THE PATCH NOTES

Takllin

Satiar wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Meh I'm gonna stop if you guys are going to go that route.

Sry

I've heard so much anti group rhetoric these last months it tends to color my tone in these convos.

I get it, I know you guys are frustrated with everything and the changes and such.

Zheg wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

No demoninzing going on.

You say you prefer larger grps. I´m saying if it´s going to have similar mechanics in how grps work to daoc then having large grps that can fit every possible class/spec/role into them the game is going to be a stillbirth.
What made daoc fun was having specific well optimised grp setups with up and downsides. If you´re able to take everything along you´re loosing that - you no longer have to sacrifice specific feats to be better in another department.

This is not about preference but simply about numbers. If you can fit in a backup for every role into your grp you can create failsafe mechanisms that should not exist imo.

It´s not about preference but balancing grp dynamics in a fun and challenging way.

If people actually had any experience running in large groups, they'd know that group comp is still VERY dynamic and very customized - within your own group and against your opponents. You'd be able to tell when groups are magicka or stam heavy, when they're speed heavy, when they're bombard heavy, when they're heal heavy, and each has it's up and downsides. You may have a token prox det in a full stam dps raid, but that doesn't really mean anything, you're still 'sacrificing specific feats' because you can't move as a prox det bomb efficiently enough for it to be impactful compared to a group heavy on magicka users.

I'd also point out to you, and the other usual suspects who continue to talk about daoc like that one time at band camp, that ESO has 4 classes, and daoc had how many? Right, 16. Different game, completely different pvp, completely different class and combat system, and you're going to have to end up running everything to have a group of a size that can actually accomplish something. There are FOUR classes in the game FFS, that's a FOURTH of the total classes in the completely different game people keep talking about.

Zheg the context of this conversation is CU, not ESO.

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

These changes aren't random. Its targeted destruction of group play...........It is ZoS orienting thier game. I don't doubt certain people are going to be very happy about it. I hate it though.

@Satiar I agree - the social aspect of group play (such as doing a shot every time Sarenvog swears) is the most fun that a lot of us have. Since the last major patch, @Lightingale only comes on to play for a few hours during "Drunk Victorem Raid Night" as the rest of the time it's not as much fun. For me, while it is entertaining running 2-6 person groups for a couple hours, it gets old very quickly without the bantering among the groups of 15 odd old timers who have all been friends for years. You can't do that when multiple groups are making different calls and both need battle comms in the same TS channel.

That's what's frustrating to me. There are so many games that cater to small teams, little elite groups of 4-8. There are so few quality games like this where you can have a big team.

This patch, I get the picture. ZoS doesn't want big groups. Message received, not welcome. Ok. It's sickening, though. There are so few games that had the promise this one did, and to me this really feels like the end as far as large group gameplay. I don't doubt I'll stick around for a while, but the moment CU beta drops or hell BDO, I'm done. Time to find a game that actually wants me in it.

As far as I'm concerned, they are so tangled up in amateur coding and lag problems they can't fix they've decided to turn on the player base they advertised to in the first place in a last ditch effort to make thier game halfway playable. And to all the players like me that hung on and convinced their guild and friends to hope for an eventual light at the end of the tunnel...well, there's the door. Goddammit

Rofl....

You think CU is going to cater to your large group?

.......

First of all..The game is going to end up with around 6-8 people as its group cap

Second of all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI250gU4Ct8

yea...don't get your hopes up on that.

Oh good, I was anxiously holding my breath waiting for you to turn this into a DaoC thread. Also until you have factual evidence that the group cap in CU will be 6-8, you may want to avoid getting you're hopes up there and remember how many times Mark Jacobs has stated that CU is not a reboot of DaoC. Now do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?

While he stated multiple times it´s not a reboot of daoc - i highly doubt they will provide and environment where numbers trump brains or coordination in the same way GW2 or ESO did.

It was announced to be developed with the ideas present in daoc in mind - that´s why it made it through kickstarter in the first place.

I don't think anyone wants a game where numbers matter more than anything, if we did we wouldn't be anxiously awaiting CU and we would continue playing this. I'm an officer in a guild that runs 24 man groups every night and balls up as tight as possible and I can honestly say that the meta of balling up is stupid but its effective, that's why we do it.

I have no doubt that the group size will be smaller than ESO but I HIGHLY doubt it will be 6-8, that doesn't make any sense for a game where a major selling point is hundreds pf players on screen at once. I'm guessing the cap will be around 16 but lets be honest, anytime we throw those numbers out we are just talking out of our asses.

I´m gonna be honest: I´ve played daoc with my guild since EU launch and we´ve all backed CU because of that on the first kickstarter day.
Most of those people will never ever touch that game if they implement grp sizes bigger than 8 into the games pvp. It was one of daocs defining rvr features to be balanced around the max grpsize and creating vaible synergies in that grp. This feeling is only generated if the grps are small enough to NOT have redundant positions to fill. If you made the decision to run a third healer it was sth. that significantly impacted grp performance.
I can´t see that happening in grps with more slots than there are classes and from the bottom of my heart hope there will be less slots in a grp than there are classes to choose from (because that´s what creates interesting theorycrafting - having to choose because you can´t fit in all available options).

I understand what you're saying and personally I love doing small man stuff, fighting outnumbered is a fun challenge, but i think the "zerg problem" that you all talk about here, is evidence to me that there are more people who prefer large group play than small group. It seems completely illogical to take a game that you build a custom engine for to handle 500+ people on screen at a time, then say you can only group with 8. I find it very hard to believe they will cap groups that low however I think they will provide tools to allow SKILLED small groups to counter big groups. I think Mark Jacobs is a smart enough guy to realize that group caps are the dumbest way combat the zerg.

I really hope they won´t simply because it eliminates the process of creating a working grp setup with great synergies if you don´t have to choose from the options presented.

If they go with big grpsizes this won´t happen as you´ll have multiple of each class not using their complete arsenal because it´s more efficient if one player uses spell a another uses spell b and the third of that class spell c.
Same with rotations for cooldown skills.

