Can we have an European Thornblade (EU) topic?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Etaniel wrote: »

VagabondAngel wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

What made me laugh the most is when he said "Just try not to kill the campaign." on the axe of belharza thread

If you want to point fingers, save at least one for the 40+ DC who forced us to run our 24 group and 12 group together instead of splitting up.

"You started it"

"No, they started it"

Who cares? Seems someone will always start it and then you either wipe wipe wipe or follow suit. (Except Banana Squad, who arrived to farm scrubs and instead found 60+ semi-organised and got wiped themselves).

The fault as always is with game mechanics that benefit blobs with meta-build skill spam.

If you fall upon a 40 man DC train, then of course I understand that you want to merge groups and face them with equal numbers, it only makes sense. But I doubt that every time you ran with such numbers it was because you were triggered by a larger force on the enemy side.

And of course I point fingers in all directions, EP, DC and AD all have or have had their lag trains trying to justify themselves.

What is there to 'justify'? Are people not allowed to play a game how they want to play it? Some people want to play solo, some with a couple of friends. Others like to form organised well run 12 man's some like to relax and farm in larger raids.
everyone is just playing eso. There's not a shortage of other campaigns to pick if one doesn't suit the type of play you like.

Turelus

Etaniel wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I honestly swear WJ did our best not to kill the campaign with capping.

We stopped after Emperor keeps, we didn't night-cap as we legitimately do want constant 24/7 PvP again. Sadly we don't control the entire Pact and other guilds and randoms kept pushing.

The problem is I think we are one of the few guild still around looking for large scale skirmishes as well as small gang, most of our enemies (as shown in this thread) want small gang up to 12v12 to show their skill as individual players.

We could make small 12 man groups, we have some great 1vX players in the guild. However what are the other 30 members online in the guild meant to do then, and the ones who are not great 1vX players and join the larger raids as they contribute more and enjoy the social aspects of it.

I've seen Bannana Squad wreck entire 30 player groups with their small ones, they are good players with skill and coordination. However every time they do lose it "lag blah blah" "zerg blah blah". I guarantee if they had wiped both the EP and DC 40man raids last night we would see massive epeening about it rather than complaints.

The battles with DC last night were fantastic, we wipe them, they wiped us, they stole keeps, we stole keeps. It felt back like the old days of large battles and crazy clashes without the crippling lag. Sadly it doesn't last.

Stop saying 12v12 is small scale plz.
You don't need to be a "good 1vX player" to be good in a 12 man group. The group is already big enough that the only instructions/communications needed for 95% of the fights are spam aoe here, now spam aoe there, move over there, spam ultis on crown now.

What do you consider small group sizes then? What are you trying to get out of PvP? When does a group change over to a zerg in your opinion?
It seems you're playing a game which was designed from the start for open world sandbox style PvP and massive group battle and are annoyed that it doesn't support your view of PvP.

Define your terms of the PvP you want, from what I see it's that you want fixed size battlegrounds. This game doesn't (at this time) support that however.

Etaniel wrote: »

40 man ain't enough for you big war fantasies?

No. I want what I was sold on "Epic battles with hundreds of players". I don't mind smaller groups, I don't mind a 1v1 if I encounter it but I also understand this environment due to my years of playing EVE.

Strategic fights will always be the masses fighting the masses, solo and small gang PvP is experienced in roams to hostile territory and poking the beast to get fights, take on larger numbers and beat them off until the blob (EVE's term for a zerg) chases you. Then you player skill is tested on the ability to get you and your fleet out alive and safe, scoring kills on the retreat where you can.

Sometimes you get the epic fights where your group wipes masses outnumbered, sometimes you get that even fight where you're tested to your limits as a group, sometimes you find that guy in top asteroid belt and having an epic 1v1. Sometime the blob catches you and you welp your fleet going home without a ship or implants.

Either way, you logged into game, had some PvP and can try again. Be glad in this game you can go right back out instead of spending hours in PvE to buy new stuff.

Etaniel

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

VagabondAngel wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

What made me laugh the most is when he said "Just try not to kill the campaign." on the axe of belharza thread

If you want to point fingers, save at least one for the 40+ DC who forced us to run our 24 group and 12 group together instead of splitting up.

"You started it"

"No, they started it"

Who cares? Seems someone will always start it and then you either wipe wipe wipe or follow suit. (Except Banana Squad, who arrived to farm scrubs and instead found 60+ semi-organised and got wiped themselves).

The fault as always is with game mechanics that benefit blobs with meta-build skill spam.

If you fall upon a 40 man DC train, then of course I understand that you want to merge groups and face them with equal numbers, it only makes sense. But I doubt that every time you ran with such numbers it was because you were triggered by a larger force on the enemy side.

And of course I point fingers in all directions, EP, DC and AD all have or have had their lag trains trying to justify themselves.

What is there to 'justify'? Are people not allowed to play a game how they want to play it? Some people want to play solo, some with a couple of friends. Others like to form organised well run 12 man's some like to relax and farm in larger raids.
everyone is just playing eso.

