The Current Destro Pain Train Meta Needs To Die

Xsorus

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

Elembeebee wrote: »

I would start with:

1. Ultimate should degenerate outside combat
2. Purge and Morphs should be caster only and have their costs reduced
3. Healing Springs should have its radius reduced
4. Large Group size should be limited to 12.

I like a bit of tension in the mix.

Give negate the EotS treatment. Centered on and moves with caster, and pulses over 7sec. Make negates impervious to negates. Increase the radius to 10m.

I play a stamina sorc, and that would be overpowered as hell

PenguinInACan

pieratsos wrote: »

PenguinInACan wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

PenguinInACan wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

PenguinInACan wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

PenguinInACan wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Newton's_bane wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Just because you put some thought and made a build it doenst mean that the whole server needs to suffer for it and that you should get carried by bs mechanics.

Solo players put lots of thought into making their builds as well. A lot more thought than you do i should add and thats not even a debate. They dont feel entitled to bs mechanics to carry them and wreck everyone in their path.

I assume you never ran in a PvP train. If you had you would never make that comment. Most of the week I play solo or smallscale and have made countless builds by now and I know it takes a while to come up with something new and get used to it. I must admit that the majority of time doesn't go into making a build for a train but the majority goes into training. It takes months to work together as one train group and as much as becoming a good leader. I think I can for sure say that making a good solo build is just a fraction of what goes into making a good train.
But that's not the point the thing is that trains target zergs not solo players or smallscalers. They are not even effective against them. So solo players have not much to worry about unless they are zerg surfing ofc. I mean what do you want else: absolutely no counterplay to massive zergs of another faction while your faction struggles to put 10 players together?

You are comparing the leader of an entire organised train to a solo player just to justify that overall every member of an organised train has to think a lot more than a solo player. You are comparing apples with oranges. Ive played in a train. But if u have actually ever played solo small scale you would never even attempt to compare it with a random member of trains in terms of skill. Come on now. You cant possibly be serious about that. Its not even funny.

You are talking about not having counterplay against unorganized zergs. But do you know what the irony is about counterplay? That those solo/small scale player or anyone else for that matter have no counterplay against you. There is literally less counterplay against you than to an unorganized group with double the size of ur group. The only way to counter you is with another similar group like urs or even bigger crutching on the exact same stupid mechanics. Everything is about numbers which leads to the zerg fest that you actually dont like.

You are arguing for the same thing that you dont like and you dont even know it. I understand that you may like that playstyle but you seriously need to open ur eyes and realise what the f is going on.

I'm really confused as to what you are trying to advocate for here. Should everyone just run around solo? This thread wasn't created to bash on organized play, it was created to discuss the current organized meta. You're just bashing general organized play and stating your opinions as fact.

Yes solo players cannot counter an organized group. They shouldn't. They are outnumbered and fighting something that is designed to work together with synergy. If a solo player had the tools to wipe an organized group then those in that group would be using the same tools but more efficiently with more people. This shouldn't be an argument. If you are outnumbered and your opponent is organized you should lose the majority of the time.

Yes ball groups exist as a result of the large mindless zergs. The mindless zergs do not exist as a result of the ball groups. There are giant 50 man zergs running around regardless if there is a organized ball group to fight them. How do you propose people counter that? Another mindless 50 man zerg? How is that a challenge for player skill and growth? Not to mention the servers would crash nightly trying to support this.

If you want to run solo and fight small groups of unorganized players by all means do it. It's fun. But there shouldn't be an expectation of "I should be able to win any fight I want" in open world PvP with no regard for numbers or organization.

If the game people are pushing for is one where group skill is irrelevant and individual killing potential is the priority, you're going to have a much much worse meta with everyone frontloading nothing but pure heals or pure damage and zero counterplay.

I never at any point advocated for cyrodiil to become a small scale skirmish. You are just putting words in my mouth that i never said. I actually said in previous posts that i dont want to kill those groups, i dont even expect to kill them and i dont want to make cyrodiil designed for small groups. If you didnt understand what i said you should ask for further clarification. Jumping to stupid conclusions like i somehow want to get rid of grouping in general is very stupid and i never said that.

The very fact that we associate "organised" with ball groups is actually a big issue. We ended up just accepting that orgainsed means abuse people with no counterplay. Im sorry for not accepting that and instead advocating for a gameplay that actually requires skill and its not based on who has the most numbers. Im not advocating for a solo cyrodiil. Im advocating for a cyrodiil where every playstyle should exist. Right now its either ball up or gtfo.

The reason that there are so many zergs is that the gameplay is general is a joke with no counterplay. Which is the exact same idea that ball groups are based on. No counterplay. And also u seriously got to understand one thing. Just because there are big zergs, it doesnt mean that u are entitled to kill them. You are telling me that i shouldnt be able to kill an organised group but you somehow believe that trains should be able to kill zergs with 3 times their size. Thats not how this works mate. You cant have it both ways.

I never once indicated that you said cyrodiil should be a small scale skirmish. I just took the context of your consistent posting about how people in solo builds took more effort and skill to create those builds than those in a group, and about how you believe people should be able to run solo builds in a group and not have to ball up, to form my opinion that you just want cyrodiil to be solo friendly and thats it. If you have an actual constructive opinion about how to fix the destro meta then please let me hear it. But so far all I've been hearing is "ball groups are terrible, solo players have more skill".

Maybe you need to ask for further clarification, because I never said anyone was entitled to kill anyone outnumbered. I specifically said you should lose to a larger force when the enemy is organized. I also used the term "mindless" when referring to the giant zerg, which is why the organized groups can kill them. It's no different than the hundreds of 1vX videos out there of good players fighting multiple bad players, not organized groups.

You also never really answered my question. What are you advocating for? And this time please try and keep it to the context of the thread OP, because "no more ball groups", while apparently a popular buzz-phrase, is not constructive and only leads to this kind of back and forth.

I already answered you what im advocating for. A gameplay that actually requires skill and its not based on who has the most numbers. Im advocating for a cyrodiil where every playstyle should exist. The question is what are you advocating for?

I compared solo vs a member of trains in terms of skill cause the person i was responding to also compared it. You seem to have an issue only when im comparing it but not when he does.

3 good players playing together can also be organized and better players. You dont have to take my word on this. Many people that play in ball groups admitted that even in this thread. Go back a couple of pages and ull find someone admitting that people in his group are not good at 1vX. 1vX is mostly based on player skill. So they are organised and better players and yet according to you they shouldnt be able to take out trains but trains should be able to take out larger and worse groups than them. Like i said, you cant have it both ways.

And its absolutely different the 1vX scenario from the ball vs zerg scenario. You can kill that guy by outplaying him. You cannot kill ball groups by outplaying them cause there is no counterplay. You can only take them out by abusing the same mechanics they abuse. No counterplay and abusing mechanics does not equal with player skill. You somehow believe that they are the same.

Which brings me to this. I dont want to make cyro solo friendly. Solo play is dependant on player skill. Its basically skill vs numbers. Solo play comes naturally with skilled gameplay. That doesnt mean solo friendly. That just means healthy PVP and not mindless zergs which ironically is what you dont like. You basically dont like mindless no counterplay zerging and instead of advocating for addressing the issue at its root which is bad gameplay, you are advocating for an equally bad gameplay if not worse to fix it. You do not fix one bad thing with another bad thing. You just make things worse. And they are worse. They've never been worse than now. I really dont understand what there is to talk about that. PVP health and population is at an all time low. What more do u need to realise that things need to change drastically?

I have many problems with the current meta. I've never said otherwise. It is stale and relies on overperforming item sets and game mechanics. But I don't have a reasonable idea as to how to fix it in the confines of the current game. Which is why I didn't voice my opinion about how to fix the destro meta. You are suggesting an entire re-work of game mechanics when it's obvious ZOS doesn't even know how to fix lag, which is entirely unrealistic and just sounds like someone is mad they can't have what they want.

I specifically responded to you because it seems like you are of the opinion that a group that is running a playstyle in the current meta has no skill. I have read the entire thread, which is why I decided to start this debate with you, who is very vocal about thinking the current organized meta requires no skill. Any organized playstyle is going to need skilled players. Why is it that when players decide to use the tools that ZOS provide, which incidentally give them the largest advantage, do you decide that it is now without skill? When did "skill" and "meta" become antonyms?

And again, this is a thread talking about the current destro meta, not about small 3 man groups. (or whatever arbitrary number you pick). Anyone can beat anyone in this game, but you shouldn't expect to be able to beat everyone. I don't understand why you keep trying to turn me into a hypocrite about this. I never said less numbers means you always lose. Organized groups lose to mega zergs all the time. Smaller organized groups can and do beat the current meta trains. There are counters to everything in this game. But just because something "counters" something else, it doesn't mean that's the only way to fight it. That's not how balance works. And "abusing mechanics" is just a cop-out on the same level as "they use CE because I lost". If one organized group beats another, its because they played better, and were more skillful.

