Thank you for ruining pvp fun with proc sets, to the benefit of ball groups

neferpitou73

DTStormfox wrote: »

neferpitou73 wrote: »

Instead of seeing another "nerf ball group" thread I'd like to see a "how can I make a better organized group thread?" I think I'll start one.

This isn't a nerf ball group - thread. This is a close the gap between ball groups and casual groups thread by reducing the synergetic power of proc sets - thread. Anyhows, I checked your "how can I make a better organized group thread?" And no surprise, almost all the set items you propose to use are proc sets, and you call them "less important to than people make them out to be (although they are very important..." As such, I think it is safe to assume that you agree with me: proc sets carry ball groups too much.

(Edit typos)

Explain to me then why during the no-proc tests ball groups were still dominating, it has absolutely nothing to do with proc sets and everything to do with coordinating (i.e. fighting the alliance war like a war) The most important thing in groups is not the sets but the role distribution and ult composition. The groups that never die are composed of some of the most mechanically skilled pvp players in the game.

Of course using sets that give group buffs is going to be recommended in a thread about creating a group, but the intended point of that post was that it is not the end all be all of group comps.

I also find the claim that this is not a nerf ball group thread humorous when this is one of the first posts on the thread:

Tigor wrote: »

It is clear that the ball groups need a nerf, so they can start to play pvp. The observed faction stacking is just resulting from reduced group size, and the feeling to be more safe from ball groups.

In regards to tactics to fight ball groups:

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

neferpitou73 wrote: »

I'm sorry, I'm just don't understand the endgame to these types of complaints.

There are many different complaints and different usages of the term "ball group." The problem I try to express is how stacking cross healing and purge spam benefits organized groups with a comp exponentially more than pugs, allowing even mediocre groups with no chance of actually winning an objective to indefinitely stall fights against pugs, demanding a lag-inducing faction stack to get rid of them.

Sure in theory you can "git gud" and join the sort of group that can land a coordinated bomb on them, so ask yourself, why are players so resistant to do this? And why are the usual solo/pug tools like siege, chain pulls, and AoE ults so ineffective now? DoT siege like Coldfire in particular is trivially countered by a prepared group. That isn't right to me.

I can assure you that my groups do feel siege. The reason we do not die from it is again, coordination. Casual players do not know how to coordinate their siege effectively to chase larger groups away. When we're faced with someone who does know who to do that we struggle unless we have a numbers advantage. I also co-run a counter-siege group that has chased away groups 2-3 times our size because we know where to place our skills and siege.

DTStormfox

neferpitou73 wrote: »

Explain to me then why during the no-proc tests ball groups were still dominating, it has absolutely nothing to do with proc sets and everything to do with coordinating (i.e. fighting the alliance war like a war) The most important thing in groups is not the sets but the role distribution and ult composition. The groups that never die are composed of some of the most mechanically skilled pvp players in the game.

I never said that they didn't dominate in no-proc sets Cyrodiil. The point is not their domination but the skewed imbalance that occurs because proc sets are way more to the benefit of highly organized groups than any group <12 players. As pointed out by Tommy_The_Gun: proc sets are not group environment balanced in PvP. The problem is not proc sets or ball groups. The problem is the skewed imbalance when proc sets and ball groups are combined.

neferpitou73 wrote: »

I also find the claim that this is not a nerf ball group thread humorous when this is one of the first posts on the thread:

Tigor wrote: »

It is clear that the ball groups need a nerf, so they can start to play pvp. The observed faction stacking is just resulting from reduced group size, and the feeling to be more safe from ball groups.

I say this is not a nerf ball group thread. That somebody else says: "ball groups need a nerf," does not change this thread in a nerf ball groups thread. Because that is like driving a car and when somebody in the car says that it is a bus, the car is now a bus. That doesn't make any sense, does it?

neferpitou73 wrote: »

I can assure you that my groups do feel siege. The reason we do not die from it is again, coordination. Casual players do not know how to coordinate their siege effectively to chase larger groups away. When we're faced with someone who does know who to do that we struggle unless we have a numbers advantage. I also co-run a counter-siege group that has chased away groups 2-3 times our size because we know where to place our skills and siege.

