The Current Destro Pain Train Meta Needs To Die

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

CyrusArya wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Tbh groups should be made stronger in order to encourage more groups to form.

Nah. No advantages or disadvantages should be conferred based on group status or size. The extra numbers, ultis, ability to accommodate dedicated roles, etc are more than enough of an advantage. Not to mention, lack of groups isn’t an issue rn in PvP, nor is a lack of willingness to participate in zerg play.

I disagree with you, the game was far far more interesting when there were multiple groups running around at different objectives on the map. There are far to few groups on the map and it makes gameplay stale and repetitive because of this. Also groups now are generally larger because they are harder to run in successfully.

One other problem is the inability of players to distinguish coordinated groups from their concept of 'zerg play'.

The benefit of being in a group is exactly the fact you are playing with extra players in order to take on additional challenge in your fights and fight in more situations. Why is it not a 2 way street when it comes to appreciation of good play?

The constant efforts to 'nerf' groups have lead the game down the path which its currently reached today and I think players were a lot happier in the past as all sides had their purpose and benefit.

WreckfulAbandon

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

I am dissapoint. lol

Any (Vivec) AD care to respond to my other point though? Or are you already busy stacking farra?

waitwhat

To paraphrase: In my experience, destro ults are tools of the dim-witted.

It is boring now to face off against them, because you know what to do and your build is always the same.
It is boring now to be a part of them, because they're the only way your group can do damage, so after they ult they get wrecked by stamDKs with 2-handers.

COUNTERS Part the FIRST: PLACED AOE STACKING:

1. Manifestation of Terror
2. Volcanic Rune
3. Cinder Storm
4. Daedric Mines
5. Veil of Blades
6. Beast Trap
7. Razor Caltrops

COUNTERS Part the SECOND: SPAMMABLE KNOCKBACK:

1. Aurora Javelin
2. Draining Shot
3. Destructive Reach

COUNTERS Part the THIRD: RANGED SLOWDOWN:

1. Shrouded Daggers
2. Crippling Grasp
3. Choking Talons
4. Acid Spray/Bombard
5. Encase

COUNTERS Part the FOURTH: HEALING ULTS:

1. Remembrance
2. Reviving Barrier
3. Warden Trees

COUNTERS Part the FIFTH: REPOSITION TO TANK:

1. Unrelenting Grip
2. Warden Teleport

All of the above counters neatly highlight a salient point: Not only do builds converge to support these magblades, but also builds further homogenize to counter them.

Most of Cyrodiil now is either structured to run, to support, or to counter one rotation: the destro ult bomb push.
It is boring, and has only served to further increase zergstacking on crown to maximize support build efficacy both in making, and countering, a push.

The only silver lining, per the paraphrase above, is that destro ult users can be annihilated by a competent stam build once the ulti is over.

Vilestride

waitwhat wrote: »

To paraphrase: In my experience, destro ults are tools of the dim-witted.

It is boring now to face off against them, because you know what to do and your build is always the same.
It is boring now to be a part of them, because they're the only way your group can do damage, so after they ult they get wrecked by stamDKs with 2-handers.

COUNTERS Part the FIRST: PLACED AOE STACKING:

1. Manifestation of Terror
2. Volcanic Rune
3. Cinder Storm
4. Daedric Mines
5. Veil of Blades
6. Beast Trap
7. Razor Caltrops

COUNTERS Part the SECOND: SPAMMABLE KNOCKBACK:

1. Aurora Javelin
2. Draining Shot
3. Destructive Reach

COUNTERS Part the THIRD: RANGED SLOWDOWN:

1. Shrouded Daggers
2. Crippling Grasp
3. Choking Talons
4. Acid Spray/Bombard
5. Encase

COUNTERS Part the FOURTH: HEALING ULTS:

1. Remembrance
2. Reviving Barrier
3. Warden Trees

COUNTERS Part the FIFTH: REPOSITION TO TANK:

1. Unrelenting Grip
2. Warden Teleport

All of the above counters neatly highlight a salient point: Not only do builds converge to support these magblades, but also builds further homogenize to counter them.