What is there to justify? Well when a group lags a server out, intentionally or not, isn't that something that requires justification? Don't you wonder why people don't question themselves when ruining the game for an entire campaign population?


When two large groups face off each other and battle and everythig runs fine, it's all good. When it starts to lag to the detriment of the whole server, forcing people to leave the game out of frustration, then yes, I would say people shouldn't be allowed to play like that.


People are free to play as they wish as long as it doesn't completely ruin the experience for others. I used to play a browser mmo a long time ago, that had clans battling each other in a large pvp map. One of the clans started applying zerg tactics to guarantee victory, and recruited every single new player to the game who were easily seduced by a guild that seemed to win everything. Soon enough, they were camping the entrance to the PvP zone, and all the other clans were locked out of the game because they were instakilled. 4 months later there was only that one clan left, and the game died because there was no more pvp, no one left to kill.
Now of course this isn't completely applicable to eso, but you can still get my point. If by your playstyle you leave no chance and ruin the experience for all your enemies, you won't have enemies left and your favourite playstyle won't even be possible anymore. It's only smart, that even though you like playing in 40 man raids, you cool it off sometimes and let your enemies breathe.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

There's not a shortage of other campaigns to pick if one doesn't suit the type of play you like.

I usually play on multiple campaigns every night and spend a lot of time to find the PvP that I enjoy. I get pissed when I am forced to switch campaigns, after queuing and struggling to get every member in, when some people think it's ok to raise the ping by 400

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Etaniel wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

VagabondAngel wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

What made me laugh the most is when he said "Just try not to kill the campaign." on the axe of belharza thread

If you want to point fingers, save at least one for the 40+ DC who forced us to run our 24 group and 12 group together instead of splitting up.

"You started it"

"No, they started it"

Who cares? Seems someone will always start it and then you either wipe wipe wipe or follow suit. (Except Banana Squad, who arrived to farm scrubs and instead found 60+ semi-organised and got wiped themselves).

The fault as always is with game mechanics that benefit blobs with meta-build skill spam.

If you fall upon a 40 man DC train, then of course I understand that you want to merge groups and face them with equal numbers, it only makes sense. But I doubt that every time you ran with such numbers it was because you were triggered by a larger force on the enemy side.

And of course I point fingers in all directions, EP, DC and AD all have or have had their lag trains trying to justify themselves.

What is there to 'justify'? Are people not allowed to play a game how they want to play it? Some people want to play solo, some with a couple of friends. Others like to form organised well run 12 man's some like to relax and farm in larger raids.
everyone is just playing eso.

What is there to justify? Well when a group lags a server out, intentionally or not, isn't that something that requires justification? Don't you wonder why people don't question themselves when ruining the game for an entire campaign population?


When two large groups face off each other and battle and everythig runs fine, it's all good. When it starts to lag to the detriment of the whole server, forcing people to leave the game out of frustration, then yes, I would say people shouldn't be allowed to play like that.


People are free to play as they wish as long as it doesn't completely ruin the experience for others. I used to play a browser mmo a long time ago, that had clans battling each other in a large pvp map. One of the clans started applying zerg tactics to guarantee victory, and recruited every single new player to the game who were easily seduced by a guild that seemed to win everything. Soon enough, they were camping the entrance to the PvP zone, and all the other clans were locked out of the game because they were instakilled. 4 months later there was only that one clan left, and the game died because there was no more pvp, no one left to kill.
Now of course this isn't completely applicable to eso, but you can still get my point. If by your playstyle you leave no chance and ruin the experience for all your enemies, you won't have enemies left and your favourite playstyle won't even be possible anymore. It's only smart, that even though you like playing in 40 man raids, you cool it off sometimes and let your enemies breathe.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

There's not a shortage of other campaigns to pick if one doesn't suit the type of play you like.

I usually play on multiple campaigns every night and spend a lot of time to find the PvP that I enjoy. I get pissed when I am forced to switch campaigns, after queuing and struggling to get every member in, when some people think it's ok to raise the ping by 400

So if something affects another player they shouldn't be allowed to play the game how they want to play it?

Kinda like how when exploits are used such as double mundus or overload stacking or Mara death res?
Where is the line drawn? Because one gameplay affects you in an adverse manner that's the gameplay that should be banned?

I happen to agree with you on the whole campaign zerg in leaving no one to fight issue but this isn't due to lag it's due to population stacking but that isn't a symptom of an unoptimized laggy game. It's a symptom of poor game design where there isn't a counter to every style of play. Back in previous patches a 40m zerg would have lasted maybe 30s with all the ulti generation a good small group would have. Now there is no counter to it.
This doesn't mean the players who choose to play like this are wrong to do it.

Equally as we discovered last night whilst testing players in large groups don't experience the detrimental performance you are talking about (it happens but not as bad). I have a theory it's down to the draw distance and particle suppression (if you max those bars out to full you get better performance not worse)


Edit: if abilities instead of doing less dmg the more players they hit did more dmg for example 100% on the first 24, 150% on the next 24 and 300% on anyone over that perhaps less zerging would be prioritized (or even just 100% on all targets at a minimum). Ofc this would only apply to players not mobs or even just "inside cyro" as part of the battle spirit buff

Etaniel

Turelus wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I honestly swear WJ did our best not to kill the campaign with capping.