First, ball groups are not affected by siege damage a lot. Nobody is really affected by siege damage a lot unless you run alone or in a small group without a healer. Second, there tends to be a lot of server lag when ball groups are around. Which causes a great delay in when siege weapons actually fire. Which makes aiming them hard (if not impossible). Third, area of effect siege weapons (such as meat bag and scattershot) are fixed area of effects. You can just run around them or, as most (ball) groups are capable of, run over them without really being affected.

If ball groups were not (almost) immune to all damage over time (due to overhealing and a lot of purging and cleansing), and not (almost) immune to snares, roots and stun, —made possible because proc sets carry them a lot in resource recovery and such— then maybe siege would work. In practice, however, siege weapons are not a counter-play to any group of any size.

(edit: BB-code correction)

Vizirith

They've been buffed every single patch, what do you expect? A nerf? LOL

DTStormfox

Vizirith wrote: »

They've been buffed every single patch, what do you expect? A nerf? LOL

A nerf would affect all players equally and not change anything. I expect an intervention to close the gap. One example is to only allow proc sets that proc on the wearer of the set item would be a good start. Either by changing how proc sets work in Cyrodiil PvP or by simply disabling proc sets with group mechanics in Cyrodiil PvP.

For the former, an example:
Earthgore now procs: "When you heal yourself or a group member that is under 50% Health"
Change that to (only in Cyrodiil): "When you heal yourself while being under 50% Health"

For the latter, an example:
Allow sets that exclusively proc on the wearer.
Disable sets that proc on the wearer AND group members.

DjinnAeternam

DjinnAeternam wrote: »

Expecting playing casual vs. organized group and win easily doesn't make any sense. Take out all sets ingame, organized groups will still have advantage over casuals/inexperienced players.

DTStormfox wrote: »

Another strawman. I am not expecting casuals to win easily. And yes, also when you take all sets out of the game, organized groups would still have an advantage. However, that is not the point. The point is: proc sets benefit organized groups way too much. Yesterday evening, for example, a ball group was running around in a keep and they were unkillable. Only when the entire faction stacked on the ball group, they were killed. If it really takes a faction stack to kill a ball group, something is wrong with the balance. I am not blaming the ball groups for this. I blame the imbalance that proc sets created for this.

Well if an alliance needs to stack to kill a good organized adversary, it means that adversary effectiveness is higher than the other "randoms", ofc this has to do with sets, but also with tactics and each player skill inside group, how group maneuvers etc.

Why do you see it as "something is wrong" ? Needing 40+ players to kill 12? Doesn't seem that much to me, that's just barely 1:4 ratio on numbers.

xylena_lazarow

DjinnAeternam wrote: »

Why do you see it as "something is wrong" ? Needing 40+ players to kill 12? Doesn't seem that much to me, that's just barely 1:4 ratio on numbers.

The problem is when 12 pugs can successfully defend the objective and force the 12 person heal blob off the flags, but then it takes 40 to actually get rid of them because they're just running around the walls in a heal blob. The siege dots and stationary AoE ults like Negate that pugs rely on get hard countered by a group that stacks cross healing and purge spam while staying moving and avoiding objectives.

DTStormfox

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

DjinnAeternam wrote: »

Why do you see it as "something is wrong" ? Needing 40+ players to kill 12? Doesn't seem that much to me, that's just barely 1:4 ratio on numbers.

The problem is when 12 pugs can successfully defend the objective and force the 12 person heal blob off the flags, but then it takes 40 to actually get rid of them because they're just running around the walls in a heal blob. The siege dots and stationary AoE ults like Negate that pugs rely on get hard countered by a group that stacks cross healing and purge spam while staying moving and avoiding objectives.