Most of Cyrodiil now is either structured to run, to support, or to counter one rotation: the destro ult bomb push.
It is boring, and has only served to further increase zergstacking on crown to maximize support build efficacy both in making, and countering, a push.

The only silver lining, per the paraphrase above, is that destro ult users can be annihilated by a competent stam build once the ulti is over.

This applies far more relevantly to solo bombers than groups. Half the things you mentioned will be purged away instantly or prevented in the first place by rapids.

You are right though.

CyrusArya

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

I disagree with you, the game was far far more interesting when there were multiple groups running around at different objectives on the map. There are far to few groups on the map and it makes gameplay stale and repetitive because of this. Also groups now are generally larger because they are harder to run in successfully.

One other problem is the inability of players to distinguish coordinated groups from their concept of 'zerg play'.

The benefit of being in a group is exactly the fact you are playing with extra players in order to take on additional challenge in your fights and fight in more situations. Why is it not a 2 way street when it comes to appreciation of good play?

The constant efforts to 'nerf' groups have lead the game down the path which its currently reached today and I think players were a lot happier in the past as all sides had their purpose and benefit.

All I am saying is that no benefits or handicaps should be given based on whether or not you are grouped, or the size of your group. Not advocating buffs or nerfs to any playstyle, I'm neutral to the current status quo sans AoE Caps.

I agree with you that more organized groups is a good thing, and that it is healthy for the game.The reason there are less guild groups is simply a function of overall PvP population being lower than before. But relative to what exists, there are actually plenty of guilds and routine groups of 6+ per faction if you really pay attention, which is my point. The issue isn't quantity, its quality. For every one Dracarys there are a dozen low quality or faction stacking guilds that, due to how they operate, might give the impression group play is marginalized. Its not. They just play like that because the institutional knowledge on good large group play and tactics such as with your own outfit is often all locked behind the same few guilds. The same knowledge and acumen that allows guilds to strike out on their own, push the map, create their own fights, and make a name for themselves. You don't address this by lowering the floor of entry and buffing groups- I will always be opposed to lowering the floor and intentionally dumbing the game down. You do that by dispersing knowledge and helping train the next generation of guilds. Which btw you guys have been doing a great job of with your videos and podcasts, and I applaud your efforts.

emma666

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

CyrusArya wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Tbh groups should be made stronger in order to encourage more groups to form.

Nah. No advantages or disadvantages should be conferred based on group status or size. The extra numbers, ultis, ability to accommodate dedicated roles, etc are more than enough of an advantage. Not to mention, lack of groups isn’t an issue rn in PvP, nor is a lack of willingness to participate in zerg play.

I disagree with you, the game was far far more interesting when there were multiple groups running around at different objectives on the map. There are far to few groups on the map and it makes gameplay stale and repetitive because of this. Also groups now are generally larger because they are harder to run in successfully.

One other problem is the inability of players to distinguish coordinated groups from their concept of 'zerg play'.

The benefit of being in a group is exactly the fact you are playing with extra players in order to take on additional challenge in your fights and fight in more situations. Why is it not a 2 way street when it comes to appreciation of good play?

The constant efforts to 'nerf' groups have lead the game down the path which its currently reached today and I think players were a lot happier in the past as all sides had their purpose and benefit.

Bigger groups already have buffs, aoe caps is a big crutch and people who aren't skilled in PvP tend to zerg and outnumber their opponent because it's easier. You say that the benefit of being in a group with extra players is to take on additional challenge in fights, do you really think majority of players in PvP think that? I'll tell you right now, majority of players wants to zerg because they want to outnumber and easy wins, why give them even more tools to do so than the current benefit of already having more players and free damage mitigation..?

Vilestride

CyrusArya wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

I disagree with you, the game was far far more interesting when there were multiple groups running around at different objectives on the map. There are far to few groups on the map and it makes gameplay stale and repetitive because of this. Also groups now are generally larger because they are harder to run in successfully.

