Semi-proc campaign

aetherix8

Few years back players were asking for a new campaign so they could experience Player vs. Player as opposed to Proc vs. Proc. No new campaign was created; instead procs were disabled on Ravenwatch, a change that did upset many players at the time and made them leave. Many will return to RW when procs are added back, the campaign will thrive again and Gray Host will get shorter queues, all of which is truly great. Not to mention Volendrung that was dearly missed... Sincere thank you here ZOS.

But, for those of us who really hate playing against broken sets that carry players, can we expect any safe haven anytime soon? To be honest, I didn’t realize how much I hated procs till they were removed, and now, having enjoyed the no-proc, no-unkillable-ballgroups and much-less-salty zone chat environment, the idea of going back to this proc-hell is simply unbearable. For me this rollback equals RIP PvP, and therefore RIP ESO, since the no-proc PvP became my only real focus in this game. And I’m far from being an isolated case.

Perhaps players who hate procs could have Icereach instead? I mean, I believe the decision to enable procs again is based on the low population of RW and too long GH queues. If this is correct, then there is no lower population campaign than IR! I never saw it hit 2 bars ever, anyone?

Replace the below 50 campaign: it is empty and might also be counterproductive as below level 50 does not mean that players new to PvP won’t get farmed there by veterans enjoying their new alts. In fact, players who want to try PvP tend to go to RW because this is where they can actually have fun, learn from more experienced players and take part in bigger fights.

Just please, don’t abandon completely the idea of a less-proc campaign. It failed because it was not thoroughly planned, and so it was badly implemented, not because everybody loves procs. Such campaign does need more sets than what is available now because flat-stat is too boring over time. Create a new or replace the below 50 campaign with no-CP, semi-proc ruleset instead; allow no-procs and procs without cooldown only: that would remove the worst offenders and it offers much more build diversity. And of course, players need to know beforehand (via UI) what works and what doesn’t so they don’t waste their time and other resources.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Kevin

Edited typo

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Honestly it would be interesting to have Icereach as a no-cp, no gear campaign. effectively everyone would have Torc of the Last Ayleid King stats and then mag/stam/hp set by attributes and enchants.

CameraBeardThePirate

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Honestly it would be interesting to have Icereach as a no-cp, no gear campaign. effectively everyone would have Torc of the Last Ayleid King stats and then mag/stam/hp set by attributes and enchants.

They'd never do this because it would open their eyes to just how bad class balance is.

Necrotech_Master

how is disallowing procs promoting build diversity when you remove a ton of options? lol

seriously though, ravenwatch no proc was awful, i stopped playing there when it became no proc

the biggest reason no-proc failed hard was because there was a lot of problems with the implementation: poor consistency (some procs worked even when they shouldnt, others didnt work even though they should) and no official list or in game way to tell if your set did or did not work were the 2 biggest offenders

MacOz

aetherix8 wrote: »

But, for those of us who really hate playing against broken sets that carry players, can we expect any safe haven anytime soon? To be honest, I didn’t realize how much I hated procs till they were removed, and now, having enjoyed the no-proc, no-unkillable-ballgroups and much-less-salty zone chat environment, the idea of going back to this proc-hell is simply unbearable. For me this rollback equals RIP PvP, and therefore RIP ESO, since the no-proc PvP became my only real focus in this game. And I’m far from being an isolated case.

i am one of those cases too.
and i think most ppl in ravenwatch dont care about cp or no-cp, they want no-proc.
Raven is the most balanced cyro eso has to offer. classes and factions. yes sorcs rule at the moment and Dc always wins...but besides that it is the most balanced cyro

Since this big news came out, i tried to play blackreach and grey host again... but it is no fun... laggy and dmg out of nowhere...

i am not a pve raider or a fan of battlegrounds, so i fear it will be a goodbye to eso for me too...

aetherix8

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

how is disallowing procs promoting build diversity when you remove a ton of options? lol

It appears that my initial post is somewhat unclear; let me propose you some definitions:

No-proc = Flat- stat effects => “Gain X at all times”, e.g. Beekeeper’s Gear, Spriggans Thorn, Gaze of Sithis.
Semi-proc = Process effects without cooldown => “Gain X anytime when Y”, e.g. Ring of The Wild Hunt, Sanctuary, Vicious Death.
Proc = Process effects with cooldown => Effect can occur every X second(s) / Stack can occur/be applied every X second(s), e.g. Dark Convergence, Plaguebreak, Rush of Agony.