Exactly this. I have nothing to add to that.

Draxys

I’m not gonna agree or disagree on procs, but they’re not the reason ball groups have a huge advantage. The actual reasons are coordination, group oriented builds and synergy, and experience playing together.

Tigor

DTStormfox wrote: »

Vizirith wrote: »

They've been buffed every single patch, what do you expect? A nerf? LOL

A nerf would affect all players equally and not change anything. I expect an intervention to close the gap. One example is to only allow proc sets that proc on the wearer of the set item would be a good start. Either by changing how proc sets work in Cyrodiil PvP or by simply disabling proc sets with group mechanics in Cyrodiil PvP.

• The ball groups get already a lot of advantages by overlapping AOE heals/damage skills, spells and synergies.
• Reactivating the proc sets gave an extra overlapping AOE heals/damage stimulation to everyone, but created extra advantages to ballgroups, because they are always running within each others ranges.
• The resulting extra faction stacks needed, to get ball groups down, are not in favor of the already weak server performance.

A "nerf" could indeed be one your proposed changes, to how proc sets work. Such a change, is then applicable to everyone but not giving so much benefits to ball groups. In that way ball groups would still be ball groups in their modus operandi, only less strong, and then the use of proc sets could bring a shift in balance, when you would only heal yourself and do damage e.g. to the closest enemy (my own idea).

YandereGirlfriend

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

Agree.

Do you know what is the biggest enemy of "balance" in any multiplayer pvp game (especially mmos) ?

It is Multiplicity.

If you have one thing (like skill or set proc etc), then well, it is all fine.

But what if you multiply it by 12?

Suddenly (on an average build, since sets scale now) Almalexia's Mercy 3K over 3 seconds heal proc for all people within 7 meters becomes 36K. That is 12K health per second (equivalent of 24K health recovery for everyone in a group), if all players in a group have this set.

24K health recovery...

Is Almalexia's Mercy set balanced ? Yes, it is. No one ever said it is OP. But is "group enviroment" balanced ? Definitely not. Ball group behaviour reminds me of something I have seen happening in eso long time ago - multi account cheat (Players were using remote control on PC, so one keyboard & mice was controlling 3 - 4 laptops / pcs). In game it was visible as 3 - 4 players stacked in one place, moving the same way, using same skills in the same time etc. It is illegal, and yet the description sounds familiar, right ? Stacking, using same skills at the same time etc...

Anyway, we all know that ball groups are destroying pvp experience for pretty much everyone else. It is not a mystery. But I am not blaming them. They are just playing using "Most Effective Tactics Available". It is ZOS who made it possible and has done nothing to fix it.

If you would ask me, then I would say that the only way to fix Ball groups is to give all skills & sets in pvp a Pale Order treatment. That is it.

I am gonna leave it here. Peace.

You've got to nail down the actual game mechanics at work before using this as an example.

Almalexia's Mercy is capped at 6 targets like nearly all healing and buff/debuff sets and it simply selects the 6 closest players within range when it activates, meaning that there is no way whatsoever to ensure an even distribution of its effects within your group.

You're also only getting the maximum at absurdly high levels of Magicka, levels that are impossible to hit without otherwise crippling your builds (which tend to be very specialized).

I don't say this to mad-dog you with random minutia but rather to illustrate the general point observed in this thread that there is a GREAT deal of mysticism and misapprehension on behalf of non-ball group players about what is actually happening inside of ball groups and ball group compositions.

The reason why ball groups succeed is because they have leaders, players, and composition designers that know the mechanics of this game inside and out and that subsequently out-optimize (and in most instances out-play) the efforts of types of players.

Tigor

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

The reason why ball groups succeed is because they have leaders, players, and composition designers that know the mechanics of this game inside and out and that subsequently out-optimize (and in most instances out-play) the efforts of types of players.