One other problem is the inability of players to distinguish coordinated groups from their concept of 'zerg play'.

The benefit of being in a group is exactly the fact you are playing with extra players in order to take on additional challenge in your fights and fight in more situations. Why is it not a 2 way street when it comes to appreciation of good play?

The constant efforts to 'nerf' groups have lead the game down the path which its currently reached today and I think players were a lot happier in the past as all sides had their purpose and benefit.

All I am saying is that no benefits or handicaps should be given based on whether or not you are grouped, or the size of your group. Not advocating buffs or nerfs to any playstyle, I'm neutral to the current status quo sans AoE Caps.

I do agree with this. And I do agree with the removal of AoE caps with the exception of where they are specified by the ability.

I think alot of what we are seeing in this thread is attributed to by population decrease.

As pointed out this game has been dominated by ball groups and various metas since launch. In my opinion the main difference between then and now is not whether it's destro ult or impulse or whatever. It's that in the past I could just leave and get another fight. Now there are only a few fights on the map. And that's not because your average player is zergier than at launch by nature. It's because there is less action period so we go looking in the spots we know we will get it.

And the population decrease is attributed to by alot more than destro ult or zergs.

So I think it's less that destro meta is inherently worse, and more that now it is harder to avoid.

DisgracefulMind

I think a common problem that plagues not just the PvP world but also the PvE world is diversity. Sure, you can go out and solo/small scale on pretty much anything and have some sort of fun, whether super successful or not. In PvE different content requires different group comps. But the issue with PvP group play is that, yes, only 2-3 ults reign supreme and leave little options for the necessity of much else. This is also an issue in PvE.

I don't think anyone here is trying to insult anyone else in any way, and I think we can all agree that we'd like to see ESO move in a better direction. People have called out for more diversity in group comps, ultimates, gear, etc. for a long time, yet ZoS seems to go the opposite direction and narrows down out selection each patch. I think this is really the deep issue here. It does get stale, people tend to drift away after some time, and we're left with less teams and such getting together.

I don't have the solution, I can just say as a long-time player, and as someone who knows both sides of this game on a competitive level, having something extremely OP for so long and being pigeonholed into it to stay competitive does get old. And, to clarify, EOTS is OP; if it wasn't, why else would we all be using it?

EDIT: Further thinking about it, honestly, I think EOTS wouldn't be so bad and hated if it wasn't for VD. That set honestly is one of my most hated sets. It can't crit anymore, which, I can't say enough how much I love that proc sets can't crit, but when it's used in combination with EOTS, multiple ones at that, and certain gear on certain classes, well, we all know the results.

dsalter

alephthiago wrote: »

I do run in an organized destro train group but agree with this wholeheartedly, just keep in mind that bats, meteor and proxy det are still out there and a magblade built for destro bombs can still deal a good amount of damage with these tools.

pointblank massive AoE's that follow you are cancer for any pvp environment, just ask wow. they had to nerf them all just cause of similar planning

Vilestride

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

I think a common problem that plagues not just the PvP world but also the PvE world is diversity. Sure, you can go out and solo/small scale on pretty much anything and have some sort of fun, whether super successful or not. In PvE different content requires different group comps. But the issue with PvP group play is that, yes, only 2-3 ults reign supreme and leave little options for the necessity of much else. This is also an issue in PvE.

I don't think anyone here is trying to insult anyone else in any way, and I think we can all agree that we'd like to see ESO move in a better direction. People have called out for more diversity in group comps, ultimates, gear, etc. for a long time, yet ZoS seems to go the opposite direction and narrows down out selection each patch. I think this is really the deep issue here. It does get stale, people tend to drift away after some time, and we're left with less teams and such getting together.

I don't have the solution, I can just say as a long-time player, and as someone who knows both sides of this game on a competitive level, having something extremely OP for so long and being pigeonholed into it to stay competitive does get old. And, to clarify, EOTS is OP; if it wasn't, why else would we all be using it?

