCE to the people who actually play the game, more than casually.

Imagine the salt from the magicka nightblades though, it would be glorious



Moderator edit - post edited for referencing edited content

Jules

ataggs wrote: »

I really believe the upcoming changes were not in the long term plans, but are reactions to a few vocal players demanding change because they want to play this game differently than it was designed.

My role is a support role and I wear a set designed for that role (it was not cheap attaining all of these pieces with the desired traits). That set will be almost worthless with the planned changes to the support line. Purge will be nerfed, barrier will be nerfed, that leaves me with guard and revealing flare. Oh wait, I still have siege shield...looks like we will be using that more.

Why create new sets (since IC) and then make them worthless in just a few months? Just stupid! The only up side is that these same vocal players that claim to play solo or small man (run alongside organised groups and leech the benefits) will no longer get the buff from the support sets.

I wish people would wake up...these super elite, we are so cool 1 v whatevers don't care about you, your play style,or the game..they care about making videos. Thanks for listening to these guys ZOS,and thanks for taking all of that spare gold that was weighing my toon down. Pfft!

Making a set useless is a small price to pay for fixing mechanics that directly favor large group gameplay over small. As Kena states below very eloquently, this game was intended to be a "play as you want" game. Numbers simply cannot continue to be the only determining factor in Cyrodiil. It makes for poor, dumbed down gameplay and servers that are unplayable. Large groups in and of themselves are already their own advantage because they have strength in numbers. They do not need incredibly powerful ultimates that are rotated between 9 healers and one ability to be spammed to cleanse 24 people of all negative effects. Capping these abilities is balance, it is not punishment. The removal of AOE caps is similar; it is not intended to be punishment to large group, but to balance the scales so that smaller groups have a chance. That's all anyone ever wants. Playing in large group should not be discouraged, but it should also not be the only method of survival in Cyrodiil.

KenaPKK wrote: »

A zerg is any group larger than is necessary to achieve its objective. I've been saying this for a long time, and I stand by my definition of the word. No one dislikes large groups existing. People dislike two things: uneven fights and lag.

The game was marketed as a "play how you want" sandbox within a RvRvR environment capable of supporting large scale battles. All group sizes should be accommodated, and big groups shouldn't "zerg" down little groups with unnecessarily large numbers.

But as for your suggestions, yes, more PvP objectives in Cyrodiil and IC, removal of AoE caps and Prox Det, implementation of mild dynamic ulti generation, free movement between campaigns + incentive to participate in all of them, reworked campaign victory rewards...

The list goes on an on, all things we've been calling for in the name of "fixing" PvP. >.<

Well said Kena.



Also, Bulb aside from this disdain toward the upcoming changes, I agree with you on the more PVP objectives to naturally spread people out as well as the dynamic ulti and removal of AOE caps. Well written post.

RinaldoGandolphi

A big part of the state Cyrodiil is in is because of the failure of the Imperial City...ZOS gave in to the whiners and PVE players demanding 100% open access and in essence ruined the IPC.

What ZOS needs to do and what would go a long way to fixing lag is:

1. Lock the Gates on ALL factions of the IPC and required holding all 6 Ring keeps(having Emp) in order to get into the city.
2. If you get de-throned, it locks the gates for your faction and opens the gates for the faction that is crowned.
3. Add objectives and such to the districts.
4. Add new items and gear EVERY MONTH that can only be gotten in the IPC to give incentive.
5. Close All vet Campaigns but 2 so we don't have any buff servers.
6. Once you lose the ring keeps, if you die inside you release at the Cyrodiil gate unless your rezed by a teammate.

What this does is it forces the factions to actually fight over the city, once one side gets access they go into the city to farm the new monthly stuff, while the other 2 factions fight it out up top...this reduces the lag considerably, infact it will probably get rid of 90% of it.

However the IPC is a failure due to its open access and nothing to farm..they need to lock the gates and add new stuff every month to farm and reduce the number of campaigns..the IPC can be a balancing factor to reduce lag but it will require constant upkeep, and new items and stuff worth getting, as it will be a natural balance factor and lag solver to Cyrodiil by keeping the populations in check while giving players something worth fighting over.

until this happens, Cyrodiil will just be zerg or go home with everyone just just concentrating and fighting over keeps in congested areas that the game simply can't handle...

