Where Are We Headed?

Leovolao

Hektik_V wrote: »

No one has taken into account the reintroduction of forward camps, which will make it much less of an impact if raid 1 wipes to the ulti/siege bomb, as they can just spawn up with full resources and come back to assist raid 2.

Yes! By all means let's have more people in the vecinity of a keep so we can enjoy the flawless performance this game has!

Minno

Leovolao wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

No one has taken into account the reintroduction of forward camps, which will make it much less of an impact if raid 1 wipes to the ulti/siege bomb, as they can just spawn up with full resources and come back to assist raid 2.

Yes! By all means let's have more people in the vecinity of a keep so we can enjoy the flawless performance this game has!

Argument is that while seige changes will kill players faster, the camps will give them a chance to get back to their progress.

Satiar

Jules wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

All of this talk of "well if you make it harder for us to do this, we'll need to bring more people."

Here's a thought:

Get good.

Instead of just getting more people to accomplish the 'impossible' goal, accomplish it with less and learn to thrive in different ways. Improve the overall individual player capability rather than just stacking more people because "F it, half of us are wiping anyway." That's a cop out.

Siege will drain resources, sure. Training ourselves in better methods of resource management will be necessary. Purge and barrier will be capped, sure. We will need to consider our defensive vs offensive abilities and ultimates even more now. We will need to consider the pros and cons of stacking up vs spreading out. There will need to be thought. There will be disadvantages to this style of gameplay. That is NECESSARY. As it stands now, ball up, rotate barriers is infallible to everything other than another ball up, rotate barriers group. The very way that we think about large group gameplay will need to change. And that is good.

Wow.

Jules, considering how much I hear from you about the "impossibility" of winning because of numbers/lag/Zerg/etc I find a "get good" argument to be less than compelling. Your very last post you talk about how numbers are THE deciding factor: should this argument be engaged with debate or a Get Good response? Got zerged? Get good. They hit three barriers? Get good. They have nine healers? Have you tried getting good...?

Like, the arguments Bulb is making are basically the ones you guys have made in the past. Why do you sit at bleaks instead of pushing Aleswell? The answer Ive gotten from you guys makes sense: it's a hard to take keep with A Lot of DC there. The reply that makes sense. You know it's going to be a shitshow so you just don't go. I could tell you to Get Good but I actually understand the concept of playing the content your group/numbers are capable of.

That's the point: people play to the content. If you make it impossible for AD raid #1 to take Roe they're not going to get good, they're going to being raid #2, and than #3. And then the server melts down.

But thank Akatosh you were here to tell everyone to get good. Crisis averted.

I think you're taking more offense to that than is intended. It was not directed at you, or any guild, or anyone in particular. It was directed at the mindset of "something is hard, I need more people to achieve this." Within reason, I don't think anyone should use this logic as a crutch.

Haxus still runs on average 12-16 people daily. Even when we run 20-24, ask Hek, it's not something I'm usually in favor of because it diminishes the challenge of combat. And yes, my previous post talks about how numbers are the deciding factor, which I disagree with that being the meta. We've discussed this a number of times but I always go back to a very insightful thing you once said to me. You said the ability to PVP is power. And Numbers and Skill are the two power modifiers. These two power modifiers are very out of whack in this patch as numbers modifies power 10-fold and skill falls by the waistside in most engagements. Though the challenges of the next patch may be speculated about, I look forward to finding and adapting to new methods of guild gameplay. And I hope you guys do too.

I'm not taking offense, I just think it's a glib way of dismissing the topic. It's why I brought up your previous post, because Get Good is just a terrible way to approach a patch/changes like this.

Like, seriously. I've seen people in your DK thread basically say the same about DKs, you did not seem to appreciate it. And for good reason.

hammayolettuce

Hektik_V wrote: »

No one has taken into account the reintroduction of forward camps, which will make it much less of an impact if raid 1 wipes to the ulti/siege bomb, as they can just spawn up with full resources and come back to assist raid 2.

except for the tiny res radius on camps... remember how far away camps have to be placed from an enemy keep? I don't think the reintroduction of forward camps will do much to help an offensive group trying to take a keep.

Joy_Division

Maybe this doesn't make me one of the cool kids and gives others the impression that I'm a carebear or something, but I always found the response, "get good," to be disrespectful.

PainfulFAFA

Joy_Division wrote: »

Maybe this doesn't make me one of the cool kids and gives others the impression that I'm a carebear or something, but I always found the response, "get good," to be disrespectful.

You're mistaking that for "git gud"
Completely different than "Get Good."

krim

You should have gotten good when the game was still good. We might have actually gotten some pvp updates if they weren't constantly trying to change the game for people who fail to L2P.