This isn't that hard to grasp. The playstyle isn't unbeatable. Is it annoying to fight? Sure. So were the past dozen metas. So what is it that makes this one so lacking in skill in your opinion? I'll answer the typical responses now so you can think a little harder.

"One button easymode" - 5 skils per bar, 1 ult, 2 bars, each role in a "meta group" rotates through 3-4 skills per 2-3 seconds regardless of how "rapids spam" or "purgebot" sounds. I've played all the roles, some are boring, but definitely not because you are only pushing one button.
"Stack on crown" - this one shouldn't even be a criticism of group play. If you want people to move in the same direction with coordination, it makes sense to start at the same point. And ZOS helps by giving everyone a nice crown image on the compass to move to.
"Destro spam" - current best large group PBAoE. Complain about destro, not the people using it.
"No skill" - this is 100% opinionated, seeing as there is literally no metric for player skill in the game (no group leaderboards or instanced group bgs), and I already know your opinion on this
"abusing mechanics" - otherwise known as "exploiting", which if it were the case 60% of the PvP pop would be banned. Again, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's inherently wrong.
"lazy" - *see one button easymore


To be clear, I haven't advocated for anything here. I never once said I liked the current meta. All I asked was what you were trying to contribute to the discussion about how to fix the current meta instead of repeated comments about how those that play it have no skill.

Just because ZOS cant fix lag it doenst mean that we should just sit and accept this trash that we have now. Ironically you are talking about lag when lag can be caused by ball groups.

Yeah you say anyone can beat anyone but this is the whole thing. No, you cant outplay ball groups. You must abuse them. This is the whole point of fighting a ball group with another ball group. Again, you are confusing abusing mechanics to kill people with counterplay.

You keep on associating the word "organised" with ball groups and moving like a train. No, organised doesnt have to be like that. I really dont understand why u are so narrow minded. If im in a large group and i send for example two nightblades to go and gank reinforcements or i have my tanks in the middle of the fight controlling the battlefield or if i have my heavy ranged sorc cannons on the back we are not organised because we are not moving like a train? This is utterly ridiculous. I am advocating for a skilled gameplay. A gameplay in which u can counter ur opponents. Running in a train and being immune to more than half of game's mechanics is the exact opposite, which again is why u need another similar group to fight that in the first place.

This is what kena said some time ago. "I too love unorganized large scale PvP -- "unorganized" meaning no ball groups present, just a big siege with mostly small groups and pugs and maybe a few large groups who don't ball up on each other and roll over everyone else, with several skirmishes happening at the same time all over and around the keep". You see, this is also a large scale fight. Large scale does not have to involve ball groups rolling over everyone. Just a large scale fight in which every kind of playstyle solo- organised small/large groups can be present.

There have been many suggestions actually about possible ways to make the game better in this thread. I talked about it as well. Feel free to go back and read. You just conveniently chose to ignore everything and picked the comment that u liked to start this argument.

I haven't ignored anything. And I definitely don't accept the game as it is. I'm also not the one labeling a playstyle. When I say organized, I don't refer to the number of players in the group, or the way that group chooses to organize its players. I completely agree with you that meta groups aren't the definition of an organized group. But what you keep seeming to avoid saying is why that playstyle is skill-less. Just because something doesn't have counterplay (the meta does have counterplay, and you don't need to run meta to beat it) doesn't make it without skill.

In regards to large scale fights where every playstyle can be present, why does that have to discriminate against a "ball group". It's a playstyle. If the ball didn't run destro and prox but still ran as tight would you still have a problem with it? If they used zero aoe abilities, but still moved as a tight ball/train and killed as efficiently, would it still be without skill? If you eliminate what makes a ball group effective (PBAoE, support abilities/group synergy, etc) I can promise you the game will turn into zerg simulator with a gank dlc.

This whole debate of "the meta is easy and without skill" is pointless. There are no facts to back it up, it's all your opinion, and so far you haven't said anything to prove why there is no skill in the meta. Show me how it takes no skill to run in that style of organized group and I will agree with you. But until then, just saying skill = counterplay is not good enough for me.

Like you said "skill" is a very subjective word. I consider it skilless compared to solo for example unless you are the leader of the train. The rest are just following one guy doing what they are told to do and maybe keeping their buffs up. Doesnt mean that all players are bad in those groups. Just saying that imo, the skill required is very limited. Anw thats not even the point.

And no there is no counterplay, if u believe there is then share it. There is no discrimination or anything based on personal bias. There is just whats good for the game and what isnt. Ball groups are not. A group stacked up that can ignore half of game's mechanics and roll over everyone and lagging the server in the process isnt what i would call good. I still dont understand how you believe that removing ball groups will mean zerg simulator. The whole point of making the gameplay skilled is so that zergs start spreading and u dont need ball groups to fight large numbers of players. The whole point of skill is so that its not all about the numbers. The whole point of skill is so there is no zerg simulator. A place in which every playstyle is viable. Remember?

Skill is subjective, but saying "its skilless compared to solo" and "the rest are just following one guy....and myabe keeping their buffs up" is very reductive when you haven't even defined what a solo player does that is so skillful, or what a meta group player needs to do in order to meet those "skilled" requirements. But that's your opinion on meta groups, and apparently you don't really have any facts to back it up. But please keep pushing for a game without a thing you don't like because "reasons" that you don't know how to explain other than "its bad".

And about counterplay and discrimination and the rest of your points (In no particular order)?

1. Counterplay - Meta groups are very magicka heavy and run relatively low regen, consistent pressure and negates outside of earthgore procs are very effective; meta groups are very mobility focused, well timed snares on specific targets will seriously gimp the effectiveness of the overall group (ie dont go for the healers first, take out the stam support guy or the mag wardens); meta groups will generally have the same person leading the group every session, taking that person out first will generally give you a short delay in leadership turnover where you can punish with damage; meta groups are very easy to predict damage potential from. i.e when you see a bunch of red circles pop up at once, thats prox....that means they are going to push...that also means they are going to be popping an ult or two, if you are solo just move perpendicular to the push and you'll usually be fine, if you are in a group do the same....the bombs move in a line and nobody really has perfected any kind of targeted directional movement in this game, after the ult and prox they will likely have a heal ult and some earthgores ready to cast and proc, so don't immediately blow all of your damage in retaliation, instead you need to bait out the heal ults; meta groups tend to want to fight outnumbered, so just drop ults on them when you see other players doing the same; meta groups try and funnel players into chokes, so don't follow them into a choke and let them push one you can defend instead. This is all just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to organized group combat in this game, and none of it demands that you run a meta group comp.
2. Discrimination - You are personally biased against meta groups and discriminating against a playstyle. "There is just whats good for the game and what isnt. Ball groups are not" That's a personal bias and a discriminating opinion.
3. Lag - lag has been in no way proven to be caused by "ball groups". It has been proven to be caused by massive multi-faction fights, which attract these "ball groups". If you wan't to get rid of lag, complain about massive zergs, not ball groups.
4. ignoring half of the game's mechanics - What mechanics are being ignored? From what you've been saying, you want things to be able to be countered. Is that not what these groups are doing? Effectively countering CC's/roots/snares/dots/disables?
5. Removing ball groups = zerg simulator - Zerging is the easiest form of PvP in this game IMO. 50 players have zero chance of failing to do anything in this game unless faced with the same numbers or a competent meta group + pugs. If you take away the meta group's capabilities to fight outnumbered, these mega zergs will have absolutely nothing stopping them.
6. Spreading out zergs so you don't need ball groups - That isn't going to change with the current objectives Cyrodiil has to offer, and suggesting anything that involves this type of mechanic is naive and not realistic within the current confines of the game. If you want a new game then just say so.

I'ts clear that you don't really know how to explain your opinions about no skill meta groups, as you just keep talking in circles. But don't take anything I've said offensively, it's both sides of this debate that should spark change in the current PvP mechanics. I just wish there was more factual based conversation rather than opinion based speculation.

HoloYoitsu

Xsorus wrote: »

Newton's_bane wrote: »

I am really getting frustrated by these kind of posts... Organized groups with specialized roles came into existence because of the massive (random) zergs in Cyrodiil. We put lots of thought into making builds, having good combination of roles and leading the group in general. People just mindlessy running in zergs should not complain about getting wiped a few times cause well you are not doing anything to avoid that but just straight start to complain. You don't hear us complaining when we get wiped by 2 huge zergs we just think how we could avoid that and get better.
This doesn't take away that ZOS should keep on balancing (e.g. earthgore is too powerfull atm) but just stating that these organized groups need to end, well...