EDIT: Further thinking about it, honestly, I think EOTS wouldn't be so bad and hated if it wasn't for VD. That set honestly is one of my most hated sets. It can't crit anymore, which, I can't say enough how much I love that proc sets can't crit, but when it's used in combination with EOTS, multiple ones at that, and certain gear on certain classes, well, we all know the results.

I want to add to this. I agree, and I think viable build diversity and group composition is important and ultimately what we all want. What I want to discuss further, and I have seen it quoted here and in many other threads, is the point of "play how you want".

Now, I honestly think this is where we have all gone wrong the developers most of all, because in pursuing this philosophy I think they have actually caused the opposite. It was never the intent but definitely the effect. I believe in play how you want, but I think we are trying to do it in the wrong way, because what has happened is all classes have become too equalised and generally well rounded. The result of this is minute differences becoming all important and now you no longer need a variety of classes, you just need the ones that are minutely better at achieving the same results.

As long as ZoS and the community are advocating for play as you want, in the sense of all classes are just as good at all roles, then we are always going to see some kind of tunnel visioning in the meta. What we need to be aiming for is for all classes and roles to be vastly unique from one another. In this way you would require the multiple benefits added from each type of player and class to be successful. If this philosophy was balanced and pursued, not only would build variety be viable, it would be optimal.

So when I think play as you want, I don't expect to be able to play My Stam DK as a healer....I expect nothing more than if I want to play a healer, I can create a templar who will then have an uncompromising value to raids and group within PVP because I offer something unique. This is just one example, I hope you understand the point I am trying to make. This is the conversation I want to be having regarding meta.

For one more controversial cherry on top, I would love to see Rock paper scissors type counter play and in my opinion, there is nothing to freshen up metas more than this fundamental principle. I want the game to go in the direction where it is clear that X type of build will beat Y built But Z will beat X and loose to Y so on.

fastolfv_ESO

you need a counter to massive numbers of players in one place, plain and simple. You cripple aoe enough and its just a game of numbers, and lets not forget once we saw destro damage lowered the heavy meta was pushed even further to make blobs that didnt take damage causing even worse issues to cyro balance. Is there a solution to this whole thing? yes rebalance the entire game

Jawasa

Nerfing rapids is the worst Idea so far in here. That just force us into some kind of small scale build zerg meta with oil and fire ballistas that allready is run by most players in cyrodil. Players complain about no skill destro blobs and run solo on a small scale build inside the 40 man faction pug zerg.

Fel

the (current) destro meta (or anti zerg meta) is probably only Happening because smallscale ppl are looking for a way to deal with the big zerg blobs
....ergo if you want to stop them, jsut stop zerging
....argo ben affleck

DisgracefulMind

Vilestride wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

I think a common problem that plagues not just the PvP world but also the PvE world is diversity. Sure, you can go out and solo/small scale on pretty much anything and have some sort of fun, whether super successful or not. In PvE different content requires different group comps. But the issue with PvP group play is that, yes, only 2-3 ults reign supreme and leave little options for the necessity of much else. This is also an issue in PvE.

I don't think anyone here is trying to insult anyone else in any way, and I think we can all agree that we'd like to see ESO move in a better direction. People have called out for more diversity in group comps, ultimates, gear, etc. for a long time, yet ZoS seems to go the opposite direction and narrows down out selection each patch. I think this is really the deep issue here. It does get stale, people tend to drift away after some time, and we're left with less teams and such getting together.

I don't have the solution, I can just say as a long-time player, and as someone who knows both sides of this game on a competitive level, having something extremely OP for so long and being pigeonholed into it to stay competitive does get old. And, to clarify, EOTS is OP; if it wasn't, why else would we all be using it?

EDIT: Further thinking about it, honestly, I think EOTS wouldn't be so bad and hated if it wasn't for VD. That set honestly is one of my most hated sets. It can't crit anymore, which, I can't say enough how much I love that proc sets can't crit, but when it's used in combination with EOTS, multiple ones at that, and certain gear on certain classes, well, we all know the results.