Stop! Stay in scope of the title please. Now you talk as if ball groups are the standard. The best players are contributing to the campaign. The ball groups might succeed in a lot of things, only what are their successes?

neferpitou73

DTStormfox wrote: »

If ball groups were not (almost) immune to all damage over time (due to overhealing and a lot of purging and cleansing), and not (almost) immune to snares, roots and stun, —made possible because proc sets carry them a lot in resource recovery and such— then maybe siege would work. In practice, however, siege weapons are not a counter-play to any group of any size.

(edit: BB-code correction)

Do you play in ball groups? Because I can assure you that we are not immune to siege damage nor stuns and do feel it. And it's just willful ignorance to claim otherwise.

The forums seem to think ball groups exploit some magical mechanics or use super-powered sets to cheat their way to top. The reality is they are good because they coordinate their skills, healing and damage that make it hard to take all of them down. And on top of it some of these groups have very skilled players running them.

Tigor wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

The reason why ball groups succeed is because they have leaders, players, and composition designers that know the mechanics of this game inside and out and that subsequently out-optimize (and in most instances out-play) the efforts of types of players.

Stop! Stay in scope of the title please. Now you talk as if ball groups are the standard. The best players are contributing to the campaign. The ball groups might succeed in a lot of things, only what are their successes?

How is this not in the scope of the thread? The thread claims that these groups are successful because of sets. Yandere and mine's points are that it's not the sets that are the problem and people need to stop insisting they are.

And how do ball groups not contribute to factions? Ball groups form the backbone of most factions. In No-CP DC has been held up by ball groups for the last 2 years at least. Not all of these groups exist just to farm keeps.

DTStormfox

neferpitou73 wrote: »

Do you play in ball groups? Because I can assure you that we are not immune to siege damage nor stuns and do feel it. And it's just willful ignorance to claim otherwise.

I played in a sort of ball group in the past. I know how they work. Don't act like I don't know what I am talking about by claiming it is "willful ignorance".

neferpitou73 wrote: »

The forums seem to think ball groups exploit some magical mechanics or use super-powered sets to cheat their way to top. The reality is they are good because they coordinate their skills, healing and damage that make it hard to take all of them down.

First of all, I am not "the Forums". Second, I never said ball groups exploit some magical mechanic or super-powered sets.
And then you talk to me about reality? Excuse moi, not playing that game. I made my point clear: (ball) groups benefit way more from proc sets than small scalers because they can combine proc sets without the need to sacrifice in other fields (max stats, recovery, weapon/spell damage, etc.). So, while small scalers suffer from diminishing returns for wearing certain proc sets, these diminishing returns are not present in larger (ball) groups. Crucial is that my point is not about the existence of this gap, my point is that the gap is too large.

neferpitou73 wrote: »

And on top of it some of these groups have very skilled players running them.

The variance within a group is larger than the variance between groups. Ball group players are not all the icing on the cake. There are plenty of very skilled players who solo or play small scale.

Tigor

neferpitou73 wrote: »

How is this not in the scope of the thread? The thread claims that these groups are successful because of sets. Yandere and mine's points are that it's not the sets that are the problem and people need to stop insisting they are.

And how do ball groups not contribute to factions? Ball groups form the backbone of most factions. In No-CP DC has been held up by ball groups for the last 2 years at least. Not all of these groups exist just to farm keeps.

Shortly some answers:
How is this not in the scope of the thread?
answer: We knew already how ball groups are set up. Reactivating the procs and conditions on sets gave them an advantage, almost a godmode. Now more often experiencing dead before seeing the enemies, skills or sets not working, in combat bug and slow walking bug. These over organised groups are "putting towels on sunbed", in regard to server advantage. For pvp this is not wanted. Organisation and grouping is good, but should not lead to a constant ruining of fun for others.