This is incorrect, When Zerg Balls started popping up right after they added the aoe caps they were mostly 12 players...The same 12 players my group of 6 were stomping on the previous patch with little issue. Zergs back then were even bigger that they are now....However over time everytime one of these groups lost to anyone (and not just people with more numbers, we're talking about people with less numbers) they'd stack more and more...Till you ended up with groups running 24 people in it

Building on that, there's another paradigm that I never really see explicitly brought up:

As you recall, on launch the pop cap was on the order of something like 2000 players, and after constant reductions over the past 3 years I very much doubt it's even a third that anymore. However, as the server caps have been consistently reduced, the group cap has remained at 24. This means that individual groups begin to exhibit more and more impact on the overall 'gameplay experience' of the server by default.

That then plays into what everyone who's been here from the beginning can attest to: the continued dying off of solo & small scaled pvp in Cyro. As time progressed it was disproportionately that demographic of players that either quit the game or quit that style of play (for a number of reasons), leaving an increased proportion of 'raids' + 'pug zerg surfers' in their place.

That dynamic is why on a fundamental basis, I don't hold out hope for any of the myriad of "you could spread ppl out by adding small scale objectives" ideas. As far as I'm concerned, you have to start by punishing the 'blob up in a cheese wheel to win' meta that we have now; and also revert a number of mechanic/skill changes that have made it increasingly hard to simply survive as a smallscale/solo player. (Note: I said surviability, not 'make smallmans able to kill bigger groups')

Once people can go out on their own with an expectation that they'll be able to escape when pug hordes spot them, you'll actually see people be more inclined to do that. Likewise, when the zerg surfers have a reasonable expectation that they may not be able to instantly chase down that one guy who just came into gap closer range, you'll see that fewer people will break off to engage and keep chasing that guy. This creates a feedback loop that encourages people to go out and not just run around mindlessly surfing the faction zerg.

IxSTALKERxI

This thread needs to die.

killimandrosb16_ESO

no it doesnt need to die. Its an interesting topic to discuss and maybe some good ideas to advocate different playstyle comes up as a result. Thread is good, some posts arent, but thats a part of discussing here

zyk

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

As you recall, on launch the pop cap was on the order of something like 2000 players, and after constant reductions over the past 3 years I very much doubt it's even a third that anymore. However, as the server caps have been consistently reduced, the group cap has remained at 24. This means that individual groups begin to exhibit more and more impact on the overall 'gameplay experience' of the server by default.

This is a point that isn't made enough. I know there have been players who have attempted to estimate the pop cap and I seem to recall approximately 150 per faction is a number different sources have come up with. This means that a 16 player group might account for more than 10% of a faction's total population and a 24 player group may account for approximately 16%.

This also means that when large PVE guilds have IC nights -- which are less common but still happen -- they can seriously disrupt population balance in Cyrodiil.

Consider the potential impact of two top guilds from faction A relentlessly attacking faction B while faction B has large a PVE guild with one or more full groups in IC. That could result in a miserable experience for faction B; especially because in this game the 2v1 tends to happen against whichever faction is weakest at any given moment.

I think because of factors such as these, leaders of groups of all sizes should exercise restraint sometimes and try to pressure whichever faction appears strongest.

Valencer

HoloYoitsu wrote: »

Once people can go out on their own with an expectation that they'll be able to escape when pug hordes spot them, you'll actually see people be more inclined to do that. Likewise, when the zerg surfers have a reasonable expectation that they may not be able to instantly chase down that one guy who just came into gap closer range, you'll see that fewer people will break off to engage and keep chasing that guy. This creates a feedback loop that encourages people to go out and not just run around mindlessly surfing the faction zerg.

Very true.

Playing on your own or with a few friends is a pretty miserable experience at the moment. Everyone is zerg surfing because there is almost nothing else. Go out on your own and get gap closer spammed and nuked down by a dozen uncounterable abilities. If you somehow manage to escape youll have 10+ people mount up to try and get that 20 AP anyway.

People that really don't enjoy the zerg surfing playstyle or find it dumb only really have organised raid play to fall back on anymore. And people in this thread are trying to get organised raid play reduced to irrelevance because they want everyone to be dragged down to that zerg surfing playstyle. Is that really the right way to go?

Just nerf Earthgore so all the bad raids start dropping like flies again and stop trying to force your own playstyle on everyone else.

Ranger209

Imagine that I, as a player, was allowed to run an ability bar with 60 slots and 12 ultimates on it. I was then allowed to macro any combination of 12 skills/ultimates to fire off at the same time, and I was allowed 6 macros to do this with. Imagine I could use any 12 5-piece item bonuses and any 12 monster bonuses in the game of my choosing with the ability to pick some multiple times and have each set with its own unique timer. Imagine my stat pools all sat at 350,000 and that every time my health dropped to 50% I would lose 30,000 hp from my total pool and also have 5 of my skills and 1 of my ultimates grayed out and that new number was my new health cap. Imagine I had the ability to revitalize that lost hp if I was crafty enough to do so with my macro setups, and get myself back to full strength. How much fun would this be for me? How much fun would it be for everyone else?

This Borg mentality ball group lives very much on the edge of this super player described above. While it cannot move in 12 parts as fluidly as 1 being, it can get very close. Back in the early days of MMO's, before voice COMM's, co-ordination like this wasn't possible. These days though, the hive mind has been given life. Game designers need to take this into account when thinking of synergy among skills/gear in a PvP environment. It's still great to have all of that synergy for PvE and makes for interesting and deep gameplay. And while it does the same for PvP, it can also go too far and create levels of near invincibility which is what we are seeing here. In PvP synergy needs to be toned down, or there needs to be an anti-synergy or negative synergistic effects to spread the ball out.

Joy_Division

@Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Stop misrepresenting me.

Just tonight I played in an organized group and enjoyed myself. Yet you keep writing that I want to remove organized group play.

You have quoted my disgust for the tactics that some groups use, namely of stacking on crown and mass PBAoEs. However much you want to believe that is equivalent to organized group-play, it is not. You and Rin proceeded to make (wrong) claims about my play history and how my attitudes toward group play and tactics changed even though you didn't have a clue about either (evidenced by you and Rin's incorrect assumption that I didn't have an organized group to play with). You demand I provide evidence to prove who I am while you just misrepresent me and my statements on these forums based on your own incorrect assumptions. That's garbage.

You are all talk. You lecture me about being insulting and harp on the need for "positive conversation" and how "it's important to consider the whole argument." What a joke. You are so convinced that groups and the destro-ball meta are the same thing, you reject the difference between them. You won't consider the whole argument, only your perspective which is why you feel justified distorting my words beyond recognition. And then make snide remarks how I might get triggered and post a disparaging picture.

When another poster, not a VE cheerleader and monkey mind you, tried to get you appreciate a perspective that differed from your own, going back to that understanding the whole argument you supposedly value so much, you were indignant and dismissive.

To @usmcjdking you wrote

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

You have completely failed to grasp the clear point which was made in the post:

I'll try and make it easy for you:
"Since you no longer have one (Joy's old '24m' group) you have started a diatribe of complaints against them. That is what makes you a hypocrite, not the fact necessarily that you once played in them, although it is a factor, but now you no longer have the option you have stepped up your attacks on that style to try and get it removed."

So because he did not see things as you did, you "made it easy" for him with a previous quote, bold font and all. But that quote was wrong.

I have an organized group. Wrong on that count. I did not begin my diatribe against them at that point, it was there from the beginning. Wrong there. Since these are wrong, the logic in the quote claiming I'm a hypocrite is wrong there as well. Oh, and I have the option of still destro-bombing in an organized group (indeed, I have declined some invitations). Wrong again.

Everything in that statement was wrong. And yet you so brazenly threw it in someone else's face at how they "completely failed to grasp" what you were convinced was the truth.

As it turns out, @usmcjdking was the one who grasped what was correct, whereas you were so self-absorbed in your own bias that you were the one who failed to see it.

****

As for what I want, it's easier to grasp if you consider the possibility not everyone accepts that dominant destro-bombing stack-on-crown strategies are doing this game a favor.

If you still haven't grasped it even though others have, stop trying to be a sophist and convince yourself that "lag blobs"
"F***** zergs" and just having to download Papacrown somehow was me not frustrated with stack-on-crown groups that delivered PBAoE en mass. Before you even came to NA, the Alacritys, the Havocs, the VEs (with me!), etc., were doing that and I thought the game would be better off with a different meta. Go ahead and read some old forum posts about Havoc if you want some persepctive into the NA server. I want a variety of viable and competitive styles of game-play that are fun (including organized groups), can make players at times feel heroic, and have a tangible effect on the AvAvA system, i.e., something other than stack-on-crown PBAoE destruction. It's the tactics I criticize. Not the concept of groups or group-play in and of themselves. What I wrote appears contradictory because the changes ZoS has had made are ambiguous, some good improvements and some missteps. It's a mixed bag.

