sarahthes wrote: »

Every DPS will be on this build if they are doing any semblance of veteran combat. Super exciting!

Too bad that they added all these tools for the players to utilize and forgot to enable player agency and free will.

There’s really no way to know how it will play out until it goes live, but I predict it will have no meaningful positive effect on player retention. I think the end result will be the opposite.

Look at player achievement stats on any platform for some eye-opening insight into how long ESO players stick around. Many buy the game and never really get into it, so you can look at the stats for how many reach some basic achievement (like maybe lvl 10?) and then readjust the other stats with that as the base. Even with this re-adjustment, only a tiny percentage of players hit lvl 50 or ever finish the main quest or any zone quest line. If they never hit level 50, they’re not even going to see subclassing.

What exactly turns players off eso is a while different debate. In short, I think it’s a combination of the monetization and the guild trader system. The monetization seems purposely designed to optimize revenue per active player, but not necessarily total revenue. They could earn more in total with more customer-friendly pricing. But that might not be their goal. It could make logical sense if they feel the megaservers servers are at a good load level, and they don’t want to have to scale up more. Seems like a weird move, but might make sense given their data. Which is just to say, we assume they want more players, but so many of their actions indicate perhaps they don’t.

Renato90085 wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

Every DPS will be on this build if they are doing any semblance of veteran combat. Super exciting!

Too bad that they added all these tools for the players to utilize and forgot to enable player agency and free will.

If you are trying to kill the boss as fast as possible, on HM, without dying, why would you not utilize the most efficient possible method of doing so?

Maybe he is 9 ppl in log use Stam nb or 2 magic warden do dsrhm , not other 1-4k+ other stam arc dd in any trial
50-70% player use same class in log not a Coincidence

I think I was in runs with most of those NBs and maybe the wardens too? Hehe.

Edit: I was in runs with 2 of the stamblades and I was away for a third, but it was my regular group. LOL.

Vaqual wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

Every DPS will be on this build if they are doing any semblance of veteran combat. Super exciting!

Too bad that they added all these tools for the players to utilize and forgot to enable player agency and free will.

If you are trying to kill the boss as fast as possible, on HM, without dying, why would you not utilize the most efficient possible method of doing so?

Maybe "without dying" is a lot easier with marginally tankier setups and slightly lower DPS? Sure, if nobody makes mistakes max DPS is fine. But in how many groups is it realistically better than a healthy tradeoff?
Think of it in terms of breakpoints: How much DPS is needed to skip a phase/mechanic, how much defense is needed to survive any given hit, how RNG dependent is a max parse, how well does input complexity (including self snare) factor in, etc.

Max dummy parse builds do not necessarily offer the smoothest experience.

And believe it or not, but I also value: Was it fun?

The faster the boss died, the lower the likelihood of getting killed by a mechanic.

BananaBender wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

Every DPS will be on this build if they are doing any semblance of veteran combat. Super exciting!

Too bad that they added all these tools for the players to utilize and forgot to enable player agency and free will.

If you are trying to kill the boss as fast as possible, on HM, without dying, why would you not utilize the most efficient possible method of doing so?

Maybe "without dying" is a lot easier with marginally tankier setups and slightly lower DPS? Sure, if nobody makes mistakes max DPS is fine. But in how many groups is it realistically better than a healthy tradeoff?
Think of it in terms of breakpoints: How much DPS is needed to skip a phase/mechanic, how much defense is needed to survive any given hit, how RNG dependent is a max parse, how well does input complexity (including self snare) factor in, etc.

Max dummy parse builds do not necessarily offer the smoothest experience.

And believe it or not, but I also value: Was it fun?

The faster the boss died, the lower the likelihood of getting killed by a mechanic.

You are not engaging with the argument here. If the boss dies 5 seconds faster and there is no additional hit or mechanic triggering in that timeframe, it is pretty much inconsequential outside of score pushing runs.
If a DPS player dies or has to play a mechanic due to being squishier, he can lose effective DPS uptime compared to a tankier setup that would otherwise parse lower on a dummy.

Your point is obvious, but you are just taking several conditions for granted that are not guaranteed under all circumstances.
Just as it is with the current DPS meta, the same shoe doesn't fit everyone. And many players would actually be able to improve their performance if they would come to terms with this. That is what we clearly saw during the Oakensoul 1.0 phase, where many weaker players actually stayed alive to participate in the fight. Something that they could absolutely have achieved before, if they hadn't adamantly tried to play a much squishier meta build.

The problem is that the build Sarahthes posted is extremely safe and tanky, not the highest theoretical DPS build. If you die with that build, it wasn't the build's fault, it's on the player. Lowering your damage intentionally to make the fight "safer" isn't gonna help because it wasn't the problem to begin with.
With the right CPs that build have a free heal over time, massive shield from your most damaging skill, insanely long range, extremely good AoE damage, super easy rotation with only one ground dot so you can focus on what's going on around you, high burst damage, both penetration and crit damage almost at the cap with 100% uptime from passives alone, absolutely no uptimes to keep track of. It doesn't get much more safer than this, but it just so happens that it's also one of the highest damage builds out there, because that's balanced right?