And how do ball groups not contribute to factions?
answer: I said the best players are contributing to the campaign. In No-CP DC is really a big faction. They scout and communicate good, to all come to the fight on one spot. Amongst them are running organisated groups, and logically performance is also decreasing, but fights are quicker decided.The major difference with fighting over organised stand alone farming (ball) groups, you need to kill them first, before they kill all of you. Boring! They could also invest in helping new players.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

@DTStormfox

The benefit you are discussing about groups being able to min max sets and skills as a group not just individuals is the core benefit of playing as a group. This is what makes group play fun and interesting as a separate activity to solo / smallscale play.

Anyone who wants to achieve the same benefit and theorycraft to maximise their own group is also free to do so, its nothing specific to 'ball groups'.

There are also many benefits to playing solo or smallscale vs in a group where you are very reliant on the other members of your group to supplement your gameplay. For example if you are caught away from the group you likely have very little to win a 1v1 fight (vs equal skilled and 1v1 focused players).

Additionally your gameplay is a lot more narrowed down. For example it would be pointless for most groups to gank or camp a backline resource whereas for solo/ smallscale this is fine because you normally get fights of appropriate sizes.
Everyone can ofc zerg surf but as a group (12m) for me and most 'good' groups, thats not really the gameplay they enjoy. So this basically limits things to outnumbered backline fights or fights between the opposing 2 factions i.e. '3-way fights'.

Additionally 'ball' grouping outside of primetime / locked servers feels kind of pointless too because there's no other groups to fight. Whereas solo or smallscale isn't really an issue here. (although some don't share the same views )

DjinnAeternam

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

DjinnAeternam wrote: »

Why do you see it as "something is wrong" ? Needing 40+ players to kill 12? Doesn't seem that much to me, that's just barely 1:4 ratio on numbers.

The problem is when 12 pugs can successfully defend the objective and force the 12 person heal blob off the flags, but then it takes 40 to actually get rid of them because they're just running around the walls in a heal blob. The siege dots and stationary AoE ults like Negate that pugs rely on get hard countered by a group that stacks cross healing and purge spam while staying moving and avoiding objectives.

Maybe that just means those PuGs are not countering that 12-man group effectively.

Surely you can't expect to drop a few negates and some sieges and wipe a coordinated group, if that happens, something went wrong.

Marcus_Aurelius

neferpitou73 wrote: »

The forums seem to think ball groups exploit some magical mechanics or use super-powered sets to cheat their way to top. The reality is they are good because they coordinate their skills, healing and damage that make it hard to take all of them down. And on top of it some of these groups have very skilled players running them.

Why then when proc sets were disabled you guys disapperead?
I've seen you the first day wiping sooo easy and then you just disapperead.

Ball groupers are so good but when their beloved proc set do not work they can't cope with the changes and they just stop playing.

DjinnAeternam

Marcus_Aurelius wrote: »

neferpitou73 wrote: »

The forums seem to think ball groups exploit some magical mechanics or use super-powered sets to cheat their way to top. The reality is they are good because they coordinate their skills, healing and damage that make it hard to take all of them down. And on top of it some of these groups have very skilled players running them.

Why then when proc sets were disabled you guys disapperead?
I've seen you the first day wiping sooo easy and then you just disapperead.

Ball groupers are so good but when their beloved proc set do not work they can't cope with the changes and they just stop playing.

Not sure to whom you're directing your comments, but i can tell you Nova and at least 2 other good groups continued playing during no-proc.

Here's an example, take a look .

Marcus_Aurelius

.

DjinnAeternam wrote: »

Not sure to whom you're directing your comments, but i can tell you Nova and at least 2 other good groups continued playing during no-proc.

Here's an example, take a look .

I have experience only in fighting AD and DC in Ravenwatch and their ball groups disapperead in the no proc era.
When they tried playing doing their usual routine the wiping was relatively easy.

Agrippa_Invisus

Marcus_Aurelius wrote: »

.

DjinnAeternam wrote: »

Not sure to whom you're directing your comments, but i can tell you Nova and at least 2 other good groups continued playing during no-proc.

Here's an example, take a look .