Having grps with a high amount of players in them (and as a result making it easier to organise them) lowers the quality of the gameplay. Largescale pvp is interesting when it´s not too well organised. You won´t achieve that with many players in a grp.
DAOC had gigantic pve raids btw (64 i think? - maybe 128). Thankfully they never implemented the raidframe into their frontier zone.

Ok so lets say its capped at 8, whats to stop the next Brandon South Ga from putting 10 groups in one spot?

Edit: as an EU player you will not understand that reference lol, but whatever.

That´s where @Xsorus video started with.

You will never organise 10x8 ppl with the same efficiency as 4x20 ppl. With proper way implemented to fight overwhelming numbers in a tight spot i´d choose 10x8 over 4x20 without any second though.

You make a good point about organization, I'm not going to try and argue that. But at a certain point, 80 people is 80 people and to be quite honest if there's a way for just a few players to kill that many then the game has some insane balance issues ( *cough* DK *cough* 1.4)

That´s what was fun about daoc. You could pull that off. Rarely but it was possible.

I´ve had countless fights where our grp wiped 20 to 40 ppl in seconds. More definetly required a good portion of luck and inability on the opponents part.

I´m gonna make a bold comparison: If you walk your platoon straight ahead into a nest of machine guns without cover you´re gonna have a bad time even if it´s only 8 ppl operating them.

Satiar wrote: »

I wish ESO could handle bigger groups and that the community didn't have such a hard on for small man. Imagine GvG open field with surrounding support and focus grouos, all with thier own leads coordinating and ... Oh god what could have been.

But yes. Let's small man all games forever. Big battles are for zergbads.

I love largescale pvp. I just don´t enjoy it with large grps because not running with the maximum grpsize in the end is always subpar. Larger grps just don´t have the same familiar feeling and eventually also some people you don´t really enjoy playing with aswell as completely different grp and builddynamics.
I think the mistake is thinking largescale = largegrp.

Both should exist. You should have your big groups and your small groups. Demonizing one or the other is counterproductive. We all want to go into an outnumbered fight and win, we are just quibbling on scale and preference

No demoninzing going on.

You say you prefer larger grps. I´m saying if it´s going to have similar mechanics in how grps work to daoc then having large grps that can fit every possible class/spec/role into them the game is going to be a stillbirth.
What made daoc fun was having specific well optimised grp setups with up and downsides. If you´re able to take everything along you´re loosing that - you no longer have to sacrifice specific feats to be better in another department.

This is not about preference but simply about numbers. If you can fit in a backup for every role into your grp you can create failsafe mechanisms that should not exist imo.

It´s not about preference but balancing grp dynamics in a fun and challenging way.

You may not be doing any demonizing right now but its an every day thing on these forums, people come here and talk about a brainless style of play and what not, that's quite honestly ignorant and insulting. Sure it might be brainless for some of these 70 or 80+ mega zergs where individual contributions don't matter much, but in a 24 man raid every person counts, you're individual tankyness may not always matter but 1 well timed nova or res or barrier or standard, any number of things, make the difference between winning and wiping. So forgive of us if we hold a little resentment towards the "leet small mans".

When others like us who don't and you give us the same ***, it's a large put off, especially for people I considered friends and ran with in guild for the better part of the last year...

Minno

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

@Zheg @Satiar @Manoekin @Crown and any other large raid leader, have you guys played PTS in context of larger fights yet? I'm curious about your views of the changes in particular to those in non-duel situations. If any videos I'd like to see.

I'd hate if your playstyle got 100% butchered, because despite arguments on certain issues I'm here to keep a dialogue going as objectively as possible. (Look at my switched view on meteor and hate for fire-bomb set as examples.)

Our crew hasn't yet. I was going to plan on spending most of this weekend testing some early theorycraft. Without numbers yet, if I had to make early educated guesses, it's going to be a very magicka heavy meta with token bombard spammers mixed in. I don't see stam builds being as efficient (rapids is broken now for its intended purpose, being in melee range for steel tornado and condensing for it to be impactful doesn't look like it will work with the damage numbers and reduced mitigation options), though this could change depending on the volume and effect of oil catapults (all that magicka dps won't mean anything if you have zero stam and can't break a fear). I don't think oil catapults will be as bad as originally thought (5k flat dmg vs ~20%, though I haven't even had time to go see these numbers for myself yet). We talked briefly last night about hitting up other guilds to get a feel for what fights would be like, but frankly, it's still very early imo and all of the theorycrafting isn't finished yet.

Thanks man! I can see return of magicka builds too. Though, with increased dmg efficient tactics against shields, I'd see dodge roll and chance still up on top for stam builds.

Regarding rapids, the solution just maybe that most classes run a movement buff within groups? Access to dual weld quick cloak wouldn't leave dual weld magicka classes out (and increased mitigation against AOE might make that tactic viable?).

I hope you guys get together and get some solid testing it, sooner than later. Better if ZOS gets your viewpoint in this week, than in 2 ( for any hotfixes etc.). Same goes for solo/small team.

Crown

Minno wrote: »

@Zheg @Satiar @Manoekin @Crown and any other large raid leader, have you guys played PTS in context of larger fights yet? I'm curious about your views of the changes in particular to those in non-duel situations. If any videos I'd like to see. I'd hate if your playstyle got 100% butchered, because despite arguments on certain issues I'm here to keep a dialogue going as objectively as possible. (Look at my switched view on meteor and hate for fire-bomb set as examples.)

@Minno I still find it funny that so many people consider me a large raid leader, considering that I play about 80% of my time either solo or in a group of max 6. The larger group play only happens mid-prime-time when numbers are required to fight numbers.

We did some testing yesterday with meteors, inevitable dets, and as I've been calling it, "the explody set" (Vicious Death):

Three magicka NBs with alchemist up firing off their inevitable dets, meteors, and double-light-atack to get kena proc'ed finally a mage light cast for empower (or two if you can get the timing perfect), and just about anything dies. The vicious explosion kills anything else. Follow that up with inner rage for the ranged synergy AoE, and the 11 people we were able to get testing were either all dead, or drained of stamina (from blocking) - and were thus easy kills for a follow up.

If they don't change anything, magicka builds are going to insta-gib groups of 10+ that are stacked up. Groups are going to need to get used to moving together with common targets, though not stacked tightly. The days of the 8-person (2 healers, 1 support, 5 DPS) wrecking crew are coming again!