Vaqual wrote: »

And to reiterate my previous point about break points: Overkill is a loss of effective stats. If no meaningful speed increase is achieved, you might just be gimping yourself. This is not talking about potential, but about real performance.

But doesn't that go the other way around as well? Are you sure your safe build made a meaningful difference, or would have the fight been easier if you had just gone full damage and all the adds died quicker, the tank and healer could put their focus on buff uptimes and keeping the boss still, so the group doesn't have to replace their AoEs? Suddenly you are saving much more than 5 seconds.

Thank you for responding much more succinctly than I could. This just about covers it.

This is the response to all 3 posters above, but I'll argue based off this quote:

BananaBender wrote: »

But doesn't that go the other way around as well? Are you sure your safe build made a meaningful difference, or would have the fight been easier if you had just gone full damage and all the adds died quicker, the tank and healer could put their focus on buff uptimes and keeping the boss still, so the group doesn't have to replace their AoEs? Suddenly you are saving much more than 5 seconds.

We are clearly arguing about undefined margins here, which makes this discussion a bit murky.
You can not shift the premise of my argument about breakpoints though, that is a bit upsetting and that clearly shows that it hasn't been understood conceptually.
The scenario you describe here is specifically not was I was talking about. I think I expressed that clearly enough, but I will explain it one more time with more care. Let's say a phase repeats every 30 seconds and all the danger lies within that phase. If the fight has an overall duration of 2 minutes with meta builds, it will not matter if your group collectively runs builds that are 10-20 % weaker. Of course it will matter if you lose 50 % of the damage in the same scenario. Between the relevant break points you are free to express any preference without changing the outcome significantly.

I originally responded clearly to this, bemoaning this hypothetical meta setup:

sarahthes wrote: »

Every DPS will be on this build if they are doing any semblance of veteran combat. Super exciting!

I responded, because given the current average DPS, the margins that the encounters allow and the performance fluctuation between groups, it is absolutely unnecessary to burden oneself with a build that one does not want to play. It is just mindless to give in to that way of playing a game, especially when other builds can situationally compete with or outperform (in any aspect that a player or group would place value in) such a setup.

Talking from purely anecdotal, personal experience across all MMO raiding I have done in my life, success/failure has been determined mostly by the number severe errors that players made in a run. Does quick execution facilitate the process? Obviously. I have not claimed the opposite. Can other safety rails have a similar impact? Yes, I have observed that many times.
Maybe most importantly, have I seen two players with the same build have DPS differences upwards of 100 %? Absolutely, dozens of times. Would it really matter if then a player comes in with a build that has a theoretical benchmark that is 10 % below the meta setup? I can count the number of times that this was the case on a single hand.

This meta obsession mentality is what made ESO that kind of game where you can queue 45 min for a vet dungeon and see the group fall apart because two players don't like each others build before even the first pull has been made - only for the remaining players to finish the dungeon by themselves afterwards. It always derails into a discussion of black and white, proper DPSers and casuals, going away so far from the actual content.

I am again trying to make it abundantly clear: I am not trying to relativize the merits of a build. But people have to open their eyes and ask themselves if it really matters. Do you clear the content with/without it? How much of a difference does it make? Is it overpowered and likely to be addressed? Do you even like playing it? There are more points to be considered about a build than just its ranking in a build hierarchy, and I thought my examples can highlight that.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Especially in a game like ESO in which damage has been king every since the day it launched. It always has been. All those people who struggled on Maelstrom Arena did so because they did not do enough damage and had to face too many mechanics. The tradeoff for being a little more tranky is almost always never worth it because mechanics are much more punishing than losing an extra 8% or what not damage mitigation.

Ironically, I never again had as much fun on vMA as I had on my first run with an absolute garbage overland build. Burning a boss with a precastable oneshot combo just doesn't do it for me.

In conclusion: Whether the meta changes next month, in 3 months or next year, as long as there are enjoyable builds that perform sufficiently well, there is nothing to be stressed about. It is literally exactly the same right now, only that people don't have to log to an alt to benefit from the most overpeforming builds.

time for devs to abandon subclassing and rearm the sorcerer oakensoul build pre-nerf era, then let the arcanists and sorcerers duke it out all over tamriel for a while for compensation while the other classes burst into tears again over the easy rotations

but in the end it is definately adding something, that something is a confirmation that devs think most of the playerbase are naive 12 year olds that need pampering from time to time at the expense of the adults time and money. that and a clear exit proposal for those than cant take it anymore, completely remove classes call it subclassing only pointing a way to a secret tunnel to exit the arena, the area then the game in the quietest way possible

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

This is the response to all 3 posters above, but I'll argue based off this quote:

BananaBender wrote: »

But doesn't that go the other way around as well? Are you sure your safe build made a meaningful difference, or would have the fight been easier if you had just gone full damage and all the adds died quicker, the tank and healer could put their focus on buff uptimes and keeping the boss still, so the group doesn't have to replace their AoEs? Suddenly you are saving much more than 5 seconds.