I have experience only in fighting AD and DC in Ravenwatch and their ball groups disapperead in the no proc era.
When they tried playing doing their usual routine the wiping was relatively easy.

This is why anecdotal evidence isn't typically used as evidence at all.

Your experience is not everyone else's. PC NA had significant activity by guilds and groups who are referred to as ball groups, and this included successes in farming, capturing objectives, and winning combats. There were adjustments that needed to be made, of course, but in this instance your experience is not the same as others.

So, instead of speaking in absolutes such as 'the ball groups vanished', you should speak with qualified statements 'On my campaign, we didn't see them for most of the No Proc event'. This would be more accurate, and not immediately flag what you had to say as obviously wrong and biased.

YandereGirlfriend

I don't think that anyone is disputing that there are very skilled solo and small-scale players in Cyrodiil.

What ball group players are trying to point out though is that a significant amount of criticism of ball groups receive is rooted in misinformation and an inadequate grasp of core game mechanics (which, to be fair, are not explained to players at all and are only discovered when you intentionally set out to discover them - something that most casual players simply have no interest in doing).

Critical posts are also missing or glossing over sets that disproportionately buff small-scale players. For example, a set such as Arkasis allows a four-player group to drop back-to-back 4x Dawnbreakers (that's EIGHT Dawnbreakers within 2 GCDs!) by synchronizing their potion uses. Due to the underlying mechanics of the set, larger groups cannot wring that much utility out of that set. Critical posts also ignore the devastating impact that a small group of talented magBlade bombers can have against ball groups.

And I still cannot escape reading between the lines of so many posts that distill down to, "Why do highly disciplined PvP veterans playing in an optimized group always wipe loosely coordinated casual players in larger numbers?" The question, in essence, answers itself and it hopefully always will.

ESO is far from being an eSport but changing game mechanics to incentivize "One zerg to rule them all" faction-stacking would make a mockery out of any pretense that the game has for showcasing and rewarding skilled gameplay.

Minnesinger

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

I don't think that anyone is disputing that there are very skilled solo and small-scale players in Cyrodiil.

What ball group players are trying to point out though is that a significant amount of criticism of ball groups receive is rooted in misinformation and an inadequate grasp of core game mechanics (which, to be fair, are not explained to players at all and are only discovered when you intentionally set out to discover them - something that most casual players simply have no interest in doing).

Critical posts are also missing or glossing over sets that disproportionately buff small-scale players. For example, a set such as Arkasis allows a four-player group to drop back-to-back 4x Dawnbreakers (that's EIGHT Dawnbreakers within 2 GCDs!) by synchronizing their potion uses. Due to the underlying mechanics of the set, larger groups cannot wring that much utility out of that set. Critical posts also ignore the devastating impact that a small group of talented magBlade bombers can have against ball groups.

And I still cannot escape reading between the lines of so many posts that distill down to, "Why do highly disciplined PvP veterans playing in an optimized group always wipe loosely coordinated casual players in larger numbers?" The question, in essence, answers itself and it hopefully always will.

ESO is far from being an eSport but changing game mechanics to incentivize "One zerg to rule them all" faction-stacking would make a mockery out of any pretense that the game has for showcasing and rewarding skilled gameplay.

It has been said before that the top pvp guilds operate as the top pve guilds. There are similarities like searching for the new potential sets in PTS. Testing builds in PTS. And the most important factor of success is the core players of the guilds. The experienced guild lead who have the players capable of fulfilling their orders without any hesitation as what to do.

Compare this to any pug stack.

There is not even competition who will win if not outnumbering the pvp guilds. Yes I do not use the ball groups because these groups use titles like hardcore pvp guild etc.

DrSlaughtr

People love procs because they need the free damage to kill, the free sustain to survive, and/or the free resource recovery to stay in the fight.

It's bomber meta right now because your average bomber wasn't good enough to bomb during no proc so now everyone and their mother has to bomb. And now you get the arguments that if you want to defeat bomb and ball groups you have to bomb too.