It would be awesome to get some GvG going with groups of 12 or 16 on the PTS.

Zheg

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

@Zheg @Satiar @Manoekin @Crown and any other large raid leader, have you guys played PTS in context of larger fights yet? I'm curious about your views of the changes in particular to those in non-duel situations. If any videos I'd like to see.

I'd hate if your playstyle got 100% butchered, because despite arguments on certain issues I'm here to keep a dialogue going as objectively as possible. (Look at my switched view on meteor and hate for fire-bomb set as examples.)

Our crew hasn't yet. I was going to plan on spending most of this weekend testing some early theorycraft. Without numbers yet, if I had to make early educated guesses, it's going to be a very magicka heavy meta with token bombard spammers mixed in. I don't see stam builds being as efficient (rapids is broken now for its intended purpose, being in melee range for steel tornado and condensing for it to be impactful doesn't look like it will work with the damage numbers and reduced mitigation options), though this could change depending on the volume and effect of oil catapults (all that magicka dps won't mean anything if you have zero stam and can't break a fear). I don't think oil catapults will be as bad as originally thought (5k flat dmg vs ~20%, though I haven't even had time to go see these numbers for myself yet). We talked briefly last night about hitting up other guilds to get a feel for what fights would be like, but frankly, it's still very early imo and all of the theorycrafting isn't finished yet.

Thanks man! I can see return of magicka builds too. Though, with increased dmg efficient tactics against shields, I'd see dodge roll and chance still up on top for stam builds.

Regarding rapids, the solution just maybe that most classes run a movement buff within groups? Access to dual weld quick cloak wouldn't leave dual weld magicka classes out (and increased mitigation against AOE might make that tactic viable?).

I hope you guys get together and get some solid testing it, sooner than later. Better if ZOS gets your viewpoint in this week, than in 2 ( for any hotfixes etc.). Same goes for solo/small team.

If ZOS wants group pvp feedback (I had to roll my eyes there...) in time for them to do anything about it before the patch goes live, they need to give waaaay earlier heads up on skill line changes, new sets, and set changes - even if not finalized. We were told some of the more impactful changes like barrier and purge, but most of the early counters and ideas we had are out the window when you look at the sets and skill changes we didn't know about. PTS is and always has been about finding progression inhibiting bugs, and easy bug fixes before it hits live. PTS has never been about impactful testing and feedback in ESO, they frankly don't communicate in advance enough for that to even be possible. As an example, if I had a crude list of patch notes beforehand, I would have told wrobel weeks ago that there should be changes to heavy armor passives, but even though there's tons of feedback mimicking that exact same thing right now, no way is there enough time for him to implement those changes before live (given their track record for coding).

Frankly, if we're being blunt and honest, over the past 2 years most of the pvp meta has revolved around broken mechanics. Dual hammers, nirnhoned, WoE and purge, streak ult gain, etc. etc. You can't craft raid metas until those broken mechanics are identified, and make guesses as to which will actually be fixed or which will be in game for months to come. That's why I said those two sets need to be tested inside and out, because if they function with the bugs I anticipate, it will make whatever early thoughts we have meaningless and become meta focal points. It's sad when almost 2 years of meta is determined by how poorly ZOS can code and QA/QC their crap.

Satiar

Minno wrote: »

@Zheg @Satiar @Manoekin @Crown and any other large raid leader, have you guys played PTS in context of larger fights yet? I'm curious about your views of the changes in particular to those in non-duel situations. If any videos I'd like to see.

I'd hate if your playstyle got 100% butchered, because despite arguments on certain issues I'm here to keep a dialogue going as objectively as possible. (Look at my switched view on meteor and hate for fire-bomb set as examples.)

I've been over there to run numbers, once PTS drops I'm usually there every day.

And mostly the problem is just numbers. Inflated damage with no reliable way to mitigate it. Offensive numbers on the PTS are through the freaking roof. Without even getting into the Vicious Death set, a spell damage build is able to hit proxdets well above 30k. This is the part I mourn the most, because always enjoyed playing a tanky group. I'll run fewer DPS ultis and go hard on novas, veil, barrier, etc. Counterbombs really *can't* be a thing in the new meta because the initial burst is so strong.

Retreating Manuevers was gutted, which hilariously enough is the main way good groups could deal with zergs. Late night when I have 12-16 people I can't take 60 people head on. But I can hit them, get out, hit them again. Over and over with kiting and choke points. But now, geez. Healing, purge, ANYTHING removes the retreating buff. So all a zerg has to do is get on top of you and just choke you down. Spam some bombards and you can't move, because if you're healing you're not moving and if you're not healing you're dying.

Purge is a minor change but eh. Just keeps piling on.

In the end, good groups will still be good but... playstyle is going to be very different. The long story short of it is that ZoS eliminated whatever sustain game was left, so what we're going to see is burst and a lot of it. That's my main frustration.

Zheg

Crown wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

@Zheg @Satiar @Manoekin @Crown and any other large raid leader, have you guys played PTS in context of larger fights yet? I'm curious about your views of the changes in particular to those in non-duel situations. If any videos I'd like to see. I'd hate if your playstyle got 100% butchered, because despite arguments on certain issues I'm here to keep a dialogue going as objectively as possible. (Look at my switched view on meteor and hate for fire-bomb set as examples.)

@Minno I still find it funny that so many people consider me a large raid leader, considering that I play about 80% of my time either solo or in a group of max 6. The larger group play only happens mid-prime-time when numbers are required to fight numbers.

We did some testing yesterday with meteors, inevitable dets, and as I've been calling it, "the explody set" (Vicious Death):

Three magicka NBs with alchemist up firing off their inevitable dets, meteors, and double-light-atack to get kena proc'ed finally a mage light cast for empower (or two if you can get the timing perfect), and just about anything dies. The vicious explosion kills anything else. Follow that up with inner rage for the ranged synergy AoE, and the 11 people we were able to get testing were either all dead, or drained of stamina (from blocking) - and were thus easy kills for a follow up.