Currently there are 584 sets in the game (more, if we distinguish between perfected and unperfected, but it would be irrelevant in this context as the perfected bonus is always flat-stat). By applying these definitions we can try to regroup those sets, and as a result we obtain ~99 no procs, ~193 semi-procs and ~292 procs. A no-CP, semi-proc campaign would therefore have access to almost 300 sets – no-procs and semi-procs – around 190 more than what is available now in RW. These are set items that already exist in the game, and they would allow for more build diversity. Such ruleset offers more diverse gameplay (no gear, bombers, ballgroups, but less OP), and might be easier to navigate for new players.

Volendrung doesn’t fit in any of those categories but should be included as well.

MacOz wrote: »

and i think most ppl in ravenwatch dont care about cp or no-cp, they want no-proc.
Raven is the most balanced cyro eso has to offer. classes and factions. yes sorcs rule at the moment and Dc always wins...but besides that it is the most balanced cyro

Personally I care a lot about no-CP - it is one of the reasons why RW is more balanced. But we have to accept that no-proc failed, not only because of the dysfunctional ruleset, but also because many players find flat-stat too boring. We need to think about other alternatives to the proc-hell Cyrodiil.

Lilo

I personally love our no proc campaign. It's unique and you don't have sets that do the damage for you, you don't have infinite light effects and it's all pretty relaxed. We are a pretty cool community that includes our own color as well as our opponents. Over the years we have been able to attract a lot of new regular players to the campaign.
Since the beginning of the year the population in Ravenwatch has dropped quite a bit and those who have been following it probably know why.
My guildies and I have been trying to motivate players to come along anyway. We've been writing guides and have been practicing with others.
Honestly, I mostly just play PvP to hang out with my friends. That's why I'm sad that what we've built up will no longer be continued.

xylena_lazarow

aetherix8 wrote: »

But, for those of us who really hate playing against broken sets that carry players

It's not "procs" in general it's a few specific broken proc sets and interactions, like Tarnished Nightmare ranged burst proc stacking, or the pull sets still not having a proper telegraph. Nobody is raging for a ban on Mad Tinkerer or Karth's Legacy, and it's not like stat sets can't break the meta either, like pre-nerf Oakensoul or current stat build MagSorcs.

WaywardArgonian

I don't think we need another campaign with a convoluted, poorly communicated ruleset that is incomprehensible to the average player.

The issue with no-proc Ravenwatch was that its rules were inconsistent and communication on it has been minimal since its inception. Unless that communication/clarity will drastically improve, it would just result in another dead campaign.

aetherix8

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

But, for those of us who really hate playing against broken sets that carry players

It's not "procs" in general it's a few specific broken proc sets and interactions, like Tarnished Nightmare ranged burst proc stacking, or the pull sets still not having a proper telegraph. Nobody is raging for a ban on Mad Tinkerer or Karth's Legacy, and it's not like stat sets can't break the meta either, like pre-nerf Oakensoul or current stat build MagSorcs.

Indeed. And once ZOS fix one proc that everybody is complaining about (after a long, long time) they then add three other in its place. Just neverending supply of broken sets. It would be great to have one campaign that isn't a cheese laboratory.

WaywardArgonian wrote: »

I don't think we need another campaign with a convoluted, poorly communicated ruleset that is incomprehensible to the average player.

The issue with no-proc Ravenwatch was that its rules were inconsistent and communication on it has been minimal since its inception. Unless that communication/clarity will drastically improve, it would just result in another dead campaign.

That's for sure. Regrouping sets into 3 categories instead of 2 does represent a clearer ruleset. ZOS would need to work on it (UI, etc.) before putting it in place. Last time they didn't really know what they were doing, and they rushed it, and so it was a mess. Otherwise a "less cheese" campaign is a really good idea that many players enjoyed.

aetherix8

Lilo wrote: »

Since the beginning of the year the population in Ravenwatch has dropped quite a bit and those who have been following it probably know why.