We stopped after Emperor keeps, we didn't night-cap as we legitimately do want constant 24/7 PvP again. Sadly we don't control the entire Pact and other guilds and randoms kept pushing.

The problem is I think we are one of the few guild still around looking for large scale skirmishes as well as small gang, most of our enemies (as shown in this thread) want small gang up to 12v12 to show their skill as individual players.

We could make small 12 man groups, we have some great 1vX players in the guild. However what are the other 30 members online in the guild meant to do then, and the ones who are not great 1vX players and join the larger raids as they contribute more and enjoy the social aspects of it.

I've seen Bannana Squad wreck entire 30 player groups with their small ones, they are good players with skill and coordination. However every time they do lose it "lag blah blah" "zerg blah blah". I guarantee if they had wiped both the EP and DC 40man raids last night we would see massive epeening about it rather than complaints.

The battles with DC last night were fantastic, we wipe them, they wiped us, they stole keeps, we stole keeps. It felt back like the old days of large battles and crazy clashes without the crippling lag. Sadly it doesn't last.

Stop saying 12v12 is small scale plz.
You don't need to be a "good 1vX player" to be good in a 12 man group. The group is already big enough that the only instructions/communications needed for 95% of the fights are spam aoe here, now spam aoe there, move over there, spam ultis on crown now.

What do you consider small group sizes then? What are you trying to get out of PvP? When does a group change over to a zerg in your opinion?
It seems you're playing a game which was designed from the start for open world sandbox style PvP and massive group battle and are annoyed that it doesn't support your view of PvP.

Define your terms of the PvP you want, from what I see it's that you want fixed size battlegrounds. This game doesn't (at this time) support that however.

Etaniel wrote: »

40 man ain't enough for you big war fantasies?

No. I want what I was sold on "Epic battles with hundreds of players". I don't mind smaller groups, I don't mind a 1v1 if I encounter it but I also understand this environment due to my years of playing EVE.

Strategic fights will always be the masses fighting the masses, solo and small gang PvP is experienced in roams to hostile territory and poking the beast to get fights, take on larger numbers and beat them off until the blob (EVE's term for a zerg) chases you. Then you player skill is tested on the ability to get you and your fleet out alive and safe, scoring kills on the retreat where you can.

Sometimes you get the epic fights where your group wipes masses outnumbered, sometimes you get that even fight where you're tested to your limits as a group, sometimes you find that guy in top asteroid belt and having an epic 1v1. Sometime the blob catches you and you welp your fleet going home without a ship or implants.

Either way, you logged into game, had some PvP and can try again. Be glad in this game you can go right back out instead of spending hours in PvE to buy new stuff.

Well, you were sold off to a game that advertised such battles, but that can't support them anymore. It's a sad truth, and I wish they were possible as well. If 40 man raids aren't enough for you, too bad, because this game wants to support it, but CAN'T at the moment.
Believe me or not, I enjoy large scale war as well. I don't consider stacking 40 people on a crown to be war though, but that's how the mechanics of this game work so not much to do about it, and that's why I don't take part in it.
The beta weekends were closer to the idea of war that I had. Massive numbers on each side, spread out and basically zerging. Yes zerging, it can be fun. A zerg is in my books a large amount of unorganized people moving together thanks to a crowd effect. Someone sees someone else running in a direction, they start to follow and then the whole group follows. A 40 man raid is not necessarily a zerg, if they are organised. I'd call that a train, and a lag train if by their actions the ping goes up in shiny red numbers.



A small group is a group where each player can easily be aware of each of his group members, know their positionning, know how well they are on ressources etc It's obviously harder the more people are in your group, and I consider it's not small scale anymore when you are unable to do so.

I am not interested in battlegrounds.
I am interested in roaming in Cyrodil, in groups of 3-8 max, with fights happening randomly as you roam, in various places. I want those fights to be determined by player skill and not just whoever has the bigger number and aoe spam. I want to use terrain and line of sight to my advantage, coordinate on target calling, calling out when casting a CC so that my group members can burst at the right time etc. If someone dies in a small group, it makes a huge difference because that person had a large role in it. I enjoy fighting skilled players but I also enjoy fighting zergs. But there's one thing I don't like, it's fighting trains.

Finally, I'm not playing to show off my skill, i'm playing to use it and have fun with it.

Etaniel

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

VagabondAngel wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

What made me laugh the most is when he said "Just try not to kill the campaign." on the axe of belharza thread

If you want to point fingers, save at least one for the 40+ DC who forced us to run our 24 group and 12 group together instead of splitting up.

"You started it"

"No, they started it"

Who cares? Seems someone will always start it and then you either wipe wipe wipe or follow suit. (Except Banana Squad, who arrived to farm scrubs and instead found 60+ semi-organised and got wiped themselves).

The fault as always is with game mechanics that benefit blobs with meta-build skill spam.