Zheg

Jules wrote: »

Making a set useless is a small price to pay for fixing mechanics that directly favor large group gameplay over small. As Kena states below very eloquently, this game was intended to be a "play as you want" game. Numbers simply cannot continue to be the only determining factor in Cyrodiil. It makes for poor, dumbed down gameplay and servers that are unplayable. Large groups in and of themselves are already their own advantage because they have strength in numbers. They do not need incredibly powerful ultimates that are rotated between 9 healers and one ability to be spammed to cleanse 24 people of all negative effects. Capping these abilities is balance, it is not punishment. The removal of AOE caps is similar; it is not intended to be punishment to large group, but to balance the scales so that smaller groups have a chance. That's all anyone ever wants. Playing in large group should not be discouraged, but it should also not be the only method of survival in Cyrodiil.

Also, Bulb aside from this disdain toward the upcoming changes, I agree with you on the more PVP objectives to naturally spread people out as well as the dynamic ulti and removal of AOE caps. Well written post.

You know what else is a super strong ult? Bats. If ZOS were to nerf bats, the same crowd calling for nerfs to barrier would literally lose their ***. Your tactics tend to be prox up, run in with bats for a bomb, and then pull off until you re-condense with prox and/or until you have bats back. Bats ACTS as your barrier because it provides strong healing while doing large aoe dmg at the same time. You could run barrier rotations as well, you'd just lose part of your bomb. What do people think will be the replacement for barrier when it's nerfed to oblivion and literally made useless? Bats. Everyone who isn't running bats is just going to switch to that. The 'small price to pay for fixing mechanics' isn't actually fixing much, it's replacing one problem/meta with another. A smaller group won't be able to bomb much better when the larger group all pops a reactionary bats group-wide instead of a barrier rotation - you'll get blown up just the same.

An alternative to how they could have fixed barrier is make it group only and have diminishing returns on the shield strength if cast more than once every 5 seconds. That way it can still be used tactically as a reaction to a bomb, or to manuever to a location, but would make rotating in barriers less effective. Name a single nerf in ESO's history that is as large as going from 24 people to 6 people in a single jump. I don't see balance when I look at that, I see desperation.

FYI, there are literally a handful of groups that run large left in ESO, and I know of none that run 9 healers. You keep talking about how numbers can't continue being as strong as they currently are, and yet when I look at the changes and anticipate what the meta looks like, I see numbers being even MORE important than they currently are, which makes everyone lauding these changes all the more baffling. You think a small-medium sized group is going to go take a keep now with the overpowered siege and oil catapults obliterating any non-stamina build's stamina in 2 hits? Yeah, ok. People are just going to end up piling up more and more with the changes as they are right now - counter to the supposed intention.

FENGRUSH

Jules wrote: »

ataggs wrote: »

I really believe the upcoming changes were not in the long term plans, but are reactions to a few vocal players demanding change because they want to play this game differently than it was designed.

My role is a support role and I wear a set designed for that role (it was not cheap attaining all of these pieces with the desired traits). That set will be almost worthless with the planned changes to the support line. Purge will be nerfed, barrier will be nerfed, that leaves me with guard and revealing flare. Oh wait, I still have siege shield...looks like we will be using that more.

Why create new sets (since IC) and then make them worthless in just a few months? Just stupid! The only up side is that these same vocal players that claim to play solo or small man (run alongside organised groups and leech the benefits) will no longer get the buff from the support sets.

I wish people would wake up...these super elite, we are so cool 1 v whatevers don't care about you, your play style,or the game..they care about making videos. Thanks for listening to these guys ZOS,and thanks for taking all of that spare gold that was weighing my toon down. Pfft!

Making a set useless is a small price to pay for fixing mechanics that directly favor large group gameplay over small. As Kena states below very eloquently, this game was intended to be a "play as you want" game. Numbers simply cannot continue to be the only determining factor in Cyrodiil. It makes for poor, dumbed down gameplay and servers that are unplayable. Large groups in and of themselves are already their own advantage because they have strength in numbers. They do not need incredibly powerful ultimates that are rotated between 9 healers and one ability to be spammed to cleanse 24 people of all negative effects. Capping these abilities is balance, it is not punishment. The removal of AOE caps is similar; it is not intended to be punishment to large group, but to balance the scales so that smaller groups have a chance. That's all anyone ever wants. Playing in large group should not be discouraged, but it should also not be the only method of survival in Cyrodiil.

KenaPKK wrote: »

A zerg is any group larger than is necessary to achieve its objective. I've been saying this for a long time, and I stand by my definition of the word. No one dislikes large groups existing. People dislike two things: uneven fights and lag.