We are clearly arguing about undefined margins here, which makes this discussion a bit murky.
You can not shift the premise of my argument about breakpoints though, that is a bit upsetting and that clearly shows that it hasn't been understood conceptually.
The scenario you describe here is specifically not was I was talking about. I think I expressed that clearly enough, but I will explain it one more time with more care. Let's say a phase repeats every 30 seconds and all the danger lies within that phase. If the fight has an overall duration of 2 minutes with meta builds, it will not matter if your group collectively runs builds that are 10-20 % weaker. Of course it will matter if you lose 50 % of the damage in the same scenario. Between the relevant break points you are free to express any preference without changing the outcome significantly.

I originally responded clearly to this, bemoaning this hypothetical meta setup:

sarahthes wrote: »

Every DPS will be on this build if they are doing any semblance of veteran combat. Super exciting!

I responded, because given the current average DPS, the margins that the encounters allow and the performance fluctuation between groups, it is absolutely unnecessary to burden oneself with a build that one does not want to play. It is just mindless to give in to that way of playing a game, especially when other builds can situationally compete with or outperform (in any aspect that a player or group would place value in) such a setup.

Talking from purely anecdotal, personal experience across all MMO raiding I have done in my life, success/failure has been determined mostly by the number severe errors that players made in a run. Does quick execution facilitate the process? Obviously. I have not claimed the opposite. Can other safety rails have a similar impact? Yes, I have observed that many times.
Maybe most importantly, have I seen two players with the same build have DPS differences upwards of 100 %? Absolutely, dozens of times. Would it really matter if then a player comes in with a build that has a theoretical benchmark that is 10 % below the meta setup? I can count the number of times that this was the case on a single hand.

This meta obsession mentality is what made ESO that kind of game where you can queue 45 min for a vet dungeon and see the group fall apart because two players don't like each others build before even the first pull has been made - only for the remaining players to finish the dungeon by themselves afterwards. It always derails into a discussion of black and white, proper DPSers and casuals, going away so far from the actual content.

I am again trying to make it abundantly clear: I am not trying to relativize the merits of a build. But people have to open their eyes and ask themselves if it really matters. Do you clear the content with/without it? How much of a difference does it make? Is it overpowered and likely to be addressed? Do you even like playing it? There are more points to be considered about a build than just its ranking in a build hierarchy, and I thought my examples can highlight that.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Especially in a game like ESO in which damage has been king every since the day it launched. It always has been. All those people who struggled on Maelstrom Arena did so because they did not do enough damage and had to face too many mechanics. The tradeoff for being a little more tranky is almost always never worth it because mechanics are much more punishing than losing an extra 8% or what not damage mitigation.

Ironically, I never again had as much fun on vMA as I had on my first run with an absolute garbage overland build. Burning a boss with a precastable oneshot combo just doesn't do it for me.

In conclusion: Whether the meta changes next month, in 3 months or next year, as long as there are enjoyable builds that perform sufficiently well, there is nothing to be stressed about. It is literally exactly the same right now, only that people don't have to log to an alt to benefit from the most overpeforming builds.

The issue here isn’t a lack of comprehension. It’s that your premise collapses under scrutiny. You argue that builds only matter in narrow, breakpoint-defined intervals, and anything within those margins is a matter of taste. But that abstraction ignores how actual encounters play out in ESO.

You assume fights follow clean, predictable intervals where performance differences are inconsequential—as if DPS thresholds are static, and mechanical overlap never happens. But that’s not how the game works. ESO isn’t a spreadsheet simulator. It’s a real-time system where burst phases, add waves, and overlapping AoEs often punish even slight delays. A 10% drop in group DPS doesn’t just lengthen the fight. It risks triggering additional mechanics, desyncing healer cooldowns, and exhausting resources. That’s not a “mindless obsession with meta.” It’s practical risk management.

Your nostalgia for low-performance “garbage” builds in vMA is telling. Yes, anyone can enjoy a challenge on underperforming setups. But that’s not the point being debated. The issue is whether optimal builds provide tangible, encounter-relevant benefits. And they do. Not because players are brainwashed, but because the content is built that way. Your call for players to simply “choose fun” collapses the difference between solo overland play and team-based PvE where your underperformance doesn’t just affect you.

Finally, pointing to the variability between players as a defense for lower-performing builds is a red herring. The fact that some players underperform even with strong builds doesn’t mean performance gaps between builds are irrelevant. It means we should support players in improving—without encouraging them to use a wrench when a scalpel is required.

If you insist to argue past the core of my argument, despite my clarification, there is not much I can do about it. You are decontextualizing my points to make easily contestable strawmen out of them.