If they don't change anything, magicka builds are going to insta-gib groups of 10+ that are stacked up. Groups are going to need to get used to moving together with common targets, though not stacked tightly. The days of the 8-person (2 healers, 1 support, 5 DPS) wrecking crew are coming again!

It would be awesome to get some GvG going with groups of 12 or 16 on the PTS.

Maybe for fights outside of keeps where you can farm people on resources and whatnot. I honestly don't see this playing out in keep fights in a way that doesn't result in obscene numbers on both sides. A group of 16-24 cannot take on 60 people inside a keep anymore (at least it certainly doesn't look like it...). People keep thinking, oh my group can wipe mad numbers with dets, meteor, and vicious death - but do you honestly think the mega zerg isn't going to do that as well? The mega zerg can afford to suicide into you and have you wipe with vicious death because they can just zombie horde rez themselves back. Again, need to see what the meta looks like better before I put my foot in my mouth, but I don't see groups being able to recover from bombs any more. Fighting pact militia right now, I can bomb their first raid, reprox and push into their second cluster and make a dent, and then we fall over dead when the third raid sweeps in. I don't see situations like that being favorable to us with sets like vicious death, I see it being favorable to the guys with three raids.

The l33t smallmans can stay off to the perimeter of fights, kite players and groups that don't know any better and be successful while outnumbered, but I don't see that dynamic working for trying to take a keep, at all.

Cody

God_flakes wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Cody wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

I don't really see the Cloak change as a huge deal...

its not. Stamblades can still use it, therefore in my opinion its fine. it will not hurt us NBs to either start slotting purge or get better at avoiding as much siege DoT as possible:)

I actually see the changes to cloak as a buff, as shadowy (100% crit morph that I used already) now gets immunity to dots while invis.

I haven't played the Pts but Minno is and he claims cloak is breaking A LOT. That certainly doesn't indicate it's a buff.

cloak is almost always in a habit of breaking when a major change is made. lol. its been that way since launch, dont worry, ZOS will fix it before March 7th

Cody

Derra wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Lots of great changes, but unreflectable meteor? Barrier only hitting 6? Both terrible ideas. Other ultimates have a way to avoid them, but Meteor is just gonna happen, no matter what? With its buggy CC, high initial damage, DoT component, etc., I'm incredibly skeptical that this is going to be a positive change. And barrier only hitting 6 is a nerf too far, I think. I'm all for it hitting fewer people, but 12 would have been a better balance point, I think.

Meteor did have a counter and viable rotation for it to hit. Unexpected buff tbh.

@Minno

Not sure what you mean by a "viable rotation for it to hit." Meteor is not currently guaranteed to hit specifically because it is reflectable. It might hit the target, it might hit the caster, it really depends on who has a reflect and who has ranged attacks to eat through an enemy's reflect pool so that they still get hit by the meteor. It's way too strong if it's unreflectable.

Tell that sorcs templars and NBs who had no reliable way of countering a DKs meteor. You´ll eventually learn to block it too.

@Derra I already do block it when I'm out of magical, I'm not an idiot. And people used to be able to re-reflect it back, which was cool and kept me on my toes. NB and Sorc can slot shield for the reflect. Not to mentioned if you see them flap you can just get off some other reflectable ranged attacks to seat through the reflect pool.

With the change to pts so projectiles can no longer be re-reflected it´s only logical to make meteor not reflectable. It´s a mandatory change because slotting a shield and reflecting that meteor back where it was intended to go is no longer an option (kind of sad bc with the changes on pts sorcs would finally have been able to run vaible 1h + shield builds).

But lets not make it a build discussion. I´m sure people will adapt eventually. A change they could do is increase dot dmg and reduce initial hit dmg.

@Derra I agree regarding the lamentable changes to number of reflects, but it still stands that neither reflect is guaranteed, provided you have other ranged abilities on your bar to soak up the opponent's reflect pool. In any case, though, the fact that it isn't reflectable now indicates to me that it needs some other counter, such as the initial hit being dodgeable. Having only block as an option is pretty terrible.

I´ve only ever blocked meteor on my chars - too much of a risk to reflect it back and get doublereflected for more dmg.

I don´t think an ultimate should be easily counterable when it comes with a cost of 200 ultimate. Maybe they should reduce the initial hit dmg a little bit and increase the dot but dodging a one time use ultimate with that much of a cost investment is pretty much unacceptable.

it is very acceptable. It requires one to be strategical in its use instead of simply shooting and forgetting, but making it non-reflectable will change nothing, as it can still be largely negated by blocking.

Minno

Crown wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

@Zheg @Satiar @Manoekin @Crown and any other large raid leader, have you guys played PTS in context of larger fights yet? I'm curious about your views of the changes in particular to those in non-duel situations. If any videos I'd like to see. I'd hate if your playstyle got 100% butchered, because despite arguments on certain issues I'm here to keep a dialogue going as objectively as possible. (Look at my switched view on meteor and hate for fire-bomb set as examples.)

@Minno I still find it funny that so many people consider me a large raid leader, considering that I play about 80% of my time either solo or in a group of max 6. The larger group play only happens mid-prime-time when numbers are required to fight numbers.

We did some testing yesterday with meteors, inevitable dets, and as I've been calling it, "the explody set" (Vicious Death):

Three magicka NBs with alchemist up firing off their inevitable dets, meteors, and double-light-atack to get kena proc'ed finally a mage light cast for empower (or two if you can get the timing perfect), and just about anything dies. The vicious explosion kills anything else. Follow that up with inner rage for the ranged synergy AoE, and the 11 people we were able to get testing were either all dead, or drained of stamina (from blocking) - and were thus easy kills for a follow up.

If they don't change anything, magicka builds are going to insta-gib groups of 10+ that are stacked up. Groups are going to need to get used to moving together with common targets, though not stacked tightly. The days of the 8-person (2 healers, 1 support, 5 DPS) wrecking crew are coming again!

It would be awesome to get some GvG going with groups of 12 or 16 on the PTS.

Didn't mean any disrespect including you. For AD you have the attention grabbing aura of a solo streamer but help run large raids from time to time. (And I didn't see your opinions yet on the changes.)

Those instabomb groups of 8, should be tested with. I'd like ZOS to see it's power, and if its too OP.