If you fall upon a 40 man DC train, then of course I understand that you want to merge groups and face them with equal numbers, it only makes sense. But I doubt that every time you ran with such numbers it was because you were triggered by a larger force on the enemy side.

And of course I point fingers in all directions, EP, DC and AD all have or have had their lag trains trying to justify themselves.

What is there to 'justify'? Are people not allowed to play a game how they want to play it? Some people want to play solo, some with a couple of friends. Others like to form organised well run 12 man's some like to relax and farm in larger raids.
everyone is just playing eso.

What is there to justify? Well when a group lags a server out, intentionally or not, isn't that something that requires justification? Don't you wonder why people don't question themselves when ruining the game for an entire campaign population?


When two large groups face off each other and battle and everythig runs fine, it's all good. When it starts to lag to the detriment of the whole server, forcing people to leave the game out of frustration, then yes, I would say people shouldn't be allowed to play like that.


People are free to play as they wish as long as it doesn't completely ruin the experience for others. I used to play a browser mmo a long time ago, that had clans battling each other in a large pvp map. One of the clans started applying zerg tactics to guarantee victory, and recruited every single new player to the game who were easily seduced by a guild that seemed to win everything. Soon enough, they were camping the entrance to the PvP zone, and all the other clans were locked out of the game because they were instakilled. 4 months later there was only that one clan left, and the game died because there was no more pvp, no one left to kill.
Now of course this isn't completely applicable to eso, but you can still get my point. If by your playstyle you leave no chance and ruin the experience for all your enemies, you won't have enemies left and your favourite playstyle won't even be possible anymore. It's only smart, that even though you like playing in 40 man raids, you cool it off sometimes and let your enemies breathe.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

There's not a shortage of other campaigns to pick if one doesn't suit the type of play you like.

I usually play on multiple campaigns every night and spend a lot of time to find the PvP that I enjoy. I get pissed when I am forced to switch campaigns, after queuing and struggling to get every member in, when some people think it's ok to raise the ping by 400

So if something affects another player they shouldn't be allowed to play the game how they want to play it?

Kinda like how when exploits are used such as double mundus or overload stacking or Mara death res?
Where is the line drawn? Because one gameplay affects you in an adverse manner that's the gameplay that should be banned?

Lag doesn't affect one player, it affects everyone. Not game performance, LAG. If I get zerged down, I will probably be pissed, but not enough to rant about it in forums. People can outnumber me if they want, it's fine. However I won't tolerate it if by playing in those numbers they create lag. If I die, it's my fault. Either my enemy is better, or has more players etc. My fault for not being good enough, or having a large enough group, taking too much risk etc. If it's lag, I complain.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Etaniel wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

VagabondAngel wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

What made me laugh the most is when he said "Just try not to kill the campaign." on the axe of belharza thread

If you want to point fingers, save at least one for the 40+ DC who forced us to run our 24 group and 12 group together instead of splitting up.

"You started it"

"No, they started it"

Who cares? Seems someone will always start it and then you either wipe wipe wipe or follow suit. (Except Banana Squad, who arrived to farm scrubs and instead found 60+ semi-organised and got wiped themselves).

The fault as always is with game mechanics that benefit blobs with meta-build skill spam.

If you fall upon a 40 man DC train, then of course I understand that you want to merge groups and face them with equal numbers, it only makes sense. But I doubt that every time you ran with such numbers it was because you were triggered by a larger force on the enemy side.

And of course I point fingers in all directions, EP, DC and AD all have or have had their lag trains trying to justify themselves.

What is there to 'justify'? Are people not allowed to play a game how they want to play it? Some people want to play solo, some with a couple of friends. Others like to form organised well run 12 man's some like to relax and farm in larger raids.
everyone is just playing eso.

What is there to justify? Well when a group lags a server out, intentionally or not, isn't that something that requires justification? Don't you wonder why people don't question themselves when ruining the game for an entire campaign population?


When two large groups face off each other and battle and everythig runs fine, it's all good. When it starts to lag to the detriment of the whole server, forcing people to leave the game out of frustration, then yes, I would say people shouldn't be allowed to play like that.


People are free to play as they wish as long as it doesn't completely ruin the experience for others. I used to play a browser mmo a long time ago, that had clans battling each other in a large pvp map. One of the clans started applying zerg tactics to guarantee victory, and recruited every single new player to the game who were easily seduced by a guild that seemed to win everything. Soon enough, they were camping the entrance to the PvP zone, and all the other clans were locked out of the game because they were instakilled. 4 months later there was only that one clan left, and the game died because there was no more pvp, no one left to kill.
Now of course this isn't completely applicable to eso, but you can still get my point. If by your playstyle you leave no chance and ruin the experience for all your enemies, you won't have enemies left and your favourite playstyle won't even be possible anymore. It's only smart, that even though you like playing in 40 man raids, you cool it off sometimes and let your enemies breathe.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

There's not a shortage of other campaigns to pick if one doesn't suit the type of play you like.