Mostly, I want you to stop writing down or passing off information about me that is wrong.

pieratsos

@PenguinInACan

1. I didnt explain about solo cause thats self explanatory. More complicated builds, no one helping you, less room for error, adapt to ur opponents constantly, sustaining both ur magicka and stamina, keeping ur buffs up, defending, attacking, picking the right target, using the terrain etc. Thats why im telling you that imo there is no comparison in terms of skill. Most of these are qualities only required by the leader of a train. But anw thats not even the point.

2. You keep telling me that there is counterpay and yet everyone here in the thread say that the issue is that there are not enough ball groups cause ball groups can face ball groups. You cannot snare them and pressure them. They are immune. Purge and rapids negate any kind of snare, hard or soft cc, dot or any kind of debuff for that matter. And negates wont do anything on their own. You can just roll out. I ve played in those ball groups. Never felt any kind of pressure by anything other than another ball groups and the only defensive skill i had was one shield. You are right on one thing, if u are solo or in a small group and u see one of those groups you can move out. Right, exactly that. The only thing you can do is gtfo. You cant just outplay them. Between AOE caps, bad targetting system, mechanics they ignore, smart heals etc you will just get lost.

3. And no, being immune to mechanics is not a counter. You have major issues in differentiating counter vs hard counter and skilled gameplay in general. Game mechanics are in the game for people to use them efficiently to counter their opponents and promote skilled gameplay. If you can completely ignore them its not counterplay. Its the exact opposite and bad design. The counter to cc is cc break. Not being immune to cc altogether. Especially when a whole group is immune to everything just because a couple of people are using two abilities. There is a reason why people ban immovability pots from duelling tournamets.

4. Saying that ball groups are bad is not a personal bias. If someone robs my house and i say that thieves are bad, it doesnt mean im biased bacause i happened to be robbed. Since ball groups surfaced, PVP is slowly getting worse each patch. And here we are now. Lag is also a major problem because of ball groups. Devs literally said at some point, people split up cause the servers cant take it. And they also said they are tying to find ways to combat this playstyle cause they are immune to prety much everything. Even people playing in ball groups say that they hate it. Thats not bias, thats facing the facts.

5. See thats what u still dont understand. More numbers have zero chance to fail if there is no skill. If there is no skill then it all boils down to numbers. And people naturally start forming zergs. Before ball groups were a thing, small groups of people could consistently beat much larger numbers by outplaying them. No zerg simulator. You believe that removing ball groups will result in zerg simulator because ball groups are the only thing that can face zergs but you fail to understand the root of that issue. Zerg simulator is caused by skilless gameplay. If people could outplay people without having to rely on just numbers then people will start spreading again and u will be able to take down larger numbers without having to bring in a ball group to roll over them. Sure PVP objectives can help to spread people too but that doesnt change the fact that the gameplay itself is promoting zerg simulator.

Jawasa

@pieratsos when was before ballgroups? 1.1? They have almost allways been In the game starting with impulse trains.

technohic

Have we established yet that we don't want organized groups to not happen? I mean; if any player has any ability at all; it will pay to be organized. I'd just like to do something against the automatic effects that grow exponentially in a tight group in Proc sets and smart heals/purges/buffs. The problem with this game is that there is so many buffs and debuffs flying around and most are un-targeted or secondary/tertiary effects. Its not the groups; it literally is the game design. I mean, BOL has been nerfed over and over but its weaker now for individuals yet still OP in groups where a target can get behind allies and out of damage yet be automatically healed regardless of friendly targets in the way.

usmcjdking

Oh, I'm well past Rin & Iz. Those type of people only learn another perspective in one way.

Vilestride wrote: »

usmcjdking wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

@Rin_Senya
The only reason I posted in depth was because if there was one thread a ZoS developer would look at in this sub-forum, it would be this one.

It's the least of their problems.

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

Stoney_McGeee wrote: »

Buffing siege won’t fix anything , .

Why not? Siege is extremely weak currently on the CP campaigns.
.

Because the sentiment of this thread is to increase the depth and complexity of game-play, not devolve it further. If the consensus is that organised raids are "mindless" I can't imagine what we consider sitting on siege equipment as our primary state of PVP is.

It's mindless in the sense that carpet bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam War was mindless. Both took quite a bit of coordination, effort, time & training. But at the end of the day it amounted to absolutely nothing except a completely war torn population and uninhabitable terrain. There was zero foresight in the decision to bomb out Cambodia just like there is zero foresight in letting destro groups lawnmow through half a faction.

We have what appears to be an all-time low PVP population and all-time low amount of PVP campaigns with very few prospective players coming in to PVP. There are a lot of things at fault for that, and this thread is specifically focused on one aspect. I'd be interested in hearing why you think it's not detrimental though since your previous posts actually lend to some good perspective goggles to peer through to the other side.

I agree it's a problem. I just think it's the least of our problems. You're right population is at an all time low, but it would be naive to suggest that the current meta attributes to that more-so or even as equally as the other numerous issues. (not that you have suggested it, but there are some who have).

Arguably discussion of the other issues doesn't have relevance in a thread that was intended for this specific problem. I concede that, but at the same time I wouldn't want anyone to loose sight of those other things I consider to take priority.

Cambodia aside, I still don't think buffing siege is going to have a positive effect on the game. My raid already has specialised Rapids and purge roles. I would hate to see us start having to implement a dedicated siege engineer role or 2 just to keep up with this new siege meta.

@Vilestride

Here's the main takeaway I've gotten from this thread:

A vast majority of people here, solo, small scale, elite groups, casual groups all agree on one thing. Competition is stale in openworld ESO. Some are pining the developers to help smooth out the competitive edge while others are looking to the players to strive for a higher level of coordination and gameplay than they are currently partaking in.

Obviously a middle ground is completely reachable without breaking the game for multiple players in the process: here's some spitballed ideas. Let's see what catches.

- Group PVP, medium & large scale, needs to be highly incentivized. This is probably one of the harder linemen to tackle as they already earn boatloads of AP, the primary game reward for PVP. IMO a campaign-based guild registry where the top, most influential guilds (determined by some crazy mathematical solution) receive rewards based on their performance would be a start. Perhaps additional gold overland/dungeon jewelry at the EOC rewards?

- Groups need to be encouraged to fight each other and not pugfarm. Killing undergeared, ungrouped pugs should net piddly rewards for an elite group whereas wiping another group should be worth tons of AP. The AP a character is worth at any given time should be redesigned to support this. Consequently, good solo and small groups should seize an opportunity to combat a larger group due to the chance of significantly larger AP gain.

- A good solo build and a good team build should have the exact same concerns when their purpose is the same - to fight outnumbered. The group build, by virtue of getting group buffs, should be able to be more specialized in their role and have greater leeway, but they should not be absolved of their own defensive/offensive responsibilities by simply +1ing someone with that specific capability. This is obviously not a fan favorite amongst the large group players but it's the reality of balance. There are a lot of skills and specific sets that would be on the proverbial nerfing block for something of this magnitude.

As another poster stated - elite ball groups are greater than the sum of their parts. I honestly believe that statement is completely irrefutable - they benefit greatly from poor game design and foresight more than any other type of thing in Cyrodiil. The point of contention is whether it's necessary for them to be greater than the sum of their parts or not required to keep the game from devolving into giant faction stacks.

Jawasa

You just want to nerf larger groups that use group synergy to creat a strong comp. Most average groups can be wiped by a zerg surfing small group and in the open a good 6 man small scale should wipe a bad 12 man train and Never die to it. There is maybe 1-3 groups per platform that can take on 50+ players with a 12-16 player group more likley 1-2.

But i do kinda think that maybe a group Max of 12 would be a good Idea now that cyrodil Max pop is so small and remove aoe caps.

Vilestride

usmcjdking wrote: »

Oh, I'm well past Rin & Iz. Those type of people only learn another perspective in one way.

Vilestride wrote: »

usmcjdking wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

@Rin_Senya
The only reason I posted in depth was because if there was one thread a ZoS developer would look at in this sub-forum, it would be this one.

It's the least of their problems.

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

Stoney_McGeee wrote: »

Buffing siege won’t fix anything , .

Why not? Siege is extremely weak currently on the CP campaigns.
.

Because the sentiment of this thread is to increase the depth and complexity of game-play, not devolve it further. If the consensus is that organised raids are "mindless" I can't imagine what we consider sitting on siege equipment as our primary state of PVP is.

It's mindless in the sense that carpet bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam War was mindless. Both took quite a bit of coordination, effort, time & training. But at the end of the day it amounted to absolutely nothing except a completely war torn population and uninhabitable terrain. There was zero foresight in the decision to bomb out Cambodia just like there is zero foresight in letting destro groups lawnmow through half a faction.