I want to add to this. I agree, and I think viable build diversity and group composition is important and ultimately what we all want. What I want to discuss further, and I have seen it quoted here and in many other threads, is the point of "play how you want".

Now, I honestly think this is where we have all gone wrong the developers most of all, because in pursuing this philosophy I think they have actually caused the opposite. It was never the intent but definitely the effect. I believe in play how you want, but I think we are trying to do it in the wrong way, because what has happened is all classes have become too equalised and generally well rounded. The result of this is minute differences becoming all important and now you no longer need a variety of classes, you just need the ones that are minutely better at achieving the same results.

As long as ZoS and the community are advocating for play as you want, in the sense of all classes are just as good at all roles, then we are always going to see some kind of tunnel visioning in the meta. What we need to be aiming for is for all classes and roles to be vastly unique from one another. In this way you would require the multiple benefits added from each type of player and class to be successful. If this philosophy was balanced and pursued, not only would build variety be viable, it would be optimal.

So when I think play as you want, I don't expect to be able to play My Stam DK as a healer....I expect nothing more than if I want to play a healer, I can create a templar who will then have an uncompromising value to raids and group within PVP because I offer something unique. This is just one example, I hope you understand the point I am trying to make. This is the conversation I want to be having regarding meta.

For one more controversial cherry on top, I would love to see Rock paper scissors type counter play and in my opinion, there is nothing to freshen up metas more than this fundamental principle. I want the game to go in the direction where it is clear that X type of build will beat Y built But Z will beat X and loose to Y so on.

I never said that I think that "play how you want" is a good idea. I think it's fine for separate classes to be better at different roles and some being weaker at others, that's good diversity for me. I'm just stating that being pigeonholed into 2-3 ults isn't diverse, and ZoS is doing opposite of their original goal, as you said in your post as well. ZoS' approach to diversity isn't the right one. As I said, I really don't have a solution, I can just hope they realize the mistakes they're making.

Jawasa

Destro, negate, sleet, rites of passage and prob meteor and/or dbos. Only dk left out in large groups atm.

Anazasi

****Caution wall of text incoming*****

Well this is turning into a nice philosophical debate on changing meta. It's rather interesting to see this happening now as if there is some hidden time clock that says if the meta doesn't change by x days, developers will have to nerf the meta in order to save the population from itself. However, everyone needs to remember, you can't say lets versify; toss in several classes doing dps and then slap a meta label on it. I had a very interesting night last night and while the "New Meta" was very strong there's nothing new about it. So you toss in the regular splatter of rapid sorcs and purge sorcs, toss in a few stam warden healers and then round up a bunch of stam dps and call it the "New Meta" just because you're tired of the old "meta"? The old meta really being about support roles and what classes fill them for optimal performance, not the fact that it was 1 particular over performing ability or DPS class. I can make that call because all the "new meta" is doing is changing DPS roles and still has all the elements of the old destro meta mixed in. So groups are going to swing back to stam groups which makes the entire meta trail just one big circle jerk: who's providing the towels cause I can make a pretty big mess. I think everyone aside from IZY is totally overthinking this "hype". The community does not need another meta like the steel tornado days; and you recall how fast that was nerfed especially after the long period of the Impulse and then the shorter period of proxi balls. What it needs are more organized groups with better play mechanics. Actual fixes to broken abilities, lag fixes, and of course population balances. I should point out that Meta groups when used at map objectives only serve to create lag, genuinely make for bad player experiences, and cause unnecessary stress on both players and server. The average player does not care about meta's. They care about objective play and having fun. The so called meta groups like Dracarys, strategically place themselves in locations in order to draw in the other groups which is often in more remote places limiting the lag and attention they draw (a very good thing for the entire health of a server and campaign). While others like Invictus, who have no regard for campaign health tend to surf along with other causal raids feeding off the zergs. This type of change, a meta shift is going to cause more players to leave either the game entirely or the campaign. Why you ask? The skill level gap between these players who naturally gravitate towards each other and the casual gamer who just likes to play is already too wide (indicator of incoming nerfs). It is easier, to reroll to another faction so you can be on the winning side than to learn how to be a better player thus a population imbalance exists. It's not about "play as you like" or even about cross faction play. It's about human nature and the culture of winning.