Minno

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

@Zheg @Satiar @Manoekin @Crown and any other large raid leader, have you guys played PTS in context of larger fights yet? I'm curious about your views of the changes in particular to those in non-duel situations. If any videos I'd like to see.

I'd hate if your playstyle got 100% butchered, because despite arguments on certain issues I'm here to keep a dialogue going as objectively as possible. (Look at my switched view on meteor and hate for fire-bomb set as examples.)

Our crew hasn't yet. I was going to plan on spending most of this weekend testing some early theorycraft. Without numbers yet, if I had to make early educated guesses, it's going to be a very magicka heavy meta with token bombard spammers mixed in. I don't see stam builds being as efficient (rapids is broken now for its intended purpose, being in melee range for steel tornado and condensing for it to be impactful doesn't look like it will work with the damage numbers and reduced mitigation options), though this could change depending on the volume and effect of oil catapults (all that magicka dps won't mean anything if you have zero stam and can't break a fear). I don't think oil catapults will be as bad as originally thought (5k flat dmg vs ~20%, though I haven't even had time to go see these numbers for myself yet). We talked briefly last night about hitting up other guilds to get a feel for what fights would be like, but frankly, it's still very early imo and all of the theorycrafting isn't finished yet.

Thanks man! I can see return of magicka builds too. Though, with increased dmg efficient tactics against shields, I'd see dodge roll and chance still up on top for stam builds.

Regarding rapids, the solution just maybe that most classes run a movement buff within groups? Access to dual weld quick cloak wouldn't leave dual weld magicka classes out (and increased mitigation against AOE might make that tactic viable?).

I hope you guys get together and get some solid testing it, sooner than later. Better if ZOS gets your viewpoint in this week, than in 2 ( for any hotfixes etc.). Same goes for solo/small team.

If ZOS wants group pvp feedback (I had to roll my eyes there...) in time for them to do anything about it before the patch goes live, they need to give waaaay earlier heads up on skill line changes, new sets, and set changes - even if not finalized. We were told some of the more impactful changes like barrier and purge, but most of the early counters and ideas we had are out the window when you look at the sets and skill changes we didn't know about. PTS is and always has been about finding progression inhibiting bugs, and easy bug fixes before it hits live. PTS has never been about impactful testing and feedback in ESO, they frankly don't communicate in advance enough for that to even be possible. As an example, if I had a crude list of patch notes beforehand, I would have told wrobel weeks ago that there should be changes to heavy armor passives, but even though there's tons of feedback mimicking that exact same thing right now, no way is there enough time for him to implement those changes before live (given their track record for coding).

Frankly, if we're being blunt and honest, over the past 2 years most of the pvp meta has revolved around broken mechanics. Dual hammers, nirnhoned, WoE and purge, streak ult gain, etc. etc. You can't craft raid metas until those broken mechanics are identified, and make guesses as to which will actually be fixed or which will be in game for months to come. That's why I said those two sets need to be tested inside and out, because if they function with the bugs I anticipate, it will make whatever early thoughts we have meaningless and become meta focal points. It's sad when almost 2 years of meta is determined by how poorly ZOS can code and QA/QC their crap.

I get that and agree, because we all asked for some insight to get our thoughts out. We are the realist meets theorycrafting arm of this testing process while ZOS is the implementation and holder of all the actual numbers part.

I also get we will probably be thrown to the side when it comes time for ZOS to hear the issues, but at least we tried.

In the end, the LAG will be the game's killer. And that's something we all agree. (If its still present come the new dlc, I'll be leaving permanently.)

Ghost-Shot

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

@Zheg @Satiar @Manoekin @Crown and any other large raid leader, have you guys played PTS in context of larger fights yet? I'm curious about your views of the changes in particular to those in non-duel situations. If any videos I'd like to see.

I'd hate if your playstyle got 100% butchered, because despite arguments on certain issues I'm here to keep a dialogue going as objectively as possible. (Look at my switched view on meteor and hate for fire-bomb set as examples.)

Our crew hasn't yet. I was going to plan on spending most of this weekend testing some early theorycraft. Without numbers yet, if I had to make early educated guesses, it's going to be a very magicka heavy meta with token bombard spammers mixed in. I don't see stam builds being as efficient (rapids is broken now for its intended purpose, being in melee range for steel tornado and condensing for it to be impactful doesn't look like it will work with the damage numbers and reduced mitigation options), though this could change depending on the volume and effect of oil catapults (all that magicka dps won't mean anything if you have zero stam and can't break a fear). I don't think oil catapults will be as bad as originally thought (5k flat dmg vs ~20%, though I haven't even had time to go see these numbers for myself yet). We talked briefly last night about hitting up other guilds to get a feel for what fights would be like, but frankly, it's still very early imo and all of the theorycrafting isn't finished yet.

Thanks man! I can see return of magicka builds too. Though, with increased dmg efficient tactics against shields, I'd see dodge roll and chance still up on top for stam builds.

Regarding rapids, the solution just maybe that most classes run a movement buff within groups? Access to dual weld quick cloak wouldn't leave dual weld magicka classes out (and increased mitigation against AOE might make that tactic viable?).

I hope you guys get together and get some solid testing it, sooner than later. Better if ZOS gets your viewpoint in this week, than in 2 ( for any hotfixes etc.). Same goes for solo/small team.

If ZOS wants group pvp feedback (I had to roll my eyes there...) in time for them to do anything about it before the patch goes live, they need to give waaaay earlier heads up on skill line changes, new sets, and set changes - even if not finalized. We were told some of the more impactful changes like barrier and purge, but most of the early counters and ideas we had are out the window when you look at the sets and skill changes we didn't know about. PTS is and always has been about finding progression inhibiting bugs, and easy bug fixes before it hits live. PTS has never been about impactful testing and feedback in ESO, they frankly don't communicate in advance enough for that to even be possible. As an example, if I had a crude list of patch notes beforehand, I would have told wrobel weeks ago that there should be changes to heavy armor passives, but even though there's tons of feedback mimicking that exact same thing right now, no way is there enough time for him to implement those changes before live (given their track record for coding).