1) There is always a threshold below which differences are not significant enough to be noticeable and that is also very much tied to the variance within the performance. If swapping builds results in a sufficiently detrimental delay, then you simply did not meet your break points. That is all. That can be 10 % deviation, a 20 % deviation or whatever, these were just example numbers. This argument is just semantics and you seem to purposefully be misinterpreting my argument. The abstraction I make is in no way too generic, it can be applied to every microelement of a raid encounter. From burn phases, to tick damage, add clear times and overall time limits. If quantifiable and non-quantifiable standards are being met by a build, it does not matter how the player did it.
When you talk about risk management, you also conveniently leave out that swapping the build comes with other potential benefits or utility, but this is a completely different argument by itself.
I do not assume any of those simplifications that you mentioned, and I don't know why you are alleging that.

2) The point about vMA was a minor comment regarding the approach to dealing with game mechanics. All I am saying is that for me personally, playing out the encounter mechanics in full is more entertaining than skipping them with DPS - and therefore I am usually not bothered by the existence of extreme outlier meta DPS builds in PvE. This is simply a comment on personal preference and this doesn't need to be convoluted with group building for trifecta groups.
I have in no way denied that a group has the freedom to set their performance thresholds, and I certainly do not condone it when underperforming people take an entitled stance.
I have been raiding in MMOs for over 15 years and I have seen people come and go, builds getting buffed and nerfed, content being made challenging or dumbed down. If every ounce of raw performance is what matters to your group, you can go for that. If I can have a regular player that refuses to run fatecarver, who is otherwise doing good DPS and doesn't hinder the group, I will prefer him over filling a spot with a random. Especially if content is beatable with X DPS and the next patch increases the ceiling to 1.4 times X DPS. People aren't just automatically witless noobs for trying to enjoy their game, and that does also not mean that they are unaware or disrepectful of their group members efforts. There is always a healthy way of doing things and spinning every deviation from the meta setup into an "overland player" argument is just bad faith.

3) The differences in player performance are real in the moment the parse is recorded. You can't just magically make the other player perform better on the spot. If player A parses 120 k and player B does 80 k on the same build on the same day, that is the reality your raidgroup has to deal with. If player C can now parse 110 k on that day without fatecarver, it does not matter if he brought a different build. It simply doesn't. It is not a red herring, it is simply how it is for that raid group on that day. If player B improves and player C ends up being the weakest DPS next time, the situation can be re-evaluated, to see if the group deems it necessary to make changes. I am not cutting player B more slack just for showing up with the top performing meta build, just as I am not giving player C the boot for performing adequately on a non-optimal build. Where the cutoff if set is a decision each group should make individually, based on their player pool and their overall goals, rather than creating a needlessly miserably experience.

Your argument makes sense to me, if you are talking strictly about pugging trifectas, where you want to be assured that a random player performs on a standard level associated with the role. But outside of that, strict adherence to the absolute meta setup is simply not required.

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

This is the response to all 3 posters above, but I'll argue based off this quote:

BananaBender wrote: »

But doesn't that go the other way around as well? Are you sure your safe build made a meaningful difference, or would have the fight been easier if you had just gone full damage and all the adds died quicker, the tank and healer could put their focus on buff uptimes and keeping the boss still, so the group doesn't have to replace their AoEs? Suddenly you are saving much more than 5 seconds.

We are clearly arguing about undefined margins here, which makes this discussion a bit murky.
You can not shift the premise of my argument about breakpoints though, that is a bit upsetting and that clearly shows that it hasn't been understood conceptually.
The scenario you describe here is specifically not was I was talking about. I think I expressed that clearly enough, but I will explain it one more time with more care. Let's say a phase repeats every 30 seconds and all the danger lies within that phase. If the fight has an overall duration of 2 minutes with meta builds, it will not matter if your group collectively runs builds that are 10-20 % weaker. Of course it will matter if you lose 50 % of the damage in the same scenario. Between the relevant break points you are free to express any preference without changing the outcome significantly.

I originally responded clearly to this, bemoaning this hypothetical meta setup:

sarahthes wrote: »

Every DPS will be on this build if they are doing any semblance of veteran combat. Super exciting!

I responded, because given the current average DPS, the margins that the encounters allow and the performance fluctuation between groups, it is absolutely unnecessary to burden oneself with a build that one does not want to play. It is just mindless to give in to that way of playing a game, especially when other builds can situationally compete with or outperform (in any aspect that a player or group would place value in) such a setup.

Talking from purely anecdotal, personal experience across all MMO raiding I have done in my life, success/failure has been determined mostly by the number severe errors that players made in a run. Does quick execution facilitate the process? Obviously. I have not claimed the opposite. Can other safety rails have a similar impact? Yes, I have observed that many times.
Maybe most importantly, have I seen two players with the same build have DPS differences upwards of 100 %? Absolutely, dozens of times. Would it really matter if then a player comes in with a build that has a theoretical benchmark that is 10 % below the meta setup? I can count the number of times that this was the case on a single hand.

This meta obsession mentality is what made ESO that kind of game where you can queue 45 min for a vet dungeon and see the group fall apart because two players don't like each others build before even the first pull has been made - only for the remaining players to finish the dungeon by themselves afterwards. It always derails into a discussion of black and white, proper DPSers and casuals, going away so far from the actual content.