It really kicked in around March imo. The only bright side of proc change I can think of is that it will bring more players to all factions and hopefully reequilibrate the current situation.

Necrotech_Master

aetherix8 wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

how is disallowing procs promoting build diversity when you remove a ton of options? lol

It appears that my initial post is somewhat unclear; let me propose you some definitions:

No-proc = Flat- stat effects => “Gain X at all times”, e.g. Beekeeper’s Gear, Spriggans Thorn, Gaze of Sithis.
Semi-proc = Process effects without cooldown => “Gain X anytime when Y”, e.g. Ring of The Wild Hunt, Sanctuary, Vicious Death.
Proc = Process effects with cooldown => Effect can occur every X second(s) / Stack can occur/be applied every X second(s), e.g. Dark Convergence, Plaguebreak, Rush of Agony.

Currently there are 584 sets in the game (more, if we distinguish between perfected and unperfected, but it would be irrelevant in this context as the perfected bonus is always flat-stat). By applying these definitions we can try to regroup those sets, and as a result we obtain ~99 no procs, ~193 semi-procs and ~292 procs. A no-CP, semi-proc campaign would therefore have access to almost 300 sets – no-procs and semi-procs – around 190 more than what is available now in RW. These are set items that already exist in the game, and they would allow for more build diversity. Such ruleset offers more diverse gameplay (no gear, bombers, ballgroups, but less OP), and might be easier to navigate for new players.

Volendrung doesn’t fit in any of those categories but should be included as well.

the problem with that is likely their implementation

it would likely suffer the same effects as no proc right now, where there is no notification in game that a set does or does not work, and likely also be some random cases that should/should not work but dont follow the rule

and personally, removing any sets is limiting build diversity, it doesnt matter how you spin it, removing options is removing build diversity

that being said, i think it would be OK to still have a campaign where say all gear sets are disabled, so only base stats work, i would never play there personally, but there would be no question if something did or did not work like it is for the no proc campaign

aetherix8

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

the problem with that is likely their implementation

it would likely suffer the same effects as no proc right now, where there is no notification in game that a set does or does not work, and likely also be some random cases that should/should not work but dont follow the rule

You point out the two fundamental reasons of why no-proc implementation is a fail. They are closely related.

1. Sets that should work but don’t and vice versa.

Root cause: inaccurate/incomplete definition

If we stick to the duality of proc/no-proc then items like Ring of the Wild Hunt should not work. The moment we allow this kind of item all hell breaks loose since there are many similar sets that should therefore work as well, and yet they don’t.

Solution: apply a third category of sets (semi-proc, i.e. proc without cooldown)

By considering that there are 3 categories of sets instead of 2 we obtain a clear ruleset that is accurate and easy to apply. Semi-proc identifies sets like Ring of the Wild Hunt, which is not simply a flat stat so it cannot be considered as a no-proc, and it is not a proc either.

2. Lack of notification aka “dunno what works”.

Root cause: inaccurate/incomplete definition

If we lack a clear ruleset or we rely on a definition that reflects the reality inaccurately then it is impossible to establish what should work and what shouldn’t, and therefore it is impossible to notify what works and what does not work.

Solution: apply a third category of sets (semi-proc, i.e. proc without cooldown) and notify through UI

The category of set should be displayed directly on the set, just like the type (light, medium, heavy).

Apply this ruleset consistently and the possibility that semi-proc implementation would suffer the same fate as no-proc changes from ‘likely’ to ‘highly unlikely’.

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

and personally, removing any sets is limiting build diversity, it doesnt matter how you spin it, removing options is removing build diversity

I disagree with the semantics. Reducing is different from removing. Semi-proc would indeed limit build diversity but by adding semi-proc to no-proc it would be still more abounding than what it is right now (and right now it is far too poor).