We have what appears to be an all-time low PVP population and all-time low amount of PVP campaigns with very few prospective players coming in to PVP. There are a lot of things at fault for that, and this thread is specifically focused on one aspect. I'd be interested in hearing why you think it's not detrimental though since your previous posts actually lend to some good perspective goggles to peer through to the other side.

I agree it's a problem. I just think it's the least of our problems. You're right population is at an all time low, but it would be naive to suggest that the current meta attributes to that more-so or even as equally as the other numerous issues. (not that you have suggested it, but there are some who have).

Arguably discussion of the other issues doesn't have relevance in a thread that was intended for this specific problem. I concede that, but at the same time I wouldn't want anyone to loose sight of those other things I consider to take priority.

Cambodia aside, I still don't think buffing siege is going to have a positive effect on the game. My raid already has specialised Rapids and purge roles. I would hate to see us start having to implement a dedicated siege engineer role or 2 just to keep up with this new siege meta.

@Vilestride

Here's the main takeaway I've gotten from this thread:

A vast majority of people here, solo, small scale, elite groups, casual groups all agree on one thing. Competition is stale in openworld ESO. Some are pining the developers to help smooth out the competitive edge while others are looking to the players to strive for a higher level of coordination and gameplay than they are currently partaking in.

Obviously a middle ground is completely reachable without breaking the game for multiple players in the process: here's some spitballed ideas. Let's see what catches.

- Group PVP, medium & large scale, needs to be highly incentivized. This is probably one of the harder linemen to tackle as they already earn boatloads of AP, the primary game reward for PVP. IMO a campaign-based guild registry where the top, most influential guilds (determined by some crazy mathematical solution) receive rewards based on their performance would be a start. Perhaps additional gold overland/dungeon jewelry at the EOC rewards?

- Groups need to be encouraged to fight each other and not pugfarm. Killing undergeared, ungrouped pugs should net piddly rewards for an elite group whereas wiping another group should be worth tons of AP. The AP a character is worth at any given time should be redesigned to support this. Consequently, good solo and small groups should seize an opportunity to combat a larger group due to the chance of significantly larger AP gain.

- A good solo build and a good team build should have the exact same concerns when their purpose is the same - to fight outnumbered. The group build, by virtue of getting group buffs, should be able to be more specialized in their role and have greater leeway, but they should not be absolved of their own defensive/offensive responsibilities by simply +1ing someone with that specific capability. This is obviously not a fan favorite amongst the large group players but it's the reality of balance. There are a lot of skills and specific sets that would be on the proverbial nerfing block for something of this magnitude.

As another poster stated - elite ball groups are greater than the sum of their parts. I honestly believe that statement is completely irrefutable - they benefit greatly from poor game design and foresight more than any other type of thing in Cyrodiil. The point of contention is whether it's necessary for them to be greater than the sum of their parts or not required to keep the game from devolving into giant faction stacks.

this is good insight and the thing I love most here is that we are talking about the fundamental ideology of the game-play and making sure we get that right before we go suggesting any actual combat or mechanical changes. This is important because without doing so we, and subsequently the developers will lack direction when it comes time to actually talk about such changes.

I think I agree with everything you have said though there are some points I am actually undecided on. To parallel your points my responses are:

WARNING: THIS WILL BE LENGTHY

INCENTIVES
I agree with incentivizing organised play (both large scale and small scale) though I think the incentive can, and is going to have to be, more than simply offering material rewards. Because as you said, it's already one of if not the best way to make AP, but reward of this nature alone provides no longevity. To truly incentivize it I think a few steps will need to be taken.

1) Create more ease of play. Please don't misunderstand this, this does not mean devolving the actual game-play. But what this game is going to need to do is make the effort to become involved with PVP in the first place less tremendous. A small example of this - You love PVE and want to try out cyrodil for the first time? well please spent 3k and 10 minutes every time you step in to re-do you CP. . This is not going to work. There is going to be a fine line between maintaining the long grindy character progression that is inherent to MMO game-play, which many people love, and creating an ease of play that is imperative to the success of any PVP game but an attempt needs to be made or population will never come back. On top of this, PVP needs to be self-sustaining. The reward system need to be more practical in it's offerings to minimise the grinding outside of the game-play that we currently need to do to keep up. We need to be able to have our dinner without the bother of doing dishes afterwards.

2) Create more engaging play. Once you have achieved step 1, and more people are getting involved with it in the first place you need to make it engaging. One of the best things about PVP is that no 2 engagements are ever the same. We need to take that idea and capitalise on it. After 3 years of group game play I can say I am pretty sick of looking at the inside of keeps, the best large scale fights I can have right now are when, for whatever random reason, you run into an enemy raid in the middle on butt*##* nowhere around some hills and nice terrain and you get to kite and fake and push and spread and counter push until eventually you or them wipes. All this happening usually with 0 map relevance. It's this kind of fighting that needs to be intelligently brought into line with map game-play, it needs to be made relevant. There are a million ideas for dynamic map objectives out there. We need to implement some. It is clear that cyrodil was designed with much more dynamic game-play in mind than what we see out there right now. Even a keep fight is meant to be far more complex.

Currently it's either A ) you smashed both doors down while no-one was there, or B ) you siege a wall with a large force while the enemy force sat on the walls waiting for you doing nothing, even if they were a strong enough force to push out and contest the open field they won't. Eventually you breach inner where the only actual fighting takes place and 1 of the 2 forces will decisively wipe and the keep will have either been taken or defended. Then there will be the obligatory cleaning up of ones and 2's but the only intense fighting happened in the span of 10-20 seconds, realistically only 10 but it presumably got dragged out because of lag. After this either faction will wait around for a minute to receive their tick.

What a keep take it should mean, and I believe was intended to mean, would be: the tactical co-ordination of large and small scale groups to control the surrounding area and resources, which would have meaningful effect on the ease or difficulty of taking the keep. Giving purpose to players of any size group to be involved with significant map game play and creating an environment where they are more often met by opposing groups of a relative size. Large groups to siege and contest breaches, small groups to tactically control the surround area and even solo players to help prevent incoming reinforcements and or harass anywhere in between.

3) Prestige. Lastly, to truly incentivize organised play, there needs to be an element of prestige. Something to aspire to and some way to quantify results. Most games do this through tournaments and rankings. Obviously given the nature of an open world MMO we need to be a little more creative about this but I still think it has to be done.

COMPETITIVE PARITY
I agree, it should be encouraged that more experienced players seek out and are met by players relative to their level. I believe some of the philosophies mentioned in the previous point would lead to this happening naturally but I also think there are other things that could be done. For example I personally I hate that anyone can play in the non vet campaign. I think it should be exclusive to actual first timers or perhaps somehow merged with the no-CP. Either way, it should reflect a campaign to begin in so that you are fighting against other players with no experience. Currently it's a mix of people with 3 years play time against players fresh out the tutorial. Not a good way to encourage new-comers. In doing this you will also already start to create levels of prestige. You will be establishing that 'A' is a beginners area and 'B' is more top tier and what you want to be aiming for competing in. Competitive parity CANNOT be achieved without establishing a clear hierarchy of play and bluntly saying. This is the top league, this is the bottom league, this is between ect.

BUILDS AND THEIR DISTINCTIONS
This is the part where I am least decided but I think where our conclusions will most differ from one another. Let me start by stating that the current extremes between a group build and a solo build are not ideal and that obviously there are all sorts of current balance issues however I don't think that this fact changes the principle of this point. I think there should be differences and they should be notable.

If you think of it as a spectrum, where at one extreme you would have a 1v1 duelling build and the other you would have a raid build and then all things in between. I don't think this is bad and in theory it actually means more build diversity. It also means you have to make sacrifices, again a good thing because it indicates that no one thing is too strong. So what I mean by this is that if you are going to run 1 end of the spectrum in a full group build you are are going to almost always loose fights when you are caught on your own, and vice versa if you are in a 1v1 build fighting outnumbered. As I said, I think this is entirely positive as it creates layers of depth to finding the right balance for your group composition, relative to what you want to be contesting. I think where this comes un-done and meaningless is more tied to the first point regarding the currently undefined objective roles of different sized groups within the map. But fixing that through other means would help alleviate some of the frustration of different builds being more powerful for different styles of game play.

I, and I believe many others, like that this game requires an assortment of roles for a group to be successful. I like that a group needs to have healers, needs to have support roles, needs to have different kinds of damage roles. I don't want the optimal group set-up to become a composition of good DPS players all in best 1vX gear for the month, depending on their class. I like that it's optimal to have to squeeze in support sets like transmutation, Worm, Ebon, Meritorious. These add layers of build diversity and the potential for more complex group compositions than the contrary. I like that fundamentally 1 fist should defeat 5 fingers.