I am again trying to make it abundantly clear: I am not trying to relativize the merits of a build. But people have to open their eyes and ask themselves if it really matters. Do you clear the content with/without it? How much of a difference does it make? Is it overpowered and likely to be addressed? Do you even like playing it? There are more points to be considered about a build than just its ranking in a build hierarchy, and I thought my examples can highlight that.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Especially in a game like ESO in which damage has been king every since the day it launched. It always has been. All those people who struggled on Maelstrom Arena did so because they did not do enough damage and had to face too many mechanics. The tradeoff for being a little more tranky is almost always never worth it because mechanics are much more punishing than losing an extra 8% or what not damage mitigation.

Ironically, I never again had as much fun on vMA as I had on my first run with an absolute garbage overland build. Burning a boss with a precastable oneshot combo just doesn't do it for me.

In conclusion: Whether the meta changes next month, in 3 months or next year, as long as there are enjoyable builds that perform sufficiently well, there is nothing to be stressed about. It is literally exactly the same right now, only that people don't have to log to an alt to benefit from the most overpeforming builds.

The issue here isn’t a lack of comprehension. It’s that your premise collapses under scrutiny. You argue that builds only matter in narrow, breakpoint-defined intervals, and anything within those margins is a matter of taste. But that abstraction ignores how actual encounters play out in ESO.

You assume fights follow clean, predictable intervals where performance differences are inconsequential—as if DPS thresholds are static, and mechanical overlap never happens. But that’s not how the game works. ESO isn’t a spreadsheet simulator. It’s a real-time system where burst phases, add waves, and overlapping AoEs often punish even slight delays. A 10% drop in group DPS doesn’t just lengthen the fight. It risks triggering additional mechanics, desyncing healer cooldowns, and exhausting resources. That’s not a “mindless obsession with meta.” It’s practical risk management.

Your nostalgia for low-performance “garbage” builds in vMA is telling. Yes, anyone can enjoy a challenge on underperforming setups. But that’s not the point being debated. The issue is whether optimal builds provide tangible, encounter-relevant benefits. And they do. Not because players are brainwashed, but because the content is built that way. Your call for players to simply “choose fun” collapses the difference between solo overland play and team-based PvE where your underperformance doesn’t just affect you.

Finally, pointing to the variability between players as a defense for lower-performing builds is a red herring. The fact that some players underperform even with strong builds doesn’t mean performance gaps between builds are irrelevant. It means we should support players in improving—without encouraging them to use a wrench when a scalpel is required.

If you insist to argue past the core of my argument, despite my clarification, there is not much I can do about it. You are decontextualizing my points to make easily contestable strawmen out of them.

1) There is always a threshold below which differences are not significant enough to be noticeable and that is also very much tied to the variance within the performance. If swapping builds results in a sufficiently detrimental delay, then you simply did not meet your break points. That is all. That can be 10 % deviation, a 20 % deviation or whatever, these were just example numbers. This argument is just semantics and you seem to purposefully be misinterpreting my argument. The abstraction I make is in no way too generic, it can be applied to every microelement of a raid encounter. From burn phases, to tick damage, add clear times and overall time limits. If quantifiable and non-quantifiable standards are being met by a build, it does not matter how the player did it.
When you talk about risk management, you also conveniently leave out that swapping the build comes with other potential benefits or utility, but this is a completely different argument by itself.
I do not assume any of those simplifications that you mentioned, and I don't know why you are alleging that.

2) The point about vMA was a minor comment regarding the approach to dealing with game mechanics. All I am saying is that for me personally, playing out the encounter mechanics in full is more entertaining than skipping them with DPS - and therefore I am usually not bothered by the existence of extreme outlier meta DPS builds in PvE. This is simply a comment on personal preference and this doesn't need to be convoluted with group building for trifecta groups.
I have in no way denied that a group has the freedom to set their performance thresholds, and I certainly do not condone it when underperforming people take an entitled stance.
I have been raiding in MMOs for over 15 years and I have seen people come and go, builds getting buffed and nerfed, content being made challenging or dumbed down. If every ounce of raw performance is what matters to your group, you can go for that. If I can have a regular player that refuses to run fatecarver, who is otherwise doing good DPS and doesn't hinder the group, I will prefer him over filling a spot with a random. Especially if content is beatable with X DPS and the next patch increases the ceiling to 1.4 times X DPS. People aren't just automatically witless noobs for trying to enjoy their game, and that does also not mean that they are unaware or disrepectful of their group members efforts. There is always a healthy way of doing things and spinning every deviation from the meta setup into an "overland player" argument is just bad faith.

3) The differences in player performance are real in the moment the parse is recorded. You can't just magically make the other player perform better on the spot. If player A parses 120 k and player B does 80 k on the same build on the same day, that is the reality your raidgroup has to deal with. If player C can now parse 110 k on that day without fatecarver, it does not matter if he brought a different build. It simply doesn't. It is not a red herring, it is simply how it is for that raid group on that day. If player B improves and player C ends up being the weakest DPS next time, the situation can be re-evaluated, to see if the group deems it necessary to make changes. I am not cutting player B more slack just for showing up with the top performing meta build, just as I am not giving player C the boot for performing adequately on a non-optimal build. Where the cutoff if set is a decision each group should make individually, based on their player pool and their overall goals, rather than creating a needlessly miserably experience.