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

that being said, i think it would be OK to still have a campaign where say all gear sets are disabled, so only base stats work, i would never play there personally, but there would be no question if something did or did not work like it is for the no proc campaign

No need for a new campaign, this option already exists and it is called Torc of the Last Ayleid King

xylena_lazarow

99% of proc complaints are Tarnished Nightmare ranged gankers, and the two pull sets Rushing Agony and Dark Convergence. Fix the burst proc stacking and add proper telegraphs and delays to the pulls.

olsborg

Ive played noprocc/nocp ravenwatch exclusively for 3 years now, Im not going back to the proccy, laggy cp-carried hell that is GH or Blackreach. Once the patch hits live, Im done with eso. Proccs create a sortof chaotic and laggy pvp that I really dont enjoy, at all. Proccs carry heals, carry damage, carry sustain...game becomes way too dumb.

aetherix8

olsborg wrote: »

Ive played noprocc/nocp ravenwatch exclusively for 3 years now, Im not going back to the proccy, laggy cp-carried hell that is GH or Blackreach. Once the patch hits live, Im done with eso. Proccs create a sortof chaotic and laggy pvp that I really dont enjoy, at all. Proccs carry heals, carry damage, carry sustain...game becomes way too dumb.

I tried GH once, lasted approximately 1 minute and left to never return. Also, I played RW before the no-proc change, I was there when the no-proc ruleset was tested and implemented, and I remember the immense sense of relief with procs gone. The worst thing to do by ZOS is to give players this promise of an absolutely awesome PvP environment that we truly enjoyed, and then take it away, just like that. Promise, because its implementation was unfinished.

Then, over time simple no-proc became too dull. I miss bombers, especially now that MYM is about to begin. RW ballgroups are just too miserable, they could use a little buff so maybe they would stop fusion into blobzergs. And ofc, Volen... RW seriously needs more sets and there is only that far that flat-stat can go.

It's heartbreaking to see ZOS abandon the idea of no-proc instead of trying to enrich it and implement it correctly. It destroys my favorite game. So I'm trying to figure if there could be some middle ground, where we would add more sets (so yes, semi-proc is more carry than RW right now), but that wouldn't be as horrendous as the full proc gameplay is. Perhaps a little bit more of cheese, but not as insane as GH or BR, would be acceptable to players who hate procs?

Necrotech_Master

aetherix8 wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

the problem with that is likely their implementation

it would likely suffer the same effects as no proc right now, where there is no notification in game that a set does or does not work, and likely also be some random cases that should/should not work but dont follow the rule

You point out the two fundamental reasons of why no-proc implementation is a fail. They are closely related.

1. Sets that should work but don’t and vice versa.

Root cause: inaccurate/incomplete definition

If we stick to the duality of proc/no-proc then items like Ring of the Wild Hunt should not work. The moment we allow this kind of item all hell breaks loose since there are many similar sets that should therefore work as well, and yet they don’t.

Solution: apply a third category of sets (semi-proc, i.e. proc without cooldown)

By considering that there are 3 categories of sets instead of 2 we obtain a clear ruleset that is accurate and easy to apply. Semi-proc identifies sets like Ring of the Wild Hunt, which is not simply a flat stat so it cannot be considered as a no-proc, and it is not a proc either.

2. Lack of notification aka “dunno what works”.

Root cause: inaccurate/incomplete definition

If we lack a clear ruleset or we rely on a definition that reflects the reality inaccurately then it is impossible to establish what should work and what shouldn’t, and therefore it is impossible to notify what works and what does not work.

Solution: apply a third category of sets (semi-proc, i.e. proc without cooldown) and notify through UI

The category of set should be displayed directly on the set, just like the type (light, medium, heavy).

Apply this ruleset consistently and the possibility that semi-proc implementation would suffer the same fate as no-proc changes from ‘likely’ to ‘highly unlikely’.

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

and personally, removing any sets is limiting build diversity, it doesnt matter how you spin it, removing options is removing build diversity

I disagree with the semantics. Reducing is different from removing. Semi-proc would indeed limit build diversity but by adding semi-proc to no-proc it would be still more abounding than what it is right now (and right now it is far too poor).