Satiar

Joy_Division wrote: »

Maybe this doesn't make me one of the cool kids and gives others the impression that I'm a carebear or something, but I always found the response, "get good," to be disrespectful.

It is, at the very least, dismissive.

Minno

Joy_Division wrote: »

Maybe this doesn't make me one of the cool kids and gives others the impression that I'm a carebear or something, but I always found the response, "get good," to be disrespectful.

Yup. I agree that players should strive to better their playstyle or how that approach the game. But "Git good" is the lazy version.

They mean essentially the same thing, but one revolves around eventually helping newer players learn the game. The other wipes the hand clean of being a responsible ESO vet.

Takllin

krim wrote: »

You should have gotten good when the game was still good. We might have actually gotten some pvp updates if they weren't constantly trying to change the game for people who fail to L2P.

They were too busy developing it for consoles...

CN_Daniel

Dear Jules:

Please get good and with the upcoming changes show me how your ultra elite small team will take a keep now against even 1 full group in Ts.

You know it won't happen.

Satiar

krim wrote: »

You should have gotten good when the game was still good. We might have actually gotten some pvp updates if they weren't constantly trying to change the game for people who fail to L2P.

Essentially. No one wanted to improve they just wanted it all nerfed. The cycle continues

FENGRUSH

Joy_Division wrote: »

Maybe this doesn't make me one of the cool kids and gives others the impression that I'm a carebear or something, but I always found the response, "get good," to be disrespectful.

Leave my girl Jules alone - she will not be subjected to scrutiny .. Im marrying her!

zyk

I have no faith that ZOS is going to solve Cyrodiil's performance issues. If it truly had an "ah-hah" moment, ZOS would be marketing the hell out of the upcoming changes to PVP. If anything, it is downplaying the upcoming changes.

While I don't think improved siege itself will solve the issue of lag, I look forward to the diminished effectiveness of the purge/barrier blobs.

I very much respect how well VE executes. I know the majority, if not all, of its members are very good in any kind of group. However, I find that gameplay to be kind of terrible.

I know many players who blob up feel the same. It's kind of like an arms race that ends in the mutually assured destruction of the server.

I resent that it pretty much takes a group playing the same style to stop a well-executed blob. I am glad there will be new counters and perhaps a shake-up of the VERY stale gameplay of Cyrodiil today. You guys lament what you foresee as the siege meta, but I lament what we have today as just as bad, if not worse.

hammayolettuce

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Maybe this doesn't make me one of the cool kids and gives others the impression that I'm a carebear or something, but I always found the response, "get good," to be disrespectful.

Leave my girl Jules alone - she will not be subjected to scrutiny .. Im marrying her!

Did she say yes??

Satiar

zyk wrote: »

I have no faith that ZOS is going to solve Cyrodiil's performance issues. If it truly had an "ah-hah" moment, ZOS would be marketing the hell out of the upcoming changes to PVP. If anything, it is downplaying the upcoming changes.

While I don't think improved siege itself will solve the issue of lag, I look forward to the diminished effectiveness of the purge/barrier blobs.

I very much respect how well VE executes. I know the majority, if not all, of its members are very good in any kind of group. However, I find that gameplay to be kind of terrible.

I know many players who blob up feel the same. It's kind of like an arms race that ends in the mutually assured destruction of the server.

I resent that it pretty much takes a group playing the same style to stop a well-executed blob. I am glad there will be new counters and perhaps a shake-up of the VERY stale gameplay of Cyrodiil today. You guys lament what you foresee as the siege meta, but I lament what we have today as just as bad, if not worse.

The meta certainly needed changes, as Bulb points out in the OP. But change does not equal good change. I would argue having INSANE ulti gain was in need of a change, but 1.6 (while fixing that problem) ultimately introduced further problems that were much much worse.

ESO has constantly solved problems in a terrible manner, killing flies by dropping bombs on them. I won't be making rage threads when the patch drops: I'll let everyone else do that as the good guilds adapt to another stupid meta and the Game gets dumbed down further.

krim

Satiar wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

I have no faith that ZOS is going to solve Cyrodiil's performance issues. If it truly had an "ah-hah" moment, ZOS would be marketing the hell out of the upcoming changes to PVP. If anything, it is downplaying the upcoming changes.

While I don't think improved siege itself will solve the issue of lag, I look forward to the diminished effectiveness of the purge/barrier blobs.

I very much respect how well VE executes. I know the majority, if not all, of its members are very good in any kind of group. However, I find that gameplay to be kind of terrible.