So how does any of this meta change actually help the obvious issues the community faces on a daily basis?

*you can argue about everything I have said here. You can complain about all the abilities you want. But the fact is all the issues the community faces is not 1 or 2 "new things" it's a culmination of it all. I believe IZY used the term power creep or health creep at one point and that perhaps is the real issue we should be looking at.

Thraben

waitwhat wrote: »

To paraphrase: In my experience, destro ults are tools of the dim-witted.

It is boring now to face off against them, because you know what to do and your build is always the same.
It is boring now to be a part of them, because they're the only way your group can do damage, so after they ult they get wrecked by stamDKs with 2-handers.


COUNTERS Part the THIRD: RANGED SLOWDOWN:

1. Shrouded Daggers
2. Crippling Grasp
3. Choking Talons
4. Acid Spray/Bombard
5. Encase

All of the above counters neatly highlight a salient point: Not only do builds converge to support these magblades, but also builds further homogenize to counter them.

Most of Cyrodiil now is either structured to run, to support, or to counter one rotation: the destro ult bomb push.
It is boring, and has only served to further increase zergstacking on crown to maximize support build efficacy both in making, and countering, a push.

The only silver lining, per the paraphrase above, is that destro ult users can be annihilated by a competent stam build once the ulti is over.

They must have been really been dim witted to get countered by acid spray Nothing of the third category works if they know what they are doing, because of rapid and purge spam.


And that´s the thing: Eye-of-the-Storm led to a decrease in group play difficulty. People are imitating the really good guild groups like ZS or Drac without having their experience, skill, or commitment, and can still be moderately succesful.

The only way to promote diversity would be to actively discourage people from using THE one meta AoE skill, for example by building up a partial immunity to its effects (say, 75%) when another player uses the same skill on them, like mentionned above. Well, this and completely rework Meteor as it is broken beyond repair.

DeadlyRecluse

It's the AOE ult with the largest margin for error in terms of timing and placement. Plain and simple. In a scenario when you can afford to let it build, it's also phenomenal damage. And it's the most efficient in mobile fights, while not being *much* worse than other ults in stationary fights.

I want to coordinate synergized nova+standard in a chokepoint along with a spicy negate again---but those just get erased by earthgore.

GrigorijMalahevich

You know why people are running destro trains? Because they are effective.

Massively nerfing destro trains will bring back more sorcerers in a group with more supression fields and people will find another meta... You can’t always nerf things that are overused, it has nothing to do with balance... It is overperforming in a scenario for which it was specifically created - why the tears man? Better to create counter play, like give magplars ultimate AOE immunity to magic damage for 5 seconds or something.

Same story with earthgore...

Giraffon

I wonder what would happen if collision dynamics were added to one of the campaigns. This would be in effect for both friendly and non-friendly forces.

The-Baconator

Yes the destro ult is strong and a very prominent fixture in any organized group, but part of the problem is that a lot of other changes by ZOS to make mindlessly stacking less rewarding--negate buff, lowering mitigation from AoE caps, barrier nerf, remembrance nerf, etc--have made movable\moving PBAoEs even more valuable when compared to targeted fire and forget AoEs. Since the introduction of the destro ult group movement has become paramount because no matter how on point your heals\purges are if your group gets caught in negate(s) for 4-5 second while getting sieged and\or bombed your either wiped or on the verge of wiping.

Also, in an environment in which a properly executed push by a twelve man means whatever you touch within the first 1-2 seconds of your push melts, stationary AoEs are largely wasted with everything being dead inside their radius before they're even half way used up. Both of these factors together would leave even a ranged ult that's greater than the destro ult in raw damage potential at a significant disadvantage when compared to the mobile version.