Bringing me to the next point and where we might disagree most. You are right, it is irrefutable, an organised group is greater than the sum of it's parts. whether it is a group of 4 or a group of 12. but, it should be. I have not played any game, or even sport where teamwork did not exponentially improve the success of a group and I would never want to compromise this in the games design. I am actually of the principle that the value of teamwork should at least be equal to, if not surpass the value of individual skill, as I believe in reality it does. This is one of the core things that I think is important to the depth of any PVP game. Something that you have to understand when considering this principle is that most people don't play an MMO to play alone, so teamwork is something that should carry a lot of weight.

I believe it to be true both within and outside of gaming that extreme individualism will never trump unified collectivism.
Ideally, the most successful groups will be akin to Spartans. Groups that can display high levels of both individual capability and then to further that, that high levels of teamwork pushing them far beyond the sum of their individual potential. To reiterate I am not just talking about large scale groups here, but I would never agree with anything contrary to this principle.

Joy_Division

technohic wrote: »

Have we established yet that we don't want organized groups to not happen? I mean; if any player has any ability at all; it will pay to be organized. I'd just like to do something against the automatic effects that grow exponentially in a tight group in Proc sets and smart heals/purges/buffs. The problem with this game is that there is so many buffs and debuffs flying around and most are un-targeted or secondary/tertiary effects. Its not the groups; it literally is the game design. I mean, BOL has been nerfed over and over but its weaker now for individuals yet still OP in groups where a target can get behind allies and out of damage yet be automatically healed regardless of friendly targets in the way.

It's established. It's just that two people in particular are misrepresenting me claiming I don't want them.

Slack

But that would instantly make the AD useless and convert them to farming tools :S

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

@Joy_Division
The entirety of your previous 5+ pages of posts can be reduced down to the following 2 sentences.
"you misrepresent me." and "I insult tactics not players."

You don't need to type essays to repeat the same argument in every single post.
Instead you could actually try responding to the points in my and Rin's previous posts.

I'll number some examples here to make it easier for you to reply.

1. in response to your post

Joy_Division wrote: »

Yet you and Rin have zero problem using insulting language that is directed at me personally.

I replied

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Feel free to quote my insults towards you, you obviously consider them numerous.

In fact I can freely quote your from your previous post: "That's garbage... You are all talk... You lecture me about being insulting and harp on... What a joke....so self-absorbed in your own bias".
I understand its an emotional subject for you but consistency is important so either you yourself like to use and receive 'insulting' language or you don't.

2.

Joy_Division wrote: »

literal interpretation when it's crystal clear to everyone that it's a metaphor and not meant to be taken literally.

Joy_Division wrote: »

post a disparaging picture.

Why have you not taken issue with Texas for posting Monkey pictures when he didn't understand the phrase: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_organ_grinder,_not_the_monkey.
In fact you yourself still refer to VE posters as monkeys interestingly

3. Tactics vs Player insults. We have quoted exactly your words nothing more nothing less when giving examples of your insults towards PLAYERS. Yet you still ignore your own words and insist that you were insulting tactics. See my quoted example:

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

You don't insult the tactics we use you insult the players. "mindless, bot like" have nothing to do with tactics.
It seems you are a little confused on what constitutes mechanics.

4. Perhaps you wish to explain what tactics you were criticising for each of these:

Joy_Division wrote: »

a) strict ball-group stack on crown group that looks and play like bots

Joy_Division wrote: »

b) The organized bot like pain trains

Joy_Division wrote: »

c) a lot of people who play this game can't stand that bot like style.

Joy_Division wrote: »

d) these ball-groups don't seem to have any intricate strategy other than just blobbing together.

Joy_Division wrote: »

e) me as someone who used to ball-group with the best of them, I don't want to see them.

Joy_Division wrote: »

f) ball-group is just going to have 1 member mindless spamming rapids <...> to have one person whose sole function is just to spam one button

Joy_Division wrote: »

g) Purge-bot, rapids monkey, it just seems mindless.

Joy_Division wrote: »

h) a bunch bots running around spamming PBAoE death.

5.

Joy_Division wrote: »

@Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO Stop misrepresenting me.

Here are your own words:

Joy_Division wrote: »

I can see how you and others may have taken my insults to the tactics you use personally. Especially since they imply something I do not believe, namely it doesn't take skill to be a good destro-bomb group.

here you admit that you "misrepresent yourself. Yet you blame others for misrepresenting you.

6. In addition when you post 2 completely opposite thoughts within the same post it further shows how you misrepresent yourself. Stop blaming others for "Misrepresenting" you and start reading your own posts:

Joy_Division wrote: »

A lot of people exhibited hate toward proc sets, ground oils, uncapped Champion Points, the overpowered DKs at launch, etc., and ZoS has done some good work in improving the game by addressing these.

VS

Joy_Division wrote: »

There was a time when there were tools in this game like dynamic ultimate, potent class abilities like Repentance and the old Battleroar, and even the ill-conceived ground oil made it such there were other means to fight even when badly outnumbered without having to be in a destro-pain train.

7.

Joy_Division wrote: »

What bothers me the most is your (and Rin's) insistence in telling me how I felt about groups, how I felt about tactics, and whether or not I have changed my mind about either.

Here is an example of "how you have changed your mind since losing VE":

Joy_Division wrote: »

"The only time I ever wanted to fight or deal with a ball-group was being in another ball-group (which was odd because in that setting, I preferred fighting ball-groups over mindless masses because the competition was better)."

but now:

Joy_Division wrote: »

me as someone who used to ball-group with the best of them, I don't want to see them.

I'll quote myself again:

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

We didn't assume how you felt about groups we quoted exactly your own words showing how you felt, there is a difference.

8. Facts vs Feelings

Vilestride wrote: »

I am still confused. Before we go suggesting solutions willy nilly we should probably define the problem properly. Usually that is step one. I am still unclear on the general consensus so I imagine zos is to . Is the problem ball groups? Or is it zergs? Because for starters ball groups are literally the only thing effective against zergs.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I can't say I have any scientific evidence to support this, but I think "the masses" make a distinction between the sort of strict ball-group stack on crown group that looks and play like bots and a loose group of 24 players who don't run nearly as tight and don't look like ducklings following their mother.

Should we only make changes based on feelings or based on factual discussion?

9. Have you read any of the continued discussion other than our back and forth.

Joy_Division wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

Have we established yet that we don't want organized groups to not happen? I mean; if any player has any ability at all; it will pay to be organized. I'd just like to do something against the automatic effects that grow exponentially in a tight group in Proc sets and smart heals/purges/buffs. The problem with this game is that there is so many buffs and debuffs flying around and most are un-targeted or secondary/tertiary effects. Its not the groups; it literally is the game design. I mean, BOL has been nerfed over and over but its weaker now for individuals yet still OP in groups where a target can get behind allies and out of damage yet be automatically healed regardless of friendly targets in the way.

It's established.

It's far from 'established', the conversation is ongoing and its actually a big problem when people use disparaging language referring to either side and bias the discussion.
Perhaps you should take care not to misrepresent anyone's views here.



I look forward to you answering these points rather than another 1000 words of "you misrepresent my insult of your tactics".

Publius_Scipio

Have you all considered agreeing to simply not use destro ult and move on? Or are you all addicts and knowing that destro ult is no good for you, you still inject it into your veins?

Kilandros

Can we just let this thread die and not create another one until after the next PTS

Rainraven

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Have you all considered agreeing to simply not use destro ult and move on? Or are you all addicts and knowing that destro ult is no good for you, you still inject it into your veins?

I could be mistaken - all the daggers and venom are distracting - but there seem to be some present who are perfectly fine with things just as they are.

So even that level of agreement is probably not going to happen.

pieratsos

Jawasa wrote: »

@pieratsos when was before ballgroups? 1.1? They have almost allways been In the game starting with impulse trains.

Trying to figure out specific patches is kinda pointless. It didnt just turn to this overnight. Its been slowly getting worse and we ended up here. Im talking about the time when the game promoted skill and people didnt need to ball up and start crutching on poor game desing just to have a fighting chance and the game wasnt a zerg simulator.

pieratsos

technohic wrote: »

Have we established yet that we don't want organized groups to not happen? I mean; if any player has any ability at all; it will pay to be organized. I'd just like to do something against the automatic effects that grow exponentially in a tight group in Proc sets and smart heals/purges/buffs. The problem with this game is that there is so many buffs and debuffs flying around and most are un-targeted or secondary/tertiary effects. Its not the groups; it literally is the game design. I mean, BOL has been nerfed over and over but its weaker now for individuals yet still OP in groups where a target can get behind allies and out of damage yet be automatically healed regardless of friendly targets in the way.

Exactly that. Its the game design and thats what we are trying to fix. No more abilities and sets to kill ball groups just for the sake of killing ball groups. Thats what ZOS has been trying to do till now and it fails over and over again. Attack the issue at its root so the game isnt just about abusing/ignoring mechanics and steamrolling over everyone.