Frankly, if we're being blunt and honest, over the past 2 years most of the pvp meta has revolved around broken mechanics. Dual hammers, nirnhoned, WoE and purge, streak ult gain, etc. etc. You can't craft raid metas until those broken mechanics are identified, and make guesses as to which will actually be fixed or which will be in game for months to come. That's why I said those two sets need to be tested inside and out, because if they function with the bugs I anticipate, it will make whatever early thoughts we have meaningless and become meta focal points. It's sad when almost 2 years of meta is determined by how poorly ZOS can code and QA/QC their crap.

I get that and agree, because we all asked for some insight to get our thoughts out. We are the realist meets theorycrafting arm of this testing process while ZOS is the implementation and holder of all the actual numbers part.

I also get we will probably be thrown to the side when it comes time for ZOS to hear the issues, but at least we tried.

In the end, the LAG was the game's killer. And that's something we all agree. (If its still present come the new dlc, I'll be leaving permanently.)

Fixed unfortunately at this point its to late to save this game, the CU beta is too close and fixes have taken to long. The prioritization of releasing on console over fixing the inherent problems the plague the game (and surprise surprise the consoles lag too, but please keep turning off your add-ons to see if that's the problem) was one of the biggest blunders I think any game developer has ever made. Its a shame really because this game could have been so good.

Minno

Satiar wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

@Zheg @Satiar @Manoekin @Crown and any other large raid leader, have you guys played PTS in context of larger fights yet? I'm curious about your views of the changes in particular to those in non-duel situations. If any videos I'd like to see.

I'd hate if your playstyle got 100% butchered, because despite arguments on certain issues I'm here to keep a dialogue going as objectively as possible. (Look at my switched view on meteor and hate for fire-bomb set as examples.)

I've been over there to run numbers, once PTS drops I'm usually there every day.

And mostly the problem is just numbers. Inflated damage with no reliable way to mitigate it. Offensive numbers on the PTS are through the freaking roof. Without even getting into the Vicious Death set, a spell damage build is able to hit proxdets well above 30k. This is the part I mourn the most, because always enjoyed playing a tanky group. I'll run fewer DPS ultis and go hard on novas, veil, barrier, etc. Counterbombs really *can't* be a thing in the new meta because the initial burst is so strong.

Retreating Manuevers was gutted, which hilariously enough is the main way good groups could deal with zergs. Late night when I have 12-16 people I can't take 60 people head on. But I can hit them, get out, hit them again. Over and over with kiting and choke points. But now, geez. Healing, purge, ANYTHING removes the retreating buff. So all a zerg has to do is get on top of you and just choke you down. Spam some bombards and you can't move, because if you're healing you're not moving and if you're not healing you're dying.

Purge is a minor change but eh. Just keeps piling on.

In the end, good groups will still be good but... playstyle is going to be very different. The long story short of it is that ZoS eliminated whatever sustain game was left, so what we're going to see is burst and a lot of it. That's my main frustration.

Right on for daily PTS test! Thanks for your thoughts.

Purge was a decent change. I don't remember the community ever having an agreement on rapids changes (it seemed random across the board with magicka users being salty we couldn't get the escape mechanic stam users could with this skill.).

But regardless, a little limitation for rapids, isn't a bad thing but, as Zheg said, if they told us in advance we could have mentioned that this might be a bad idea in conjunction with the other changes. Because at its nature, rapids change isn't that bad in the context that healing breaks it; it would have forced groups to coordinate more (l2p mechanics.).

I'd rather stack these changes together in situations with thinking about new ones. That's how I flipped on meteor change (it needs another limitation based on the fact all other ultimates have multiple limitations.). Gotta list it on based on "group vs group" then small man vs small man then solo vs solo. And finally mix and match them all to determine which aspect of play gets shafted unfairly.

We want balance, not unfair changes for any playstyle because that's in the spirit of the original intent for this game; not just massive battles but the chance to exploit mistakes and weaknesses in a ying/yang way of playing.

Minno

Zheg wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

@Zheg @Satiar @Manoekin @Crown and any other large raid leader, have you guys played PTS in context of larger fights yet? I'm curious about your views of the changes in particular to those in non-duel situations. If any videos I'd like to see. I'd hate if your playstyle got 100% butchered, because despite arguments on certain issues I'm here to keep a dialogue going as objectively as possible. (Look at my switched view on meteor and hate for fire-bomb set as examples.)

@Minno I still find it funny that so many people consider me a large raid leader, considering that I play about 80% of my time either solo or in a group of max 6. The larger group play only happens mid-prime-time when numbers are required to fight numbers.

We did some testing yesterday with meteors, inevitable dets, and as I've been calling it, "the explody set" (Vicious Death):

Three magicka NBs with alchemist up firing off their inevitable dets, meteors, and double-light-atack to get kena proc'ed finally a mage light cast for empower (or two if you can get the timing perfect), and just about anything dies. The vicious explosion kills anything else. Follow that up with inner rage for the ranged synergy AoE, and the 11 people we were able to get testing were either all dead, or drained of stamina (from blocking) - and were thus easy kills for a follow up.

If they don't change anything, magicka builds are going to insta-gib groups of 10+ that are stacked up. Groups are going to need to get used to moving together with common targets, though not stacked tightly. The days of the 8-person (2 healers, 1 support, 5 DPS) wrecking crew are coming again!

It would be awesome to get some GvG going with groups of 12 or 16 on the PTS.

Maybe for fights outside of keeps where you can farm people on resources and whatnot. I honestly don't see this playing out in keep fights in a way that doesn't result in obscene numbers on both sides. A group of 16-24 cannot take on 60 people inside a keep anymore (at least it certainly doesn't look like it...). People keep thinking, oh my group can wipe mad numbers with dets, meteor, and vicious death - but do you honestly think the mega zerg isn't going to do that as well? The mega zerg can afford to suicide into you and have you wipe with vicious death because they can just zombie horde rez themselves back. Again, need to see what the meta looks like better before I put my foot in my mouth, but I don't see groups being able to recover from bombs any more. Fighting pact militia right now, I can bomb their first raid, reprox and push into their second cluster and make a dent, and then we fall over dead when the third raid sweeps in. I don't see situations like that being favorable to us with sets like vicious death, I see it being favorable to the guys with three raids.