I usually play on multiple campaigns every night and spend a lot of time to find the PvP that I enjoy. I get pissed when I am forced to switch campaigns, after queuing and struggling to get every member in, when some people think it's ok to raise the ping by 400

So if something affects another player they shouldn't be allowed to play the game how they want to play it?

Kinda like how when exploits are used such as double mundus or overload stacking or Mara death res?
Where is the line drawn? Because one gameplay affects you in an adverse manner that's the gameplay that should be banned?

Lag doesn't affect one player, it affects everyone. Not game performance, LAG. If I get zerged down, I will probably be pissed, but not enough to rant about it in forums. People can outnumber me if they want, it's fine. However I won't tolerate it if by playing in those numbers they create lag. If I die, it's my fault. Either my enemy is better, or has more players etc. My fault for not being good enough, or having a large enough group, taking too much risk etc. If it's lag, I complain.

The players aren't to blame for the lag. No one intentionally causes lag whereas exploits are done intentionally that's why I reference it. Also contrary to belief exploits affect everyone too.

example: group a is very good at the game and is farming at a place on the map. Because they are so good many players are needed to kill them. More and more players arrive to kill them and lag happens. Is this lag because of the enemies they are fighting or them? The answer is both because eso is laggy. That's just the way it is and has been for a long time.

Turelus

The problem is and has always been everyone is spread thin across multiple campaigns.

If they could get the populations balanced and players forced to actually play on campaigns where there were other players everyone would find what they're looking for as there would be groups everywhere on the map in different scales.

This is how it works in EVE's sandbox, yes there are almighty blobs but because everyone is playing on a single shard everyone gets the PvP they're looking for. Small gang and solo players just need to accept if you annoy a large entity they're going to chase you out of their space.

@Etaniel I honestly don't log in every night and go "How can I ruin everyone else's gameplay tonight?" I log in, tell my guild I will form a PvP raid and we will go hunting. Normally at this time we get 12-24 people only because we've been starved for PvP as well as everyone being in IC/WGT gearing up.

Ideally we want to play like we used to on Thornblade. Two raids using TS comms coordinating attacks. A small skirmish group of six who will guard seiges, camp locations or otherwise be a PITA.

We want to run all over the map playing the strategy game, we want to have massive clashes, get wiped by smaller groups with smart ambushes or good skills then all swear and curse their names.

For a while last night on AoB we had that, DC were kicking our butts with their numbers, we had one 24 player raid and one 12 player raid when that tower war started (this was a mix of WJ and locals to organise defence vs the superior DC forces). The 12 person group which I was leading was wiped trying to get Chalman. The other raid leader came to recapture our home keep and meet up with us so we had even footing against DC.

We got wrecked, both raids. We respawned Arrius and whilst running back we got intel "Banana Squad in a tower!" we dived in expecting the worst (wipe to well timed proxy and tornadoes) we battled them then DC turned up for ten mins of ridiculous yet great fun fighting over a tower which meant nothing.

From what I know right now Haderus has the best small gang PvP, Kris and a few others have been playing there doing 8vs30 and winning, even holding a WJ Emperorship. I would say if that's the PvP you desire try there.

Leandor

@Etaniel everything you say can be said on many aspects. If there is a "small" group of 8 players, running around with double mundus, mage light exploit, bugged dawnbreaker and whatnot, killing off any and all opposition except for 40-man zergs by abusing things that are not intended, how does that change anything? You could argue that they are the root cause for new players to aggregate into lagtrains, because it seems to be the only mode of play that makes them win.

From what I heard (no personal experience since the largest group I have played since IC hit the servers is a 8-man), the latest iteration of "lag fixes" actually had a noticeable effect on large scale combat lag. So, in line with what I said above, is it the players playing the "unintended consequences" game or the software underneath that allows this gameplay, that is to blame?

Why is a "small group" dominating everything except the large zergs better than a "lagtrain" that dominates everything except for even larger lagtrains? Why is it okay to use game mechanics to acquire a "skill advantage" over others, be it exploits or not, but it is not okay to build up group numbers that equalize the knowledge deficit?

Yes, some players could "evolve" into one of those "good pvp'ers" if they put in similar amounts of time to find those combinations that create an effect that gives a significant advantage over others, for example by maximizing mitigation while still retaining enough damage to break through "normal player defenses". Is that skill? No, it's time invested into researching what is broken. If I don't want to invest that time, for whatever reason, I am considered a scrub player that is not worth listening to.

There was a time when "game skill" was about having quick reactions and knowing when to block. What we now have is only find the set combination that has effects that make you better than others. I see a pvp video that shows a group of 4 to 8, mostly magicka sorcs and magicka NBs, precharging prox and jumping groups from stealth, their only skill being the ability to time a button press so that all prox go off at the same time. They get applauded for it, when in reality it is nothing but using an ability that is so inherently flawed that it is nothing but a disgrace to the game developer.

How is that better than abusing the fact that if you stack 40 people spamming AoE abilities makes the server crap its pants? It is two sides of the same coin. What makes me type snide comments into this thread is the double standards that are used. If I read this topic, I come to the conclusion that a skilled player is someone who manages to use game mechanics to prevent opponent retaliation (better said: opponent doing anything at all), and the measure of skill is how few people he needs for that.