I know many players who blob up feel the same. It's kind of like an arms race that ends in the mutually assured destruction of the server.

I resent that it pretty much takes a group playing the same style to stop a well-executed blob. I am glad there will be new counters and perhaps a shake-up of the VERY stale gameplay of Cyrodiil today. You guys lament what you foresee as the siege meta, but I lament what we have today as just as bad, if not worse.

The meta certainly needed changes, as Bulb points out in the OP. But change does not equal good change. I would argue having INSANE ulti gain was in need of a change, but 1.6 (while fixing that problem) ultimately introduced further problems that were much much worse.

ESO has constantly solved problems in a terrible manner, killing flies by dropping bombs on them. I won't be making rage threads when the patch drops: I'll let everyone else do that as the good guilds adapt to another stupid meta and the Game gets dumbed down further.

I think ulti gain and how it worked was in a good spot and went hand in hand with the 6 player aoe cap. If my four man rushed into a 24 man raid we were generating ulti way faster than they could because we are only 4 targets. But that was the balance the game had. We were fighting potentially 24 ultimates while they only had to deal with 4 but we were pumping them out at a faster pace. While also only being able to hit 6 targets we werent able to completely wipe the whole group instantly we had to position and react to their counters to win.

Thats why back in those days when ever you come across a 1vx player everyone in yell chat is yelling SPREAD OUT DONT STACK ON THE NB/DK.. But you have the plebs who just stand on them feeding them ulti. L2P

Satiar

krim wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

I have no faith that ZOS is going to solve Cyrodiil's performance issues. If it truly had an "ah-hah" moment, ZOS would be marketing the hell out of the upcoming changes to PVP. If anything, it is downplaying the upcoming changes.

While I don't think improved siege itself will solve the issue of lag, I look forward to the diminished effectiveness of the purge/barrier blobs.

I very much respect how well VE executes. I know the majority, if not all, of its members are very good in any kind of group. However, I find that gameplay to be kind of terrible.

I know many players who blob up feel the same. It's kind of like an arms race that ends in the mutually assured destruction of the server.

I resent that it pretty much takes a group playing the same style to stop a well-executed blob. I am glad there will be new counters and perhaps a shake-up of the VERY stale gameplay of Cyrodiil today. You guys lament what you foresee as the siege meta, but I lament what we have today as just as bad, if not worse.

The meta certainly needed changes, as Bulb points out in the OP. But change does not equal good change. I would argue having INSANE ulti gain was in need of a change, but 1.6 (while fixing that problem) ultimately introduced further problems that were much much worse.

ESO has constantly solved problems in a terrible manner, killing flies by dropping bombs on them. I won't be making rage threads when the patch drops: I'll let everyone else do that as the good guilds adapt to another stupid meta and the Game gets dumbed down further.

I think ulti gain and how it worked was in a good spot and went hand in hand with the 6 player aoe cap. If my four man rushed into a 24 man raid we were generating ulti way faster than they could because we are only 4 targets. But that was the balance the game had. We were fighting potentially 24 ultimates while they only had to deal with 4 but we were pumping them out at a faster pace. While also only being able to hit 6 targets we werent able to completely wipe the whole group instantly we had to position and react to their counters to win.

Thats why back in those days when ever you come across a 1vx player everyone in yell chat is yelling SPREAD OUT DONT STACK ON THE NB/DK.. But you have the plebs who just stand on them feeding them ulti. L2P

I always felt ulti needed slight adjustment, having permbats was stupid. But certainly not the nerf hammer it got .

PosternHouse

They could just bring back the old ultimate gain system but rework it so it's not *that* fast. They could add some sort of ulti compensation for heavy armor tanks with shields because that was the reason they nerfed it in the first place.

WRX

I'm excited for the changes as I have said before. Bulb brings up some valid points that he has vehemently (see that *** there?) defended, so I feel those have been covered pretty well.

Here is the good part. Siege will be buffed again damage wise. I remember setting up traps late night with tea pot, tbois, dshotz, and a few others. Kite zergs around the corner, one ballista shot and bomb. Boom goes 20 people. That to me is exciting. Same with oils on rocks. Love it.

So many players don't use siege, and don't adapt (the not top guilds), that I am excited for the small scale side again. The dps opportunities now are so much better overall, and that is really what it need. A high damage thing, with no aoe caps. Unfortunately it has to be siege, but its better than nothing.

What is kinda lame is the source drain value is so high, but such is life. Twice born with double serpert on my sorc for group play. Meh, ill do it, but not really, just adds alot of versatility.