The l33t smallmans can stay off to the perimeter of fights, kite players and groups that don't know any better and be successful while outnumbered, but I don't see that dynamic working for trying to take a keep, at all.

Keep battles will be quick for sure. And I do hope their answer to this is a map based objective instead of player spells/abilities.

Based on your example, if the large raid is about to get hit by the 3rd wave, there should be a flag the smaller team can take that will help soften the blow to the larger group inside (maybe take a flag in one of the towers and it spawns an event where snare seiged start firing at the back flag, allow the allies inside to outmaneuver the incoming raid, etc.)

And I wish we can talk about that aspect of the map to help us pull people off piling into the keep breach. Because we are hitting the plateau of what the players abilities can do in terms of balance.

Minno

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

@Zheg @Satiar @Manoekin @Crown and any other large raid leader, have you guys played PTS in context of larger fights yet? I'm curious about your views of the changes in particular to those in non-duel situations. If any videos I'd like to see.

I'd hate if your playstyle got 100% butchered, because despite arguments on certain issues I'm here to keep a dialogue going as objectively as possible. (Look at my switched view on meteor and hate for fire-bomb set as examples.)

Our crew hasn't yet. I was going to plan on spending most of this weekend testing some early theorycraft. Without numbers yet, if I had to make early educated guesses, it's going to be a very magicka heavy meta with token bombard spammers mixed in. I don't see stam builds being as efficient (rapids is broken now for its intended purpose, being in melee range for steel tornado and condensing for it to be impactful doesn't look like it will work with the damage numbers and reduced mitigation options), though this could change depending on the volume and effect of oil catapults (all that magicka dps won't mean anything if you have zero stam and can't break a fear). I don't think oil catapults will be as bad as originally thought (5k flat dmg vs ~20%, though I haven't even had time to go see these numbers for myself yet). We talked briefly last night about hitting up other guilds to get a feel for what fights would be like, but frankly, it's still very early imo and all of the theorycrafting isn't finished yet.

Thanks man! I can see return of magicka builds too. Though, with increased dmg efficient tactics against shields, I'd see dodge roll and chance still up on top for stam builds.

Regarding rapids, the solution just maybe that most classes run a movement buff within groups? Access to dual weld quick cloak wouldn't leave dual weld magicka classes out (and increased mitigation against AOE might make that tactic viable?).

I hope you guys get together and get some solid testing it, sooner than later. Better if ZOS gets your viewpoint in this week, than in 2 ( for any hotfixes etc.). Same goes for solo/small team.

If ZOS wants group pvp feedback (I had to roll my eyes there...) in time for them to do anything about it before the patch goes live, they need to give waaaay earlier heads up on skill line changes, new sets, and set changes - even if not finalized. We were told some of the more impactful changes like barrier and purge, but most of the early counters and ideas we had are out the window when you look at the sets and skill changes we didn't know about. PTS is and always has been about finding progression inhibiting bugs, and easy bug fixes before it hits live. PTS has never been about impactful testing and feedback in ESO, they frankly don't communicate in advance enough for that to even be possible. As an example, if I had a crude list of patch notes beforehand, I would have told wrobel weeks ago that there should be changes to heavy armor passives, but even though there's tons of feedback mimicking that exact same thing right now, no way is there enough time for him to implement those changes before live (given their track record for coding).

Frankly, if we're being blunt and honest, over the past 2 years most of the pvp meta has revolved around broken mechanics. Dual hammers, nirnhoned, WoE and purge, streak ult gain, etc. etc. You can't craft raid metas until those broken mechanics are identified, and make guesses as to which will actually be fixed or which will be in game for months to come. That's why I said those two sets need to be tested inside and out, because if they function with the bugs I anticipate, it will make whatever early thoughts we have meaningless and become meta focal points. It's sad when almost 2 years of meta is determined by how poorly ZOS can code and QA/QC their crap.

I get that and agree, because we all asked for some insight to get our thoughts out. We are the realist meets theorycrafting arm of this testing process while ZOS is the implementation and holder of all the actual numbers part.

I also get we will probably be thrown to the side when it comes time for ZOS to hear the issues, but at least we tried.

In the end, the LAG was the game's killer. And that's something we all agree. (If its still present come the new dlc, I'll be leaving permanently.)

Fixed unfortunately at this point its to late to save this game, the CU beta is too close and fixes have taken to long. The prioritization of releasing on console over fixing the inherent problems the plague the game (and surprise surprise the consoles lag too, but please keep turning off your add-ons to see if that's the problem) was one of the biggest blunders I think any game developer has ever made. Its a shame really because this game could have been so good.

Can't tell on PTS since it doesn't have the capacity the live server has. We won't know for sure till Friday night primetime post dlc releaee.

Crown

Minno wrote: »

Didn't mean any disrespect including you. For AD you have the attention grabbing aura of a solo streamer but help run large raids from time to time.

No offence taken - I actually prefer the large groups, as the social aspect of the game is what appeals to me most these days. I foresee the small group requirements leading to elitism and favouritism, and actively excluding people whose builds / play don't give a significant improvement to the group.

That's also the most significant issue I have with the AP changes (doubling for groups of up to 6, and less AP for more than 6), as someone who is just learning, not as competent, or not yet rich enough to afford the broken FotM build won't be getting into many of the better groups. For a group to grow larger than 6, the extra person has to be able to contribute to enough additional kills per hour to compensate for everyone getting less AP per kill.

I'll definitely be participating in the 2-3 hour long "Victorem Drunk Raiding Night" every second or third Saturday where we'll likely still run max - just because it's fun to socialize with everyone in TS while doing the same thing in game, though most of the rest of the time I don't believe I'll be in groups larger than 6 or 8 - which I prefer for skilled play.

Xsorus

Zheg wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

No demoninzing going on.

You say you prefer larger grps. I´m saying if it´s going to have similar mechanics in how grps work to daoc then having large grps that can fit every possible class/spec/role into them the game is going to be a stillbirth.
What made daoc fun was having specific well optimised grp setups with up and downsides. If you´re able to take everything along you´re loosing that - you no longer have to sacrifice specific feats to be better in another department.