Overall I'm not really certain what can be done about this. As someone who recently came back to the game after a long hiatus, I'm not sure I would necessarily say the destro ult is "OP" anymore. At release it was undoubtedly a joke, but looking at the numbers now with how tanky you can make certain specs--that are still useful in dps, healing, or support roles--the level of damage is sort of necessary. I would rather see ZOS actually make changes to things like nova, standard, veil, etc to make them more appealing, by adding in things like "Extreme" tier buffs that exist outside the major\minor system and bring some uniqueness back to the classes. Because lets be honest, even before the destro ult when it was just VD with tether\meteor\negate how competitive were most of these ultimates anyway? It's just as much those ults being near useless--or incredibly situational and expensive--as the destro ult\negate being so good.

Agrippa_Invisus

Giraffon wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if collision dynamics were added to one of the campaigns. This would be in effect for both friendly and non-friendly forces.

More lag. CD requires a lot of additional server calculations which will help things to grind to an even bigger halt.

DisgracefulMind

Anazasi wrote: »

****Caution wall of text incoming*****

Well this is turning into a nice philosophical debate on changing meta. It's rather interesting to see this happening now as if there is some hidden time clock that says if the meta doesn't change by x days, developers will have to nerf the meta in order to save the population from itself. However, everyone needs to remember, you can't say lets versify; toss in several classes doing dps and then slap a meta label on it. I had a very interesting night last night and while the "New Meta" was very strong there's nothing new about it. So you toss in the regular splatter of rapid sorcs and purge sorcs, toss in a few stam warden healers and then round up a bunch of stam dps and call it the "New Meta" just because you're tired of the old "meta"? The old meta really being about support roles and what classes fill them for optimal performance, not the fact that it was 1 particular over performing ability or DPS class. I can make that call because all the "new meta" is doing is changing DPS roles and still has all the elements of the old destro meta mixed in. So groups are going to swing back to stam groups which makes the entire meta trail just one big circle jerk: who's providing the towels cause I can make a pretty big mess. I think everyone aside from IZY is totally overthinking this "hype". The community does not need another meta like the steel tornado days; and you recall how fast that was nerfed especially after the long period of the Impulse and then the shorter period of proxi balls. What it needs are more organized groups with better play mechanics. Actual fixes to broken abilities, lag fixes, and of course population balances. I should point out that Meta groups when used at map objectives only serve to create lag, genuinely make for bad player experiences, and cause unnecessary stress on both players and server. The average player does not care about meta's. They care about objective play and having fun. The so called meta groups like Dracarys, strategically place themselves in locations in order to draw in the other groups which is often in more remote places limiting the lag and attention they draw (a very good thing for the entire health of a server and campaign). While others like Invictus, who have no regard for campaign health tend to surf along with other causal raids feeding off the zergs. This type of change, a meta shift is going to cause more players to leave either the game entirely or the campaign. Why you ask? The skill level gap between these players who naturally gravitate towards each other and the casual gamer who just likes to play is already too wide (indicator of incoming nerfs). It is easier, to reroll to another faction so you can be on the winning side than to learn how to be a better player thus a population imbalance exists. It's not about "play as you like" or even about cross faction play. It's about human nature and the culture of winning.

So how does any of this meta change actually help the obvious issues the community faces on a daily basis?

*you can argue about everything I have said here. You can complain about all the abilities you want. But the fact is all the issues the community faces is not 1 or 2 "new things" it's a culmination of it all. I believe IZY used the term power creep or health creep at one point and that perhaps is the real issue we should be looking at.

I was interested in your opinions until you decided to insult my guild again. You may have issues with some of our members, but quit insulting my guild every chance you get. You don't see most of our members on here talking down to anyone. You say we don't care about campaign health, but that's not true at all. You will see us defending keeps and going out in the middle of nowhere to draw aggro from our side of the map often enough. While I can't control what groups do on off nights, our raid nights (which are limited, mind you, people have lives) are focused on finding good fights while defending our map. If you have issues with that, I still don't know what to tell you.