We will see how it goes. People had the same thoughts about siege buffs before, and it was rough for a week. But once we started bombing the people up top of a keep with trebs, or my favorite, shooting front flag right from outside, it started to work in our favor again.

Zheg

WRX wrote: »

I'm excited for the changes as I have said before. Bulb brings up some valid points that he has vehemently (see that *** there?) defended, so I feel those have been covered pretty well.

Here is the good part. Siege will be buffed again damage wise. I remember setting up traps late night with tea pot, tbois, dshotz, and a few others. Kite zergs around the corner, one ballista shot and bomb. Boom goes 20 people. That to me is exciting. Same with oils on rocks. Love it.

So many players don't use siege, and don't adapt (the not top guilds), that I am excited for the small scale side again. The dps opportunities now are so much better overall, and that is really what it need. A high damage thing, with no aoe caps. Unfortunately it has to be siege, but its better than nothing.

What is kinda lame is the source drain value is so high, but such is life. Twice born with double serpert on my sorc for group play. Meh, ill do it, but not really, just adds alot of versatility.

We will see how it goes. People had the same thoughts about siege buffs before, and it was rough for a week. But once we started bombing the people up top of a keep with trebs, or my favorite, shooting front flag right from outside, it started to work in our favor again.

I think you've touched on an issue that hasn't directly been addressed. You mention the dps opportunities being so much better, being able to lay a trap with siege and wipe 5 times your numbers, etc. Quite a lot of people favor this. I'm certainly not in that camp, and I'd assume at least some agree with me. My preferred pvp engagements, whether 1v1, small group, or large group are always when the fight LASTS and isn't over in mere seconds. Ganking someone is only fun for me a handful of times.

You're right that the new changes will provide significant dps opportunities, but let's at least understand that not everyone likes it when people blow up in seconds. That may be part of why I'm so against some of these changes, I see all of my fights being over far sooner in the next patch (for all realms of pvp), and I don't think of that as a win.

The build ive been running over the past month let's me have drawn out 10+ minute long fights against multiple people and still get kills if played well. Last night I fought 4 yellow while solo by nikel well, killed 3 in a few minutes, had a 5+ minute long fight against the last before he bowed and we went on our ways when it was a clear stalemate. I'll never be in favor of fights that end in 2 seconds over fights like that. While my build is quirky and uncommon and is hard for small scale fights to work like that, group v group fights, IMO, are where fights SHOULD take minutes, and every change of late seems to push it closer and closer to them being over in a single ult dump. Complaints over reduced ttk are met with nuggets of wisdom like Jules' "get good" when the reality is, replacing one problem for another isn't really fixing anything. She'll end up dying just as much against the same opponents, just in a different way and in a different meta.

booksmcread

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Maybe this doesn't make me one of the cool kids and gives others the impression that I'm a carebear or something, but I always found the response, "get good," to be disrespectful.

Leave my girl Jules alone - she will not be subjected to scrutiny .. Im marrying her!

So.....Lady Jules-Fengrush?

Talcyndl

"Leovolao wrote: »

"Yes! By all means let's have more people in the vecinity of a keep so we can enjoy the flawless performance this game has!

We'll have to see how the replacement version of FCs work out in practice. But, there is at least the possibility that their return will encourage groups to move deeper into enemy territory. That would spread out the population and (hopefully) lower lag.

Elong

booksmcread wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Maybe this doesn't make me one of the cool kids and gives others the impression that I'm a carebear or something, but I always found the response, "get good," to be disrespectful.

Leave my girl Jules alone - she will not be subjected to scrutiny .. Im marrying her!

So.....Lady Jules-Fengrush?

Mr Jules-Fengrush according to ESO Live.

Satiar

Talcyndl wrote: »

"Leovolao wrote: »

"Yes! By all means let's have more people in the vecinity of a keep so we can enjoy the flawless performance this game has!

We'll have to see how the replacement version of FCs work out in practice. But, there is at least the possibility that their return will encourage groups to move deeper into enemy territory. That would spread out the population and (hopefully) lower lag.

Does no one remember massive pile ups at BRK , Alessia and Chal *With* forward camps in full swing?

ataggs

Jules wrote: »

All of this talk of "well if you make it harder for us to do this, we'll need to bring more people."

Here's a thought:

Get good.

Instead of just getting more people to accomplish the 'impossible' goal, accomplish it with less and learn to thrive in different ways. Improve the overall individual player capability rather than just stacking more people because "F it, half of us are wiping anyway." That's a cop out.