The game was marketed as a "play how you want" sandbox within a RvRvR environment capable of supporting large scale battles. All group sizes should be accommodated, and big groups shouldn't "zerg" down little groups with unnecessarily large numbers.

But as for your suggestions, yes, more PvP objectives in Cyrodiil and IC, removal of AoE caps and Prox Det, implementation of mild dynamic ulti generation, free movement between campaigns + incentive to participate in all of them, reworked campaign victory rewards...

The list goes on an on, all things we've been calling for in the name of "fixing" PvP. >.<

Well said Kena.



Also, Bulb aside from this disdain toward the upcoming changes, I agree with you on the more PVP objectives to naturally spread people out as well as the dynamic ulti and removal of AOE caps. Well written post.

When Jules takes my words and uses them as a rallying cry - I fall in love a little bit each time.

Minno

Zheg wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Making a set useless is a small price to pay for fixing mechanics that directly favor large group gameplay over small. As Kena states below very eloquently, this game was intended to be a "play as you want" game. Numbers simply cannot continue to be the only determining factor in Cyrodiil. It makes for poor, dumbed down gameplay and servers that are unplayable. Large groups in and of themselves are already their own advantage because they have strength in numbers. They do not need incredibly powerful ultimates that are rotated between 9 healers and one ability to be spammed to cleanse 24 people of all negative effects. Capping these abilities is balance, it is not punishment. The removal of AOE caps is similar; it is not intended to be punishment to large group, but to balance the scales so that smaller groups have a chance. That's all anyone ever wants. Playing in large group should not be discouraged, but it should also not be the only method of survival in Cyrodiil.

Also, Bulb aside from this disdain toward the upcoming changes, I agree with you on the more PVP objectives to naturally spread people out as well as the dynamic ulti and removal of AOE caps. Well written post.

You know what else is a super strong ult? Bats. If ZOS were to nerf bats, the same crowd calling for nerfs to barrier would literally lose their ***. Your tactics tend to be prox up, run in with bats for a bomb, and then pull off until you re-condense with prox and/or until you have bats back. Bats ACTS as your barrier because it provides strong healing while doing large aoe dmg at the same time. You could run barrier rotations as well, you'd just lose part of your bomb. What do people think will be the replacement for barrier when it's nerfed to oblivion and literally made useless? Bats. Everyone who isn't running bats is just going to switch to that. The 'small price to pay for fixing mechanics' isn't actually fixing much, it's replacing one problem/meta with another. A smaller group won't be able to bomb much better when the larger group all pops a reactionary bats group-wide instead of a barrier rotation - you'll get blown up just the same.

An alternative to how they could have fixed barrier is make it group only and have diminishing returns on the shield strength if cast more than once every 5 seconds. That way it can still be used tactically as a reaction to a bomb, or to manuever to a location, but would make rotating in barriers less effective. Name a single nerf in ESO's history that is as large as going from 24 people to 6 people in a single jump. I don't see balance when I look at that, I see desperation.

FYI, there are literally a handful of groups that run large left in ESO, and I know of none that run 9 healers. You keep talking about how numbers can't continue being as strong as their currently are, and yet when I look at the changes and anticipate what the meta looks like, I see numbers being even MORE important than they currently are, which makes everyone lauding these changes all the more baffling.

Losing the IC sets harms who? Last I checked most build help threads had Kag or Morkulkin set as preferred. Pve pledge/trials will still have use of those sets and those wanting to explore outside the pvp build lines.

I like the barrier changes, but its along the lines of a CD. Shields should be back on CD, most OP skills should have a CD first instead of a direct nerf. But we have to accept the game in that direction first (I know people opposed cooldowns and we need to make sure we want it first)

Remove camo hunter stealth morph, add AOE component instead. There's your bat killer .

Zheg

Minno wrote: »

Losing the IC sets harms who? Last I checked most build help threads had Kag or Morkulkin set as preferred. Pve pledge/trials will still have use of those sets and those wanting to explore outside the pvp build lines.

I like the barrier changes, but its along the lines of a CD. Shields should be back on CD, most OP skills should have a CD first instead of a direct nerf. But we have to accept the game in that direction first (I know people opposed cooldowns and we need to make sure we want it first)

Remove camo hunter stealth morph, add AOE component instead. There's your bat killer .