TheValar85

well this whole theories about ultis were porbably killing teh aspect of the pve in teh game, cos strong ultis are manadtory in pve. The only solution i can think of the completly separate teh twoo of them, if you enter to cyrodiil your ulties damages will be reduced lats say to half. And costing more ulti points. or simply strip away from meles the Mages guilds skills, after all they are not sorcerers. it should be strickly for the sorces including staff usages. it probably kill alot of builds, but at this point i dont realy care. Mele should be a mele and not a dam sorc. i dont know to be honest what would help. But ultis needs to stay strong in pve, the only thing that could work is to sync down them in pvp zones to half szied damage and double their ulti costs in pvp zones. that could help while in pve no one will experiance the diferency who is just perer to play in pve content.

Publius_Scipio

Rainraven wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Have you all considered agreeing to simply not use destro ult and move on? Or are you all addicts and knowing that destro ult is no good for you, you still inject it into your veins?

I could be mistaken - all the daggers and venom are distracting - but there seem to be some present who are perfectly fine with things just as they are.

So even that level of agreement is probably not going to happen.

Players forget they ultimately hold the power to what the meta is. ZOS can add whatever they want to the game. It’s as simple and yet as difficult as everyone agreeing not to use something that can dictate meta and all that. Of course naturally, creatures of habit (and of need) always gravitate to whatever is “most effective” (aka strongest, aka most bang for the buck, aka the meta). Destro ult can disappear from Cyrodiil altogether tomorrow if everyone just stopped using it.

Joy_Division

@Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

You have no comprehension how pejorative and deprecating what you write is. Yet you are so keen to point out how other people insult you.

You get all bent out of shape because I insult the style that you and I - yes, me too! - play and take it personally. Then you feel justified to call me hypocrite, deliberately misquote me numerous times, and made incorrect statements about me in the game. If you want to take me insulting the way you play personally, that's your prerogative, but by that logic I am insulting my own guild members and myself.

Meanwhile, what you and Rin have against me is directed at me personally. That's another level entirely.

Joy-Divison wrote:

What I am typing is not hard to understand. I have fully supported removing this style of game from the very beginning, all the way back when I balled up in TSYM back in in summer 2014. Me being in or not in a guild has nothing to do with what I think makes for good PvP.

Then you typed this:

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

The point, had you chosen to understand it (although I imagine you did and are just trying to deflect) was that you were happy (maybe you complained maybe you didn't haven't seen any quotes of yours back then) with running in such "zerg bot balls" back when you had a group to do it with.

Since you no longer have one you have started a diatribe of complaints against them. That is what makes you a hypocrite, not the fact necessarily that you once played in them, although it is a factor, but now you no longer have the option you have stepped up your attacks on that style to try and get it removed.

You are being intentionally obtuse. I had just written I did not like that style, and you went on accepted Rin's wrong statement about me not being in a guild, Rin's wrong statement about me no longer having an option to play, Rin's wrong statement about my attitudes toward that style, and called me a hypocrite on the basis of these wrong assumptions.

Oh, wait, what was that you said about the relationship between hypocrite and insulting?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Hypocrite is not an insult if its accurate

You are so warped in your own little world that will just accept what Rin says about me as the truth, even when I tell you she is wrong and other non VE posters say she's off base.

In short, what I - and others - say about myself is meaningless and less accurate that what you're own guildmate thinks, even know she does not know me.

That's insulting.

Just about everything Rin has said about me in this thread is wrong. I have posted numerous times why all her assumptions about me are wrong. And yet you demand I answer her. It's already been answered. She's wrong.

Rin_Senya wrote: »

So now your group disbanded you don't want anyone else to experience this saying that groups are so cancerous for the game

I did not say that. The two of you can insist that desto pain trains are interchangeable with groups, but they are not. Not every group plays the way that you do and my comments were clearly directed against particular tactics that some groups use. Also Rin is being disingenuous by saying "experience this" and thus asserting I don't want anyone to experience socializing, group competition, learning from others etc.,

Rin_Senya wrote: »

There was no single problem for you guys doing it for years faction stacking with multiple guilds and the whole DC populations every single day.

She just had to sneak that one in there. And the two of you call me a hypocrite. As much as you and Rin love to delude yourselves that your guild was on a pedestal above all the accusation you throw at VE, your guild has done the same. Your crap stinks just like ours.

And then I have to sit here and listen to you and Rin tell me why I made my own video, my motivations behind it, and what I was criticizing. The arrogance that you two would presume to know better than the person who made it.

Incredibly insulting. How would you like it if I posted in your video threads:

"Hi Brian Wheeler, Eric Wrobel, and Rich Lambert. You see, Rin and Izzy and the rest of Drac claim to be trying to construct a dialogue and pretend to want to make all play-styles viable, but that's not the case. They are just paying lip service to stuff like that when they really just want to keep the status quo and the current mechanics so they can continue to destro bomb masses of inexperienced players from the safety of their ball group with its earth-gores, AoE caps, and rapids spam."

I guessing you wouldn't? But then you lecture me about why I made my video and then post a disparaging picture as if I somehow couldn't not comprehend your brilliance.

And when Autmnhart, sharee, Pieratsos, usmcjdking - none of whom are in VE, none of whom are on my contact list, none of whom I know - all try to tell you that you're missing the point, you snap back:

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Anyone with a full brain understands what @Rin_Senya typed. I guess there is a lack of those left these days judging by this type of response.

The point in question is the written language used not the sentiment. The fact that post-VE @Joy_Division began to use a different set of language when referring to groups in what I would consider a hypocritical manor. This was explained 5+ times, yet still you fail to understand. Unfortunate really...

As for the rest of the cheerleader participation it constituted a circle of people patting each other on the back (as usual) and this is why its not worth the time to read it.

More insults from you. As if people who do not agree with you and Rin's interpretation lack full brains whose commentary is nothing but cheerleader participation not worthy to read.

Tell me again how you don't insult people on these forums and strive for a positive discussion. Go ahead and call me a hypocrite again.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

"Your mission to remove tools to deal with faction stacks by trying to remove organised group play unfortunately will have a detrimental effect on the game.

Again with this misrepresentation. I never said that. This false accusation was already put out in this thread and I made it clear that was not how I felt or what I wrote. Knowing this full well, you decided to write it again. This goes beyond insulting and heads toward libelous.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Feel free to quote my insults towards you, you obviously consider them numerous.

See above! And that's not even getting into your insinuation that VE quit because it couldn't compete.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Why have you not taken issue with Texas for posting Monkey pictures when he didn't understand the phrase: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_organ_grinder,_not_the_monkey.

Because it's not my job to moderate Tex. Tex is not me. Tex does not speak for me. If you have an issue with Tex, either take it up with him or contact a ZoS moderater.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

3. Tactics vs Player insults. We have quoted exactly your words nothing more nothing less when giving examples of your insults towards PLAYERS. Yet you still ignore your own words and insist that you were insulting tactics. See my quoted example:

Not true. I wrote this in response.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I can see how you and others may have taken my insults to the tactics you use personally. Especially since they imply something I do not believe, namely it doesn't take skill to be a good destro-bomb group. It does. I still think the tactics are overly simplified, that skill is being misused and wasted, those tactics are too predominate, and they drive people away from the game. It would have been more productive to air my grievances without the adjectives so commonly thrown around.

Wrong again.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

You don't insult the tactics we use you insult the players. "mindless, bot like" have nothing to do with tactics.
It seems you are a little confused on what constitutes mechanics.

4. Perhaps you wish to explain what tactics you were criticising for each of these:

Joy_Division wrote: »

[various insults I made about "bot like pain trains" that "just seems mindless"]

See point 3. I have already admitted doing this was counterproductive and acknowledged how it can be insulting.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

5.

Joy_Division wrote: »

@Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO Stop misrepresenting me.

Here are your own words:

Joy_Division wrote: »

I can see how you and others may have taken my insults to the tactics you use personally. Especially since they imply something I do not believe, namely it doesn't take skill to be a good destro-bomb group.

here you admit that you "misrepresent yourself. Yet you blame others for misrepresenting you.

So let's get this straight. You actually read my acknowledgemnt of how what I said was insulting and how it was counterproductive and yet you still wrote that I "still ignore your own words and insist that you were insulting tactics." The words were not ignored and an admission was made

Yes, I blame you and Rin for misrepresenting me (not others, just you two.). Because the two of you have numerous times and you are continuing to do so right in this post.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

6. In addition when you post 2 completely opposite thoughts within the same post it further shows how you misrepresent yourself. Stop blaming others for "Misrepresenting" you and start reading your own posts:

Joy_Division wrote: »

A lot of people exhibited hate toward proc sets, ground oils, uncapped Champion Points, the overpowered DKs at launch, etc., and ZoS has done some good work in improving the game by addressing these.