Your argument makes sense to me, if you are talking strictly about pugging trifectas, where you want to be assured that a random player performs on a standard level associated with the role. But outside of that, strict adherence to the absolute meta setup is simply not required.

I’ve read your clarification. The issue is not misunderstanding. It is that your framework keeps reverting to individual interpretation as the standard for group content. That is not misreading. That is identifying a structural pattern.

Your examples all center on cases where the performance difference between builds is deemed acceptable based on internal group tolerance. But again, this does not address the broader point. If content is tuned around time pressure, overlapping mechanics, and execution compression, then builds that support stability and throughput are not optional. They are appropriate. Saying that your group would rather take a familiar player than a stranger is not a counterpoint. It is a separate context.

You write that “it simply does not matter” if a player performs adequately on a non-meta build. But what you mean is that you have determined it does not matter. You are free to make that call. What follows, however, is not that optimization becomes irrelevant. It is that you are choosing to deprioritize it. That is not a universal principle. That is your preference.

Your defense of variability between players misunderstands the original critique. No one is suggesting that a weaker player on a meta build is inherently preferable. The claim is that, all else equal, stronger builds widen the margin for success. If player C does 110k on a non-meta build, and could do 120k on a stronger one, then that still matters. It does not invalidate the player. But it does invalidate the notion that build choice is frictionless.

What you call bad faith—linking casual builds to overland players—is not rhetorical malice. It is pattern recognition. When someone says that personal enjoyment should override group needs, or that consistency is a form of oppression, the context is no longer performance. It is affect.

You close by asserting that strict adherence to meta setups is not required. But no one said it was. The argument is that optimization improves consistency, reduces failure points, and respects the time of others. If your group does not require that, then no one is stopping you. But trying to generalize that posture into a principle flattens the conversation.

If optimization were meaningless, then you would not be defending your position at this length. The structure of your reply proves the point.

You are correct, deprioritizing optimization is a personal preference. It can be a choice that can make a difference between enjoying the game and not enjoying it. It can be a choice than can well be afforded in many cases. This was the entire point. Not to say that somehow this way of engaging with harder content is right or better, but that it is a valid way of having fun in the game if the purely optimization based playstyle is unappealing due to the current state of balancing.

I have not demanded that this personal choice should be accepted when it clashes with group interest, simply that it is absolutely numerically possible to accomodate both player preference and group interest if there is a desire to so - and often with negligible impact. If you choose to focus on the most negative interpretation of such a scenario, by viewing this as some form of parasitic relationship between an entitled player and an otherwise diligent group of optimized players, that is your personal choice. It is pure conjecture, that this is about evil casuals trying to weasel their way into harder content, at a cost for high performing groups. There is no reason to overinflate the importance of optimal performance, if an entire group of players is happy and successful with their setup. How an extraneous party would judge such a consensual setup is irrelevant.

I have not claimed that optimization is generally meaningless, and it is truly exhausting that you are breaking down my argument to such a point. If your pattern recognition helps you to keep out players that you do not wan't to have in your team, that is great. I am sure that is better for both parties. My comments are meant to encourage players to evaluate their priorities honestly. Groups of likeminded players may not view every deviation from the meta as freeloading and there is fun to be had together, even if the meta is not everyones cup of tea.

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

This is the response to all 3 posters above, but I'll argue based off this quote:

BananaBender wrote: »

But doesn't that go the other way around as well? Are you sure your safe build made a meaningful difference, or would have the fight been easier if you had just gone full damage and all the adds died quicker, the tank and healer could put their focus on buff uptimes and keeping the boss still, so the group doesn't have to replace their AoEs? Suddenly you are saving much more than 5 seconds.

We are clearly arguing about undefined margins here, which makes this discussion a bit murky.
You can not shift the premise of my argument about breakpoints though, that is a bit upsetting and that clearly shows that it hasn't been understood conceptually.
The scenario you describe here is specifically not was I was talking about. I think I expressed that clearly enough, but I will explain it one more time with more care. Let's say a phase repeats every 30 seconds and all the danger lies within that phase. If the fight has an overall duration of 2 minutes with meta builds, it will not matter if your group collectively runs builds that are 10-20 % weaker. Of course it will matter if you lose 50 % of the damage in the same scenario. Between the relevant break points you are free to express any preference without changing the outcome significantly.

I originally responded clearly to this, bemoaning this hypothetical meta setup:

sarahthes wrote: »

Every DPS will be on this build if they are doing any semblance of veteran combat. Super exciting!

I responded, because given the current average DPS, the margins that the encounters allow and the performance fluctuation between groups, it is absolutely unnecessary to burden oneself with a build that one does not want to play. It is just mindless to give in to that way of playing a game, especially when other builds can situationally compete with or outperform (in any aspect that a player or group would place value in) such a setup.