None of this is skilled gameplay. All of it is mechanics abuse. All this idiocy with animation cancelling, attack chaining, block weaving and whatnot, nothing of this is skilled gameplay. I would love it if ZOS implemented skill-individual cooldowns that are exactly as long as the skill animations are supposed to be. They could remove the Battle Spirit crap completely and everything would be fine. Or, make the cost of abilities so high that you actually are resource limited, no matter how much regeneration you can stack.

Maybe it's worth trying to have the Battle Spirit buff not reduce damage taken, but instead double or even triple skill cost while in Cyrodiil, for any and all active abilities.

The root cause is the flaws in the combat system given to us. It doesn't matter if I stack 50 people or stack 6, as long as there are mechanics that allow destruction of opposing forces without any chance of retaliation, this game is not about skill at all.

What would happen if the precious proximity detonation would be a skill that actually kills yourself when it goes off, but at the same time does enough damage in a wide radius to break the defense of a "zerg"? That would make it a skill with an opportunity cost that is significant, making it a valid "oh crap, we are completely outnumbered but we can't lose this keep" option but as a zerg, you will never use it.

We don't have such complicated mechanics. We have set combinations and combat mechanics that allow instant kills, and the people abusing them call themselves "skilled". I am sure that many of these players are actually very good players and would wipe the floor with me even without those mechanics, but it still leaves a very bad aftertaste if it is possible to kill me within one second and no chance of retaliation.

This thread as a whole devolves into "you play as I want, not as you want yourself" and cheap justification of mechanics abuse. The reply to my post here will be "git gud, s*cker" or something alike, because that is in line with the elitist thinking of many participants, but I do hope that at least some try to be honest enough to admit I am at least partially right.

Sorry for calling you out, Etaniel, it is targeted more at the general populace, but your post more or less set it off. No offense meant. Also, this took me quite some time to type out. It was initially meant as response to post #2194. It has grown a bit, but sometimes I can't stop myself.

Turelus

Also can I break this up to say this is probably one of the best and most civilised debates on the current state of PvP I have seen in a long while.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler and @ZOS_RichLambert if you're not already have a read of some of this and get the feelings of the EU communities guilds. As you can see we want a better Cyrodiil which we need you help to build.

Etaniel

Turelus wrote: »

@Etaniel I honestly don't log in every night and go "How can I ruin everyone else's gameplay tonight?" I log in, tell my guild I will form a PvP raid and we will go hunting. Normally at this time we get 12-24 people only because we've been starved for PvP as well as everyone being in IC/WGT gearing up.

I never said you did. I know your intention is to have fun, and your way of having fun is big groups. That is totally fine by me.
What I don't find acceptable is when groups such as yours (from all factions, not just EP) start causing lag by their actions and do nothing to stop it.

I've been guilty of that a few times, but I try to limit and avoid it as much as possible. Take a huge keep fight for example. So many players around that skills are all delayed, siege can't be placed etc. 2 groups stacking on a flag spamming aoe that has no effect, and waiting for over 10 min in hopes that the other group will be the first one to take the hits. I'd expect a leader to take his group away from the keep and look for fights somewhere else, because those 10 min of pure lag are affecting everyone.

That's when you say, well it's ZOS's fault that there is lag, to which I answer yes. But basically what you have here is a broken game, acknowledged by the devs, saying they are working on it, so at this point, the players are to blame if lag comes again, because they know that the game isn't working yet. They can ask ZOS to fix it because they are unable to play, but they should know better than to engage in stuff that they know will induce lag. It's just common sense.

If one skill (for example silver leash back in the days cough cough) was bugged and allowed to oneshot everyone, you'd expect players to use it once, figure out it's bugged, report it, and carry on with their lives without using it until ZOS fixes it. Of course, they want to use that skill, and will claim that they are free to play the way they want to, and that's exactly how I see the lag problem. Unfortunately we are all human and we'd rather exploit something because everyone else is doing it, or everyone else is responsible rather than being the first ones to say ok, let's not use this anymore.

Turelus wrote: »

Ideally we want to play like we used to on Thornblade. Two raids using TS comms coordinating attacks. A small skirmish group of six who will guard seiges, camp locations or otherwise be a PITA.

We want to run all over the map playing the strategy game, we want to have massive clashes, get wiped by smaller groups with smart ambushes or good skills then all swear and curse their names.

And that's my idea of good pvp as well.

Leandor wrote: »

@Etaniel everything you say can be said on many aspects. If there is a "small" group of 8 players, running around with double mundus, mage light exploit, bugged dawnbreaker and whatnot, killing off any and all opposition except for 40-man zergs by abusing things that are not intended, how does that change anything? You could argue that they are the root cause for new players to aggregate into lagtrains, because it seems to be the only mode of play that makes them win.

@Leandor Where did I say exploiting was ok?

Leandor wrote: »

From what I heard (no personal experience since the largest group I have played since IC hit the servers is a 8-man), the latest iteration of "lag fixes" actually had a noticeable effect on large scale combat lag. So, in line with what I said above, is it the players playing the "unintended consequences" game or the software underneath that allows this gameplay, that is to blame?