So by that argument everyone should be a bomber.

Feaky

How is using 3rd party automation to perfectly coordinate group attacks against foes, disrupt other player's game play by causing so much lag they cannot fight back while still attacking you, and repeatedly cause combat bug on opposing players for 20-30 min NOT considered a violation of TOS. I never get the combat bug and rarely lag except when fighting ball groups. I am so sick of seeing entered and exit combat messages spam across my screen after fighting these hacks.

This baffles me and largely why this game is so broken.

Tigor

Just an Idea : 💡

If some groups/players are better in organisation and structure than others, would it then not be wise to have a possibility to sign up for casual, balanced or hardcore campaigns? In the guild finder these options already excist. The discussion about proc sets could then be more uplifting and opens doors to balanced fights. I can't forsee many cons.

Greasytengu

Tigor wrote: »

Just an Idea : 💡

If some groups/players are better in organisation and structure than others, would it then not be wise to have a possibility to sign up for casual, balanced or hardcore campaigns? In the guild finder these options already excist. The discussion about proc sets could then be more uplifting and opens doors to balanced fights. I can't forsee many cons.

but how would you keep skilled players from queuing into the casual campaign?

YandereGirlfriend

TheEndBringer wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

People love procs because they need the free damage to kill, the free sustain to survive, and/or the free resource recovery to stay in the fight.

It's bomber meta right now because your average bomber wasn't good enough to bomb during no proc so now everyone and their mother has to bomb. And now you get the arguments that if you want to defeat bomb and ball groups you have to bomb too.

So by that argument everyone should be a bomber.

Lazy argument is lazy.

People simply enjoy being able to use more than 19 sets in a game with literally hundreds.

You're implying that people are running vastly different builds which, of course, isn't true.

Another lazy argument that's also false.

If you took a snapshot and instant gear census of a pop-locked Cyrodiil you would find people running TONS of different sets.

Some of those people have no idea what they are doing (e.g. PvE tourists) but between solo, small-scale, and group play, people are wearing all sorts of sets. A single ball group is likely using 25-30+ different sets (inclusive of monster sets, arena weapons, and Mythics) by themselves and different ball groups run different combinations of sets. An there's usually 3-6+ ball groups active in a pop-locked campaign at any given time.

Then you have different set configurations for 1vX'ing, ganking, bombing, brawling, scroll-running, non-group-comp small-scale, group-comp small-scale, etc.

Sure, sets like Balorgh dominate for damage builds and 1vX'ers are gravitating toward sets like Pariah but whatever siloed PvP bubble you live in does not happen to represent PvP build diversity as a whole.

So let's all agree to put this tired meme about the lack of PvP build diversity to bed once and for all.

DrSlaughtr

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

People love procs because they need the free damage to kill, the free sustain to survive, and/or the free resource recovery to stay in the fight.

It's bomber meta right now because your average bomber wasn't good enough to bomb during no proc so now everyone and their mother has to bomb. And now you get the arguments that if you want to defeat bomb and ball groups you have to bomb too.

So by that argument everyone should be a bomber.

Lazy argument is lazy.

People simply enjoy being able to use more than 19 sets in a game with literally hundreds.

You're implying that people are running vastly different builds which, of course, isn't true.

Another lazy argument that's also false.

If you took a snapshot and instant gear census of a pop-locked Cyrodiil you would find people running TONS of different sets.

Some of those people have no idea what they are doing (e.g. PvE tourists) but between solo, small-scale, and group play, people are wearing all sorts of sets. A single ball group is likely using 25-30+ different sets (inclusive of monster sets, arena weapons, and Mythics) by themselves and different ball groups run different combinations of sets. An there's usually 3-6+ ball groups active in a pop-locked campaign at any given time.

Then you have different set configurations for 1vX'ing, ganking, bombing, brawling, scroll-running, non-group-comp small-scale, group-comp small-scale, etc.