This is not about preference but simply about numbers. If you can fit in a backup for every role into your grp you can create failsafe mechanisms that should not exist imo.

It´s not about preference but balancing grp dynamics in a fun and challenging way.

If people actually had any experience running in large groups, they'd know that group comp is still VERY dynamic and very customized - within your own group and against your opponents. You'd be able to tell when groups are magicka or stam heavy, when they're speed heavy, when they're bombard heavy, when they're heal heavy, and each has it's up and downsides. You may have a token prox det in a full stam dps raid, but that doesn't really mean anything, you're still 'sacrificing specific feats' because you can't move as a prox det bomb efficiently enough for it to be impactful compared to a group heavy on magicka users.

I'd also point out to you, and the other usual suspects who continue to talk about daoc like that one time at band camp, that ESO has 4 classes, and daoc had how many? Right, 16. Different game, completely different pvp, completely different class and combat system, and you're going to have to end up running everything to have a group of a size that can actually accomplish something. There are FOUR classes in the game FFS, that's a FOURTH of the total classes in the completely different game people keep talking about.

DAOC had 44 classes just for the record.

They usually fell into a specific subset though

Minno

Crown wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Didn't mean any disrespect including you. For AD you have the attention grabbing aura of a solo streamer but help run large raids from time to time.

No offence taken - I actually prefer the large groups, as the social aspect of the game is what appeals to me most these days. I foresee the small group requirements leading to elitism and favouritism, and actively excluding people whose builds / play don't give a significant improvement to the group.

That's also the most significant issue I have with the AP changes (doubling for groups of up to 6, and less AP for more than 6), as someone who is just learning, not as competent, or not yet rich enough to afford the broken FotM build won't be getting into many of the better groups. For a group to grow larger than 6, the extra person has to be able to contribute to enough additional kills per hour to compensate for everyone getting less AP per kill.

I'll definitely be participating in the 2-3 hour long "Victorem Drunk Raiding Night" every second or third Saturday where we'll likely still run max - just because it's fun to socialize with everyone in TS while doing the same thing in game, though most of the rest of the time I don't believe I'll be in groups larger than 6 or 8 - which I prefer for skilled play.

There was always an issue where AP was attached to kills instead of objectives. Had it been the latter, lower geared players could obtain points by helping take resources (or new objectives) that don't attrach larger groups or super experienced players.

But that's another topic altogether.

Drunk TS nights are the only way to play ESO

Airyus

Crown wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Didn't mean any disrespect including you. For AD you have the attention grabbing aura of a solo streamer but help run large raids from time to time.

No offence taken - I actually prefer the large groups, as the social aspect of the game is what appeals to me most these days. I foresee the small group requirements leading to elitism and favouritism, and actively excluding people whose builds / play don't give a significant improvement to the group.

That's also the most significant issue I have with the AP changes (doubling for groups of up to 6, and less AP for more than 6), as someone who is just learning, not as competent, or not yet rich enough to afford the broken FotM build won't be getting into many of the better groups. For a group to grow larger than 6, the extra person has to be able to contribute to enough additional kills per hour to compensate for everyone getting less AP per kill.

I'll definitely be participating in the 2-3 hour long "Victorem Drunk Raiding Night" every second or third Saturday where we'll likely still run max - just because it's fun to socialize with everyone in TS while doing the same thing in game, though most of the rest of the time I don't believe I'll be in groups larger than 6 or 8 - which I prefer for skilled play.

For further clarification, being drunk for drunken victorem raid nights also includes being high. I would recommend one or the other and advise against both.

Yes, I am high.

God_flakes

Airyus wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Didn't mean any disrespect including you. For AD you have the attention grabbing aura of a solo streamer but help run large raids from time to time.

No offence taken - I actually prefer the large groups, as the social aspect of the game is what appeals to me most these days. I foresee the small group requirements leading to elitism and favouritism, and actively excluding people whose builds / play don't give a significant improvement to the group.

That's also the most significant issue I have with the AP changes (doubling for groups of up to 6, and less AP for more than 6), as someone who is just learning, not as competent, or not yet rich enough to afford the broken FotM build won't be getting into many of the better groups. For a group to grow larger than 6, the extra person has to be able to contribute to enough additional kills per hour to compensate for everyone getting less AP per kill.

I'll definitely be participating in the 2-3 hour long "Victorem Drunk Raiding Night" every second or third Saturday where we'll likely still run max - just because it's fun to socialize with everyone in TS while doing the same thing in game, though most of the rest of the time I don't believe I'll be in groups larger than 6 or 8 - which I prefer for skilled play.

For further clarification, being drunk for drunken victorem raid nights also includes being high. I would recommend one or the other and advise against both.

Yes, I am high.

I'm normally both during drunk raid nights. And trust me it makes me better!

forzajuve212

As some others mentioned earlier, the problem I have with all these changes is that they weren't incremental ones. Maybe the purge barrier rapids nerfs would have fixed balling up by itself. Maybe just the siege changes would have made for more balanced gameplay. But we will never know because they are just giving us one large update that completely flips PVP on its head.

I do not look forward to going anywhere near keeps anymore or participating in siege because the only way you will take keeps now is by bringing 80 people if the keep is defend by 40 players with siege proxy vicious combo. This is a lazy way to "fix" gameplay and they should have done this overtime instead of grouping up siege buffs with proxy buff with mitigation nerf and with sets that blow *** up.

As for raid leading, my guys are all getting ready to train for 6 man teams up to a max of 16 players. It is a tough change but the one thing I do like about it is that it encourages more individualism within a group context. Although as Satiar said, I really did like the counter-bomb mechanic and the ability to recover and turn the fight around. In this new, meta, it is either bomb first or be bombed first.

Poxheart

forzajuve212 wrote: »

As some others mentioned earlier, the problem I have with all these changes is that they weren't incremental ones. Maybe the purge barrier rapids nerfs would have fixed balling up by itself. Maybe just the siege changes would have made for more balanced gameplay. But we will never know because they are just giving us one large update that completely flips PVP on its head.

Yeah, this is shaping up to be like the 1.5 to 1.6 train wreck.