Talking from purely anecdotal, personal experience across all MMO raiding I have done in my life, success/failure has been determined mostly by the number severe errors that players made in a run. Does quick execution facilitate the process? Obviously. I have not claimed the opposite. Can other safety rails have a similar impact? Yes, I have observed that many times.
Maybe most importantly, have I seen two players with the same build have DPS differences upwards of 100 %? Absolutely, dozens of times. Would it really matter if then a player comes in with a build that has a theoretical benchmark that is 10 % below the meta setup? I can count the number of times that this was the case on a single hand.

This meta obsession mentality is what made ESO that kind of game where you can queue 45 min for a vet dungeon and see the group fall apart because two players don't like each others build before even the first pull has been made - only for the remaining players to finish the dungeon by themselves afterwards. It always derails into a discussion of black and white, proper DPSers and casuals, going away so far from the actual content.

I am again trying to make it abundantly clear: I am not trying to relativize the merits of a build. But people have to open their eyes and ask themselves if it really matters. Do you clear the content with/without it? How much of a difference does it make? Is it overpowered and likely to be addressed? Do you even like playing it? There are more points to be considered about a build than just its ranking in a build hierarchy, and I thought my examples can highlight that.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Especially in a game like ESO in which damage has been king every since the day it launched. It always has been. All those people who struggled on Maelstrom Arena did so because they did not do enough damage and had to face too many mechanics. The tradeoff for being a little more tranky is almost always never worth it because mechanics are much more punishing than losing an extra 8% or what not damage mitigation.

Ironically, I never again had as much fun on vMA as I had on my first run with an absolute garbage overland build. Burning a boss with a precastable oneshot combo just doesn't do it for me.

In conclusion: Whether the meta changes next month, in 3 months or next year, as long as there are enjoyable builds that perform sufficiently well, there is nothing to be stressed about. It is literally exactly the same right now, only that people don't have to log to an alt to benefit from the most overpeforming builds.

The issue here isn’t a lack of comprehension. It’s that your premise collapses under scrutiny. You argue that builds only matter in narrow, breakpoint-defined intervals, and anything within those margins is a matter of taste. But that abstraction ignores how actual encounters play out in ESO.

You assume fights follow clean, predictable intervals where performance differences are inconsequential—as if DPS thresholds are static, and mechanical overlap never happens. But that’s not how the game works. ESO isn’t a spreadsheet simulator. It’s a real-time system where burst phases, add waves, and overlapping AoEs often punish even slight delays. A 10% drop in group DPS doesn’t just lengthen the fight. It risks triggering additional mechanics, desyncing healer cooldowns, and exhausting resources. That’s not a “mindless obsession with meta.” It’s practical risk management.

Your nostalgia for low-performance “garbage” builds in vMA is telling. Yes, anyone can enjoy a challenge on underperforming setups. But that’s not the point being debated. The issue is whether optimal builds provide tangible, encounter-relevant benefits. And they do. Not because players are brainwashed, but because the content is built that way. Your call for players to simply “choose fun” collapses the difference between solo overland play and team-based PvE where your underperformance doesn’t just affect you.

Finally, pointing to the variability between players as a defense for lower-performing builds is a red herring. The fact that some players underperform even with strong builds doesn’t mean performance gaps between builds are irrelevant. It means we should support players in improving—without encouraging them to use a wrench when a scalpel is required.

If you insist to argue past the core of my argument, despite my clarification, there is not much I can do about it. You are decontextualizing my points to make easily contestable strawmen out of them.

1) There is always a threshold below which differences are not significant enough to be noticeable and that is also very much tied to the variance within the performance. If swapping builds results in a sufficiently detrimental delay, then you simply did not meet your break points. That is all. That can be 10 % deviation, a 20 % deviation or whatever, these were just example numbers. This argument is just semantics and you seem to purposefully be misinterpreting my argument. The abstraction I make is in no way too generic, it can be applied to every microelement of a raid encounter. From burn phases, to tick damage, add clear times and overall time limits. If quantifiable and non-quantifiable standards are being met by a build, it does not matter how the player did it.
When you talk about risk management, you also conveniently leave out that swapping the build comes with other potential benefits or utility, but this is a completely different argument by itself.
I do not assume any of those simplifications that you mentioned, and I don't know why you are alleging that.

2) The point about vMA was a minor comment regarding the approach to dealing with game mechanics. All I am saying is that for me personally, playing out the encounter mechanics in full is more entertaining than skipping them with DPS - and therefore I am usually not bothered by the existence of extreme outlier meta DPS builds in PvE. This is simply a comment on personal preference and this doesn't need to be convoluted with group building for trifecta groups.
I have in no way denied that a group has the freedom to set their performance thresholds, and I certainly do not condone it when underperforming people take an entitled stance.
I have been raiding in MMOs for over 15 years and I have seen people come and go, builds getting buffed and nerfed, content being made challenging or dumbed down. If every ounce of raw performance is what matters to your group, you can go for that. If I can have a regular player that refuses to run fatecarver, who is otherwise doing good DPS and doesn't hinder the group, I will prefer him over filling a spot with a random. Especially if content is beatable with X DPS and the next patch increases the ceiling to 1.4 times X DPS. People aren't just automatically witless noobs for trying to enjoy their game, and that does also not mean that they are unaware or disrepectful of their group members efforts. There is always a healthy way of doing things and spinning every deviation from the meta setup into an "overland player" argument is just bad faith.