Just because builds/sets aren't posted on the forums or deltia hasn't highlighted them doesn't mean they aren't incredibly good. Two of the IC sets are immensely useful in pvp, few cared to test/realize it, and that's on them. Ataggs was lamenting having to get a completely new set, much as everyone else would if hunding's rage or kag's was made crappy all of a sudden. The more salient point is that pure support builds are only ever useful/appropriate for larger sized groups as whatever buffs/support they provide only starts to be worth it when you reach a critical mass for the benefit and it outweighs the lost dps/healing you would have gained by having a pure dps or healer in the mix instead. It's also a large part of why larger groups are stronger (though few ever realize it) - they can and do have pure support roles whereas it doesn't make sense to run things like that in smaller groups. Jules seems to be missing that point and saying entire subsets of the population should sacrifice their role and switch to being a main dps or healer in the name of 'balance'. Buffs can be given to smaller groups that don't require an elimination of support roles from large groups so they can be replaced with just another healer/dps.

Edit: one more closing thought. Eliminating an already niche set so that we have one more person running the favored cookie cutter build in the name of homogeneity and 'balance' is just one more nail in the coffin. How many more people do we need running hunding's/kag's? Ataggs was pointing out the obvious fact that wrobel (in charge of itemization) is basically lowering the number of useful sets even further in favor of poor balance changes that could be achieved without all of the drawbacks. People are lauding said changes because they aren't affected by the drawbacks, or don't care.

Joy_Division

CN_Daniel wrote: »

- Campaigns need a lower population cap
- We need dynamic ult regen, for obvious reasons
- Group size needs to be reduced to 16 or 20
- Seige damage should be roughly doubled from now, but the other new ideas are ridiculous and poorly thoughtout
- Delete one inactive campaign to condense populations on PC
- Remove AOE caps totally
- Increase AP gains for solo/small teamers, to encourage more groups (A change I now support, after thoroughly thinking about it and assessing campaign health through a solo player's eyes)
- Finish IC, make it so you can capture districts
- Make the PvP quest hubs so you can capture them
- Lock any faction out of IC who does not own all of their home keeps and make all campaigns lockable
- Add a cool down for cloak, reflect & Breathe of Life JUST like you did for streak (balance, since you want to derp one classes 'special' ability, all classes should have theirs on a cost cool down too)
- Add an execute to impulse or remove the execute from nado
- Remove proxy all together


I think [snip]OP[/snip] is a jabroni, but I can't argue with his logic. Maybe the devs should listen JUST ONCE to the people who actually play the game, more than casually.

While others might congratulate you for finding religion and getting away from your public praising of stacking multiple groups, this suggestion is moronic. Sorcerers and Nightblades can survive and fight just fine without streak and cloak, which, incidentally are selfish skills that only benefit the users. So now you want to force a class that has one-third of their skills devoted to healing to have to use a resto staff since their lack of mobility, shields, burst damage, etc., is all justified on the fact that "BoL is OP bro."

Moderator edit - post edited for referencing edited content

Ishammael

Joy_Division wrote: »

CN_Daniel wrote: »

- Campaigns need a lower population cap
- We need dynamic ult regen, for obvious reasons
- Group size needs to be reduced to 16 or 20
- Seige damage should be roughly doubled from now, but the other new ideas are ridiculous and poorly thoughtout
- Delete one inactive campaign to condense populations on PC
- Remove AOE caps totally
- Increase AP gains for solo/small teamers, to encourage more groups (A change I now support, after thoroughly thinking about it and assessing campaign health through a solo player's eyes)
- Finish IC, make it so you can capture districts
- Make the PvP quest hubs so you can capture them
- Lock any faction out of IC who does not own all of their home keeps and make all campaigns lockable
- Add a cool down for cloak, reflect & Breathe of Life JUST like you did for streak (balance, since you want to derp one classes 'special' ability, all classes should have theirs on a cost cool down too)
- Add an execute to impulse or remove the execute from nado
- Remove proxy all together


I think Vulvasair is a jabroni, but I can't argue with his logic. Maybe the devs should listen JUST ONCE to the people who actually play the game, more than casually.

While others might congratulate you for finding religion and getting away from your public praising of stacking multiple groups, this suggestion is moronic. Sorcerers and Nightblades can survive and fight just fine without streak and cloak, which, incidentally are selfish skills that only benefit the users. So now you want to force a class that has one-third of their skills devoted to healing to have to use a resto staff since their lack of mobility, shields, burst damage, etc., is all justified on the fact that "BoL is OP bro."

Agree with Joy here.