VS

Joy_Division wrote: »

There was a time when there were tools in this game like dynamic ultimate, potent class abilities like Repentance and the old Battleroar, and even the ill-conceived ground oil made it such there were other means to fight even when badly outnumbered without having to be in a destro-pain train.

This is not a black and white issue, not an either or. ESO has improved with respect to certain things and devolved with others. It's ambiguous. In SOME areas of the game, ZoS has made good improvements, that is, not everything they did was an improvement in my estimation. The stuff that was good is mostly related to stability, performance, and eliminating abusive gameplay elements. In the first paragraph you quote, read the bold part again:

"Zos has done SOME good work in improving the game by ADDRESSING THESE (i.e. mechanical abuses).

Because only some good work was done as opposed to all perfect work, that does not mean the game in its current version is necessarily better or superior to those that came before.

Zos has made, IMHO of course, some missteps when it came to combat and mechanics. I think it was a mistake to remove those elements that I listed in the second paragraph. In general, I believe that the game performs better and is cleaner, but the actual game-play and mechanics are not as good or compelling as they once were. So it's a mixed bag.

How is it completely opposite to like that ZoS eliminated some abusive mechanics but not like that ZoS eliminated some mechanics that were not abusive and added some depth? Must I like or hate everything ZoS does for you not to be confused?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

7.

Joy_Division wrote: »

What bothers me the most is your (and Rin's) insistence in telling me how I felt about groups, how I felt about tactics, and whether or not I have changed my mind about either.

Here is an example of "how you have changed your mind since losing VE":

Joy_Division wrote: »

"The only time I ever wanted to fight or deal with a ball-group was being in another ball-group (which was odd because in that setting, I preferred fighting ball-groups over mindless masses because the competition was better)."

but now:

Joy_Division wrote: »

me as someone who used to ball-group with the best of them, I don't want to see them.

I'll quote myself again:

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

We didn't assume how you felt about groups we quoted exactly your own words showing how you felt, there is a difference.

So you are assuming that just because I wanted to fight other guilds that I approved of this meta, thought it was so wonderful for the game, and invalidated my criticism against it?

Yes, I preferred fighting other guild groups because I felt sick of destro-bombing disorganized PuGs time after time after time. Do you have any comprehension or empathy for the names of those people not in groups you see over and over and over again get insta-killed by Eye of the Flame, Negate, and Vicious Death? There were times we'd be at Arrius mine for over an hour and I'd get sick to my stomach hoping just hoping we'd get zerged down just to end the slaughter. I play on Red so I'd know these players by name. I know they're just trying to help their alliance and just trying to their best and feel obligated to do something about those 20 Blues at the Arrius Mine. Without coordination or overwhelming numbers they have zero shot and more often than not they aren't going to get a single kill when they push into that tower.

I suppose I could say that they should know better, git gud, or join their own destro-bomb group, but I think it still sucks that the choices are ignore the enemy threatening your most important keep or fight destro-bomb group with destro-bomb group.

Because the meta is crap, because I the PuGs who try and fight destro bomb groups have the odds way stacked against them, because I like competition, yes, when I'm in a bomb-group I'd rather fight the Fantasias, the Pact Militias, the Dracs, rather than get my 245th killing blow against some enthusiastic un-grouped and over-matched EP who dutifully tries to do clear us from Chalman Mine or Arrius Mine.

That's a big reason why I want this meta to go away. Because this particular tactic is too devastating against those that don't run it. So it's either farm people not in groups, fight faction-stacks, or fight other guilds using this boring style.

This does not have to mean nerf organized groups. Un-nerf the classes, reform ultimate gain, rework prox det, adjust group size such that we have two groups of 8 trying to coordinate as opposed to 1 group of 16, etc.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

8. Facts vs Feelings

Vilestride wrote: »

I am still confused. Before we go suggesting solutions willy nilly we should probably define the problem properly. Usually that is step one. I am still unclear on the general consensus so I imagine zos is to . Is the problem ball groups? Or is it zergs? Because for starters ball groups are literally the only thing effective against zergs.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I can't say I have any scientific evidence to support this, but I think "the masses" make a distinction between the sort of strict ball-group stack on crown group that looks and play like bots and a loose group of 24 players who don't run nearly as tight and don't look like ducklings following their mother.

Should we only make changes based on feelings or based on factual discussion?

No. We should make changes because for three and a half years there is tons of evidence that many players believe that ball-groups and mass PBAoEs are a sore spot on the game

Where are your facts that your stack-on-crown destro-bombing at Ash is so appreciated by the rest of the PvP community? Shall I take some screenshots of DC zone chat to give you some perspective from the other side?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

9. Have you read any of the continued discussion other than our back and forth.

Joy_Division wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

Have we established yet that we don't want organized groups to not happen? I mean; if any player has any ability at all; it will pay to be organized. I'd just like to do something against the automatic effects that grow exponentially in a tight group in Proc sets and smart heals/purges/buffs. The problem with this game is that there is so many buffs and debuffs flying around and most are un-targeted or secondary/tertiary effects. Its not the groups; it literally is the game design. I mean, BOL has been nerfed over and over but its weaker now for individuals yet still OP in groups where a target can get behind allies and out of damage yet be automatically healed regardless of friendly targets in the way.

It's established.

It's far from 'established', the conversation is ongoing and its actually a big problem when people use disparaging language referring to either side and bias the discussion.
Perhaps you should take care not to misrepresent anyone's views here.

You still calling people out for using disparaging language? You talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Your s*** stinks too Izzy.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Anyone with a full brain understands what @Rin_Senya typed. I guess there is a lack of those left these days judging by this type of response.

****

Has it ever occurred to you or Rin that most of the time when I critique ZoS's mechanics and the destro bomb group meta I don't use the insulting language because I'd rather not incite the already pervasive incorrect assumptions that we're just baddies that get carried by broken mechanics? That I try to do as you say, stick to the facts to promote discussion? That even though I am trying to be calm and rationale and understanding, that I am biting my tongue and holding back my emotions of how I really feel? I mean, sometimes when you're pissed off at your spouse or a roommate, you don't just go ballistic, right?

Well I'm not perfect. After three plus years of frustration and also having to put up with you and Rin's snide remarks condemning VE for things your own guild does, yes I insulted the those tactics that we both use. The horror! Someone get my forum account banned for such a travesty.

That doesn't justify you to deliberately disseminate false information about me (especially after being told multiple times it was not true) or intentionally distort my position. You assumed that what Rin typed was true and even berated other posters who tried to point out that her perspective was myopic and things could be seen a different way. And you call other people "cheerleaders? That's rich. Yes, you and Rin explained your position 5+ items. They didn't "fail to understand."

They just didn't agree with you because the way you see things is not the only way to see them..

pieratsos

TheValar85 wrote: »

well this whole theories about ultis were porbably killing teh aspect of the pve in teh game, cos strong ultis are manadtory in pve. The only solution i can think of the completly separate teh twoo of them, if you enter to cyrodiil your ulties damages will be reduced lats say to half. And costing more ulti points. or simply strip away from meles the Mages guilds skills, after all they are not sorcerers. it should be strickly for the sorces including staff usages. it probably kill alot of builds, but at this point i dont realy care. Mele should be a mele and not a dam sorc. i dont know to be honest what would help. But ultis needs to stay strong in pve, the only thing that could work is to sync down them in pvp zones to half szied damage and double their ulti costs in pvp zones. that could help while in pve no one will experiance the diferency who is just perer to play in pve content.

PBAoE are not needed in PVE. If anything targetted AOE are the most used AOEs in PVE. Mobs wont get out of them.

pieratsos

@Joy_Division

Some people just deserve to be insulted. Its the only language they speak. So feel free to insult them. According to them it wont be an insult if its true anw.

Publius_Scipio

We need that whacky wombat Moon PiE to zerg through this thread with his gang of skeleton costume wearing sycophants. Spamming impulse, destroying this thread.

Egocanemveresum

ITT:

@Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO and @Rin_Senya whine incessantly about Joy's allegedly "insulting groups" and being "hypocritical" about ball groups since his guild left, all while condescendingly insulting him. Meanwhile Izanagi unironically posted these:

Equally cheerleaders isn't an insult, unless you take it as one

A good rule to live by would be: If you don't like being called out, don't flame in the first place.

... all while absolutely insisting that joy is a hypocrite for "insulting ball groups" by saying they look like bots. It's like you don't even read what you're writing and are doing the exact same thing you are complaining that Joy is doing. That is, ironically, the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. But I'm sure you'll try apply some tortured sophistry in an attempt to save face.

We should all just ignore those two so we can, perhaps, salvage this trainwreck of a thread.