I'd say both are to blame. If you know something you are doing is causing issues, you have the right to yell at ZOS, but you should refrain from doing whatever it is you're doing.

Leandor wrote: »

Why is a "small group" dominating everything except the large zergs better than a "lagtrain" that dominates everything except for even larger lagtrains? Why is it okay to use game mechanics to acquire a "skill advantage" over others, be it exploits or not, but it is not okay to build up group numbers that equalize the knowledge deficit?

I've never seen a group of 8 lag out a server. Even though I don't defend the use of exploits, they are game breaking for some, not for others, lag is a universal pain for everyone, no exception ( at least I hope so).

How is using intended game mechanics not ok???? Using numbers to equalize that deficit is ok as well, I just find it lame x) but that's just my opinion, play as you will.

Leandor wrote: »

Yes, some players could "evolve" into one of those "good pvp'ers" if they put in similar amounts of time to find those combinations that create an effect that gives a significant advantage over others, for example by maximizing mitigation while still retaining enough damage to break through "normal player defenses". Is that skill? No, it's time invested into researching what is broken. If I don't want to invest that time, for whatever reason, I am considered a scrub player that is not worth listening to.

I don't expect people to listen to my opinion on a game if I don't bother researching it and learning it's mechanics.

Skill takes many different forms, I think in this game, crafting your own efficient build to overcome opponents is related to skill. Copying a build isn't.

You can be a skilled theorycrafter but a crappy player when having to use that build. Or you can be a crappy theorycrafter, but skillfull in the way you play your character, or both.

Leandor wrote: »

There was a time when "game skill" was about having quick reactions and knowing when to block. What we now have is only find the set combination that has effects that make you better than others. I see a pvp video that shows a group of 4 to 8, mostly magicka sorcs and magicka NBs, precharging prox and jumping groups from stealth, their only skill being the ability to time a button press so that all prox go off at the same time. They get applauded for it, when in reality it is nothing but using an ability that is so inherently flawed that it is nothing but a disgrace to the game developer.

How is that better than abusing the fact that if you stack 40 people spamming AoE abilities makes the server crap its pants?

I somewhat agree here, using det out of stealth can't be considered skillfull, however it can be entertaining to watch. Heck I've posted videos like that, where we pop out of stealth and proxy det + dawnbreaker, I don't think anyone claims that to be skillfull play, just fun to watch.
Making the server crap it's pants is moronic and way worse than using a cheesy mechanic imo.

Leandor wrote: »

It is two sides of the same coin. What makes me type snide comments into this thread is the double standards that are used. If I read this topic, I come to the conclusion that a skilled player is someone who manages to use game mechanics to prevent opponent retaliation (better said: opponent doing anything at all), and the measure of skill is how few people he needs for that.

Well, yeah.... x) Everyone has access to the same game mechanics, so yes I would say someone using them in a smarter way and defeating multiple opponents has more skill, only seems logical.

Etaniel

Damn those walls of text though. x)

Turelus

Etaniel wrote: »

Damn those walls of text though. x)

Pretty sure that can fixed and we can return the status quo with two simple name drops.

@AbraXuSeXile @Lava_Croft please fix our thread again.

Leandor

Well, what I do is to read the in-game descriptions of items and skills and have a thorough brainstorming on how I could put those together. Then I try and if it works ok, I keep it.

What I simply don't have the time for is test every ability and item combination to find out whether there is something that is not apparent from their description and how I could use that.

This is what was done for things like dawnbreaker of smiting or sharpened maces. Is it a lack of skill or effort that I don't do that? Is it a lack of skill that I don't use those abilities, even after their "perks" have been made public?

Phoenix Set? The moment I read up on its effects, I changed my plans to use it over to meritorious service (or whatever it's called). Simply because it's intended purpose (give your group time to get you out of the ditch) doesn't work.

Why are people complaining about lagtrains but have no qualms whatsoever to abuse such things? Furthermore, why are such things a well-kept secret, open to a few, until it gets too widespread?

Justified by ZOS perpetuating a "no naming and shaming" (or however that no public bug descriptions thing is called nowadays) policy that does nothing but provide cover for their cockups?

No, not everyone has access to the same game mechanics. Everyone has access to the same items, but unless by accident, only a select few have access to the knowledge on how to abuse them to achieve certain effects.

As I have written. Having this knowledge does not make you a more skilled player. It makes you a more knowledgeable player is all. Knowledge in itself is not justification for abuse.

EDIT: @Turelus you had to go on and drop that a-word, didn't you? There goes the neighborhood again...

Etaniel

Turelus wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Damn those walls of text though. x)

Pretty sure that can fixed and we can return the status quo with two simple name drops.

@AbraXuSeXile @Lava_Croft please fix our thread again.

Etaniel

Leandor wrote: »

Well, what I do is to read the in-game descriptions of items and skills and have a thorough brainstorming on how I could put those together. Then I try and if it works ok, I keep it.