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

that being said, i think it would be OK to still have a campaign where say all gear sets are disabled, so only base stats work, i would never play there personally, but there would be no question if something did or did not work like it is for the no proc campaign

No need for a new campaign, this option already exists and it is called Torc of the Last Ayleid King

for part 1, about sets that do dont work when they should/should not thats entirely on zos in terms of what they code in

as far as im aware, each set has a flag that allows it to work in the no proc environment, its up to them to set that flag correctly

so for example current issues would be a set like pariah (scaling resist based on health) working in no proc, even though that is clearly a proc according to some similar sets which dont work (titanborn for example, which has scaling buffs depending on HP thresholds), not to mention theres been new sets that come out that dont work but still give flat stats (torc of the ayleid king is one of those)

even going to a new system that blocks procs with a cooldown, its still entirely up to the devs to set those flags right, as well as them adding in some way to show on the UI that the proc doesnt work, which is why i suggested an "all or nothing" type design

technically speaking you using the ayleid king mythic while it disables all sets for you, it does not apply that rule to everyone else, and if you had a campaign in which only that mythic worked, people would still feel forced to get that to be competitive, so in a "no gear bonus" environment, even the ayleid king mythic would not work as that rule would have to apply to everyone, hence a new campaign with that ruleset

the last point about semantics, removing sets is removing choice, build diversity is about choice and limiting choice limits diversity, if your only looking at the "meta" yes theres going to be little diversity, but thats going to be the case regardless

it just sounds like you want to play the meta, but also dont like the current meta, so creating a new ruleset to create a new meta, which to me is the wrong reason to remove choice from builds through an unnecessarily complicated new ruleset

aetherix8

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

for part 1, about sets that do dont work when they should/should not thats entirely on zos in terms of what they code in

as far as im aware, each set has a flag that allows it to work in the no proc environment, its up to them to set that flag correctly

so for example current issues would be a set like pariah (scaling resist based on health) working in no proc, even though that is clearly a proc according to some similar sets which dont work (titanborn for example, which has scaling buffs depending on HP thresholds), not to mention theres been new sets that come out that dont work but still give flat stats (torc of the ayleid king is one of those)

even going to a new system that blocks procs with a cooldown, its still entirely up to the devs to set those flags right, as well as them adding in some way to show on the UI that the proc doesnt work, which is why i suggested an "all or nothing" type design

I think ZOS lacks a clear definition of what should work in a no-proc campaign and that's why there are issues with sets not working thou they should, like torc or order's wrath. If they had a transparent ruleset then flagging sets would be a smooth process. And pariah is a set exactly like wild hunt, where is the logic in enabling the latter but not the former? Again, lack of a clear ruleset to follow, and there is more to it than just dual proc/no proc.

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

technically speaking you using the ayleid king mythic while it disables all sets for you, it does not apply that rule to everyone else, and if you had a campaign in which only that mythic worked, people would still feel forced to get that to be competitive, so in a "no gear bonus" environment, even the ayleid king mythic would not work as that rule would have to apply to everyone, hence a new campaign with that ruleset

I was not really considering such campaign seriously. Nobody would play it anyways.

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

the last point about semantics, removing sets is removing choice, build diversity is about choice and limiting choice limits diversity, if your only looking at the "meta" yes theres going to be little diversity, but thats going to be the case regardless

it just sounds like you want to play the meta, but also dont like the current meta, so creating a new ruleset to create a new meta, which to me is the wrong reason to remove choice from builds through an unnecessarily complicated new ruleset

If I just wanted to play meta I would not at all worry about build diversity and going through all the sets in the game to see how to regroup them. I would just check builds on internet and hop into GH to use RoA+DC, or whatever is the current meta.

aetherix8

aetherix8 wrote: »

I think ZOS lacks a clear definition of what should work in a no-proc campaign and that's why there are issues with sets not working thou they should, like torc or order's wrath. If they had a transparent ruleset then flagging sets would be a smooth process. And pariah is a set exactly like wild hunt, where is the logic in enabling the latter but not the former? Again, lack of a clear ruleset to follow, and there is more to it than just dual proc/no proc.

Mark of the Pariah does work. There are other similar sets that are not listed as working on no-proc: Green Pact, Wilderqueen's Arch, Senche's Bite...

This blunder is due to the fact that I consider pariah semi-proc and not pure no-proc.