Sure, sets like Balorgh dominate for damage builds and 1vX'ers are gravitating toward sets like Pariah but whatever siloed PvP bubble you live in does not happen to represent PvP build diversity as a whole.

So let's all agree to put this tired meme about the lack of PvP build diversity to bed once and for all.

Large section of the population are wearing VD and MA.

Those who have access to blackwood are running Sithis with a pen set and damage set.

Stamblades are mostly wearing Pen + NMA because dot builds aren't killing anyone due to the above mentioned bombers who can heal through dots OR brawlers wearing Sithis and can easily shrug it off.

Sorcs and Wolves wearing Engine Guardian.

I can keep going.

Are there outliers? Yes. But most people min max. They find out what performs best and use that, no different than no proc. The real difference between the updates is the bomber groups rampaging across the map. Most people are bombers and bomber groups can own the map unless you give up and run your own bomber group.

Every play style in Cyro right now was viable in no proc. The difference is you had to learn to run it without free damage, armor, and resources.

Joy_Division

TheEndBringer wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

People love procs because they need the free damage to kill, the free sustain to survive, and/or the free resource recovery to stay in the fight.

It's bomber meta right now because your average bomber wasn't good enough to bomb during no proc so now everyone and their mother has to bomb. And now you get the arguments that if you want to defeat bomb and ball groups you have to bomb too.

So by that argument everyone should be a bomber.

Lazy argument is lazy.

People simply enjoy being able to use more than 19 sets in a game with literally hundreds.

You're implying that people are running vastly different builds which, of course, isn't true.

Another lazy argument that's also false.

If you took a snapshot and instant gear census of a pop-locked Cyrodiil you would find people running TONS of different sets.

Some of those people have no idea what they are doing (e.g. PvE tourists) but between solo, small-scale, and group play, people are wearing all sorts of sets. A single ball group is likely using 25-30+ different sets (inclusive of monster sets, arena weapons, and Mythics) by themselves and different ball groups run different combinations of sets. An there's usually 3-6+ ball groups active in a pop-locked campaign at any given time.

Then you have different set configurations for 1vX'ing, ganking, bombing, brawling, scroll-running, non-group-comp small-scale, group-comp small-scale, etc.

Sure, sets like Balorgh dominate for damage builds and 1vX'ers are gravitating toward sets like Pariah but whatever siloed PvP bubble you live in does not happen to represent PvP build diversity as a whole.

So let's all agree to put this tired meme about the lack of PvP build diversity to bed once and for all.

Large section of the population are wearing VD and MA.

Those who have access to blackwood are running Sithis with a pen set and damage set.

Stamblades are mostly wearing Pen + NMA because dot builds aren't killing anyone due to the above mentioned bombers who can heal through dots OR brawlers wearing Sithis and can easily shrug it off.

Sorcs and Wolves wearing Engine Guardian.

I can keep going.

Are there outliers? Yes. But most people min max. They find out what performs best and use that, no different than no proc. The real difference between the updates is the bomber groups rampaging across the map. Most people are bombers and bomber groups can own the map unless you give up and run your own bomber group.

Every play style in Cyro right now was viable in no proc. The difference is you had to learn to run it without free damage, armor, and resources.

Most people do *not* min max. If they did, there wouldn't be "casuals" and threads like this in the first place.

Tigor

Greasytengu wrote: »

Tigor wrote: »

Just an Idea : 💡

If some groups/players are better in organisation and structure than others, would it then not be wise to have a possibility to sign up for casual, balanced or hardcore campaigns? In the guild finder these options already excist. The discussion about proc sets could then be more uplifting and opens doors to balanced fights. I can't forsee many cons.

but how would you keep skilled players from queuing into the casual campaign?

That is one of the concerns I thought about. If players are on the wrong campaign then at least there would be an option to move to the other. Everything still with a free choice, and no forcing. Could be interesting to have this running for a while, just to see how the game evolves, if casual vs hardcore campaigns would excist. On the otherhand it is just an idea from me putting to much effort.