What I simply don't have the time for is test every ability and item combination to find out whether there is something that is not apparent from their description and how I could use that.

You seem to think everyone in the game searches for broken things to abuse. Those are called bug testers, and they are people ZOS should recruit...
In fact every one of your posts has been about exploits, bug abuse etc, when I never mentionned it, so I don't see why you keep bringing the exploit argument to the table. Especially since most people don't exploit or bug abuse, you can't blame every one of your death on abuse.
I said I don't defend the use of exploits, what else are you expecting me to say?

Leandor wrote: »

This is what was done for things like dawnbreaker of smiting or sharpened maces. Is it a lack of skill or effort that I don't do that? Is it a lack of skill that I don't use those abilities, even after their "perks" have been made public?

Phoenix Set? The moment I read up on its effects, I changed my plans to use it over to meritorious service (or whatever it's called). Simply because it's intended purpose (give your group time to get you out of the ditch) doesn't work.

Why are people complaining about lagtrains but have no qualms whatsoever to abuse such things? Furthermore, why are such things a well-kept secret, open to a few, until it gets too widespread?

Justified by ZOS perpetuating a "no naming and shaming" (or however that no public bug descriptions thing is called nowadays) policy that does nothing but provide cover for their cockups?

No, not everyone has access to the same game mechanics. Everyone has access to the same items, but unless by accident, only a select few have access to the knowledge on how to abuse them to achieve certain effects.

As I have written. Having this knowledge does not make you a more skilled player. It makes you a more knowledgeable player is all. Knowledge in itself is not justification for abuse.

EDIT: @Turelus you had to go on and drop that a-word, didn't you? There goes the neighborhood again...

Abuse abuse abuse

AbraXuSeXile

Turelus wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Damn those walls of text though. x)

Pretty sure that can fixed and we can return the status quo with two simple name drops.

@AbraXuSeXile @Lava_Croft please fix our thread again.

Ill just sit back and enjoy the show.

SHADOW2KK

Bloody lurker @AbraXuSeXile that ye are hehe.

Etaniel

Aaaah, reading back the first few pages of this glorious thread.... when all was positive, and players complimented each other.... Mentions of FrostSoul, Sanct and Bipolo derailing whole DC trains, good times..... What I wouldn't give to see those again !

AbraXuSeXile

I just read from page 50ish at the start of when DC won their first Thorn, i miss discussions with Kris lol.

PvP community so split.

Lava_Croft

AbraXuSeXile wrote: »

PvP community so split.

ESO kinda boring, sorry. Cherish the memories!

Hexys

Lava_Croft wrote: »

ESO kinda boring, sorry. Cherish the memories!

I know why this update is boring for you Kris. The exploits are gone but you still ain't worth anything so nothing to QQ about.

AbraXuSeXile

Hexys wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

ESO kinda boring, sorry. Cherish the memories!

I know why this update is boring for you Kris. The exploits are gone but you still ain't worth anything so nothing to QQ about.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh

Lava_Croft

Hexys wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

ESO kinda boring, sorry. Cherish the memories!

I know why this update is boring for you Kris. The exploits are gone but you still ain't worth anything so nothing to QQ about.

The whole schoolyard mentality is among the parts that make it boring. Thank you for confirming this.

Bipolo

Etaniel wrote: »

Aaaah, reading back the first few pages of this glorious thread.... when all was positive, and players complimented each other.... Mentions of FrostSoul, Sanct and Bipolo derailing whole DC trains, good times..... What I wouldn't give to see those again !

Someone get Etaniel some mead!

It seems there are many more of us looking back and remembering a different game, one we miss...

However this was brought to my attention, it cracked me up and got me thinking of the 'old days', lol

http://captiongenerator.com/33040/***-Reacts-to-ESO-Patch-16

DeanTheCat

I think we need to call in some ghostbusters. The spectre of Bipolo has risen from the long forgotten memories of the past.

Erondil

Bipolo wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Aaaah, reading back the first few pages of this glorious thread.... when all was positive, and players complimented each other.... Mentions of FrostSoul, Sanct and Bipolo derailing whole DC trains, good times..... What I wouldn't give to see those again !

Someone get Etaniel some mead!

It seems there are many more of us looking back and remembering a different game, one we miss...

However this was brought to my attention, it cracked me up and got me thinking of the 'old days', lol

http://captiongenerator.com/33040/***-Reacts-to-ESO-Patch-16

lmao

Hexys

Bipolo wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Aaaah, reading back the first few pages of this glorious thread.... when all was positive, and players complimented each other.... Mentions of FrostSoul, Sanct and Bipolo derailing whole DC trains, good times..... What I wouldn't give to see those again !

Someone get Etaniel some mead!

It seems there are many more of us looking back and remembering a different game, one we miss...

However this was brought to my attention, it cracked me up and got me thinking of the 'old days', lol

http://captiongenerator.com/33040/***-Reacts-to-ESO-Patch-16

This is hilarious XD

Etaniel

"bananas are cowards, traitors and failures" LMAO

Nafirian

#JustAFewMonthsLateToAThread