3) The differences in player performance are real in the moment the parse is recorded. You can't just magically make the other player perform better on the spot. If player A parses 120 k and player B does 80 k on the same build on the same day, that is the reality your raidgroup has to deal with. If player C can now parse 110 k on that day without fatecarver, it does not matter if he brought a different build. It simply doesn't. It is not a red herring, it is simply how it is for that raid group on that day. If player B improves and player C ends up being the weakest DPS next time, the situation can be re-evaluated, to see if the group deems it necessary to make changes. I am not cutting player B more slack just for showing up with the top performing meta build, just as I am not giving player C the boot for performing adequately on a non-optimal build. Where the cutoff if set is a decision each group should make individually, based on their player pool and their overall goals, rather than creating a needlessly miserably experience.

Your argument makes sense to me, if you are talking strictly about pugging trifectas, where you want to be assured that a random player performs on a standard level associated with the role. But outside of that, strict adherence to the absolute meta setup is simply not required.

I’ve read your clarification. The issue is not misunderstanding. It is that your framework keeps reverting to individual interpretation as the standard for group content. That is not misreading. That is identifying a structural pattern.

Your examples all center on cases where the performance difference between builds is deemed acceptable based on internal group tolerance. But again, this does not address the broader point. If content is tuned around time pressure, overlapping mechanics, and execution compression, then builds that support stability and throughput are not optional. They are appropriate. Saying that your group would rather take a familiar player than a stranger is not a counterpoint. It is a separate context.

You write that “it simply does not matter” if a player performs adequately on a non-meta build. But what you mean is that you have determined it does not matter. You are free to make that call. What follows, however, is not that optimization becomes irrelevant. It is that you are choosing to deprioritize it. That is not a universal principle. That is your preference.

Your defense of variability between players misunderstands the original critique. No one is suggesting that a weaker player on a meta build is inherently preferable. The claim is that, all else equal, stronger builds widen the margin for success. If player C does 110k on a non-meta build, and could do 120k on a stronger one, then that still matters. It does not invalidate the player. But it does invalidate the notion that build choice is frictionless.

What you call bad faith—linking casual builds to overland players—is not rhetorical malice. It is pattern recognition. When someone says that personal enjoyment should override group needs, or that consistency is a form of oppression, the context is no longer performance. It is affect.

You close by asserting that strict adherence to meta setups is not required. But no one said it was. The argument is that optimization improves consistency, reduces failure points, and respects the time of others. If your group does not require that, then no one is stopping you. But trying to generalize that posture into a principle flattens the conversation.

If optimization were meaningless, then you would not be defending your position at this length. The structure of your reply proves the point.

You are correct, deprioritizing optimization is a personal preference. It can be a choice that can make a difference between enjoying the game and not enjoying it. It can be a choice than can well be afforded in many cases. This was the entire point. Not to say that somehow this way of engaging with harder content is right or better, but that it is a valid way of having fun in the game if the purely optimization based playstyle is unappealing due to the current state of balancing.

I have not demanded that this personal choice should be accepted when it clashes with group interest, simply that it is absolutely numerically possible to accomodate both player preference and group interest if there is a desire to so - and often with negligible impact. If you choose to focus on the most negative interpretation of such a scenario, by viewing this as some form of parasitic relationship between an entitled player and an otherwise diligent group of optimized players, that is your personal choice. It is pure conjecture, that this is about evil casuals trying to weasel their way into harder content, at a cost for high performing groups. There is no reason to overinflate the importance of optimal performance, if an entire group of players is happy and successful with their setup. How an extraneous party would judge such a consensual setup is irrelevant.

I have not claimed that optimization is generally meaningless, and it is truly exhausting that you are breaking down my argument to such a point. If your pattern recognition helps you to keep out players that you do not wan't to have in your team, that is great. I am sure that is better for both parties. My comments are meant to encourage players to evaluate their priorities honestly. Groups of likeminded players may not view every deviation from the meta as freeloading and there is fun to be had together, even if the meta is not everyones cup of tea.

You’re describing an ideal scenario of group harmony and personal compatibility. But that’s not what system balance is built around. Design choices affect structure regardless of how individuals choose to interpret them. The point is not whether deviation is morally wrong. It’s whether it consistently alters outcomes. Which, as you’ve already conceded, it does.

And what is the point in your argument?
Try not to have fun with off-meta builds? Beating the content suboptimally doesn't count? How similar do the outcomes need to be, before an alternative becomes a genuine option?