Siege will drain resources, sure. Training ourselves in better methods of resource management will be necessary. Purge and barrier will be capped, sure. We will need to consider our defensive vs offensive abilities and ultimates even more now. We will need to consider the pros and cons of stacking up vs spreading out. There will need to be thought. There will be disadvantages to this style of gameplay. That is NECESSARY. As it stands now, ball up, rotate barriers is infallible to everything other than another ball up, rotate barriers group. The very way that we think about large group gameplay will need to change. And that is good.

Ok, but what are you going to do when they fix fall damage?

Elong

Satiar wrote: »

Talcyndl wrote: »

"Leovolao wrote: »

"Yes! By all means let's have more people in the vecinity of a keep so we can enjoy the flawless performance this game has!

We'll have to see how the replacement version of FCs work out in practice. But, there is at least the possibility that their return will encourage groups to move deeper into enemy territory. That would spread out the population and (hopefully) lower lag.

Does no one remember massive pile ups at BRK , Alessia and Chal *With* forward camps in full swing?

I'm scared in all honesty. More crashes incoming.

Satiar

Elong wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Talcyndl wrote: »

"Leovolao wrote: »

"Yes! By all means let's have more people in the vecinity of a keep so we can enjoy the flawless performance this game has!

We'll have to see how the replacement version of FCs work out in practice. But, there is at least the possibility that their return will encourage groups to move deeper into enemy territory. That would spread out the population and (hopefully) lower lag.

Does no one remember massive pile ups at BRK , Alessia and Chal *With* forward camps in full swing?

I'm scared in all honesty. More crashes incoming.

Dee Ticks were 30k+ on the regular for a reason.

Elong

Satiar wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Talcyndl wrote: »

"Leovolao wrote: »

"Yes! By all means let's have more people in the vecinity of a keep so we can enjoy the flawless performance this game has!

We'll have to see how the replacement version of FCs work out in practice. But, there is at least the possibility that their return will encourage groups to move deeper into enemy territory. That would spread out the population and (hopefully) lower lag.

Does no one remember massive pile ups at BRK , Alessia and Chal *With* forward camps in full swing?

I'm scared in all honesty. More crashes incoming.

Dee Ticks were 30k+ on the regular for a reason.

The game could sort of handle that back then. I never had too many issues. But now it can't handle 100 people on screen. It's going to be a ***.

Most people aren't going to spread out because of FC's, they're going to congregate. They follow the AP. We could see entire server crashes.

Teargrants

Satiar wrote: »

krim wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

I have no faith that ZOS is going to solve Cyrodiil's performance issues. If it truly had an "ah-hah" moment, ZOS would be marketing the hell out of the upcoming changes to PVP. If anything, it is downplaying the upcoming changes.

While I don't think improved siege itself will solve the issue of lag, I look forward to the diminished effectiveness of the purge/barrier blobs.

I very much respect how well VE executes. I know the majority, if not all, of its members are very good in any kind of group. However, I find that gameplay to be kind of terrible.

I know many players who blob up feel the same. It's kind of like an arms race that ends in the mutually assured destruction of the server.

I resent that it pretty much takes a group playing the same style to stop a well-executed blob. I am glad there will be new counters and perhaps a shake-up of the VERY stale gameplay of Cyrodiil today. You guys lament what you foresee as the siege meta, but I lament what we have today as just as bad, if not worse.

The meta certainly needed changes, as Bulb points out in the OP. But change does not equal good change. I would argue having INSANE ulti gain was in need of a change, but 1.6 (while fixing that problem) ultimately introduced further problems that were much much worse.

ESO has constantly solved problems in a terrible manner, killing flies by dropping bombs on them. I won't be making rage threads when the patch drops: I'll let everyone else do that as the good guilds adapt to another stupid meta and the Game gets dumbed down further.

I think ulti gain and how it worked was in a good spot and went hand in hand with the 6 player aoe cap. If my four man rushed into a 24 man raid we were generating ulti way faster than they could because we are only 4 targets. But that was the balance the game had. We were fighting potentially 24 ultimates while they only had to deal with 4 but we were pumping them out at a faster pace. While also only being able to hit 6 targets we werent able to completely wipe the whole group instantly we had to position and react to their counters to win.

Thats why back in those days when ever you come across a 1vx player everyone in yell chat is yelling SPREAD OUT DONT STACK ON THE NB/DK.. But you have the plebs who just stand on them feeding them ulti. L2P

I always felt ulti needed slight adjustment, having permbats was stupid. But certainly not the nerf hammer it got .

I've got it! Give dynamic ult gen back and fix it the ZOS Way(TM), just give it infinitely stacking cost increases like bolt escape and dodge roll!

Wrobel likes doing those, right? That'll make everything fine and dandy as cotton candy, right? Infinite stacking costs balances everything, right? Right!?