As for the point here, don't think anyone is asking for an extreme swing in the meta, I personally stated that I just feel like this particular meta has no diversity in it, and that is why people come to the forums discussing things like destro ult. We've seen this countless of times. I feel that limiting diversity has and will still be a cause of loss of interest to many players. I'm not saying ZoS needs to follow the pattern that they always have, I'm saying the opposite of that. I don't just speak from a PvP perspective either. It happens across the board to every aspect of end-game content in ESO. There will always be a "meta", but we could have a meta with more options in it. That, I know for a fact, would attract more players.

And, yes, we have experienced quite a "power creep" after the Morrowind nerfs. This should be looked at. But it is also something that needs to be carefully looked at because there's more than just PvP that this would affect. ZoS has stated that they will not balance PvE and PvP separately. This is why I don't think anything extreme should be changed, would just like to see some more thought and effort put into making more than just a few ults and skills overbearingly strong.

DisgracefulMind

The-Baconator wrote: »

I would rather see ZOS actually make changes to things like nova, standard, veil, etc to make them more appealing, by adding in things like "Extreme" tier buffs that exist outside the major\minor system and bring some uniqueness back to the classes.

This. Just bring some strength back to classes and ults. Bring some diversity back. Oh, and trash Earthgore, who thought that was a good idea ffs.

Agrippa_Invisus

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

The-Baconator wrote: »

I would rather see ZOS actually make changes to things like nova, standard, veil, etc to make them more appealing, by adding in things like "Extreme" tier buffs that exist outside the major\minor system and bring some uniqueness back to the classes.

This. Just bring some strength back to classes and ults. Bring some diversity back. Oh, and trash Earthgore, who thought that was a good idea ffs.

Exactly. That's what I wanted to see and was the ultimate goal of making this thread.

I want to see Novas and Banners and Veils and Magma Armors and Remembrances and Destro and Pooh Bear and Storm Atros and Negates and all the other flavors of the rainbow be at least somewhat viable in PVP. There was a time they used to be, and that time is long past.

A big part of that is Earthgore. Earthgore was key to further calcifying an already sedentary meta.

Addendum:

@Anazasi

Taran - You make it really hard to engage in constructive conversation with you when you're repeatedly insulting my guild.

That we're here, talking about this, is proof enough we give a hoot about what's going on in game and want a healthy environment that solos, small men, mid size, and full size groups can enjoy. That makes the game better for everyone.

Kilandros

Anazasi wrote: »

****Caution wall of text incoming*****

Well this is turning into a nice philosophical debate on changing meta. It's rather interesting to see this happening now as if there is some hidden time clock that says if the meta doesn't change by x days, developers will have to nerf the meta in order to save the population from itself. However, everyone needs to remember, you can't say lets versify; toss in several classes doing dps and then slap a meta label on it. I had a very interesting night last night and while the "New Meta" was very strong there's nothing new about it. So you toss in the regular splatter of rapid sorcs and purge sorcs, toss in a few stam warden healers and then round up a bunch of stam dps and call it the "New Meta" just because you're tired of the old "meta"? The old meta really being about support roles and what classes fill them for optimal performance, not the fact that it was 1 particular over performing ability or DPS class. I can make that call because all the "new meta" is doing is changing DPS roles and still has all the elements of the old destro meta mixed in. So groups are going to swing back to stam groups which makes the entire meta trail just one big circle jerk: who's providing the towels cause I can make a pretty big mess. I think everyone aside from IZY is totally overthinking this "hype". The community does not need another meta like the steel tornado days; and you recall how fast that was nerfed especially after the long period of the Impulse and then the shorter period of proxi balls. What it needs are more organized groups with better play mechanics. Actual fixes to broken abilities, lag fixes, and of course population balances. I should point out that Meta groups when used at map objectives only serve to create lag, genuinely make for bad player experiences, and cause unnecessary stress on both players and server. The average player does not care about meta's. They care about objective play and having fun. The so called meta groups like Dracarys, strategically place themselves in locations in order to draw in the other groups which is often in more remote places limiting the lag and attention they draw (a very good thing for the entire health of a server and campaign). While others like Invictus, who have no regard for campaign health tend to surf along with other causal raids feeding off the zergs. This type of change, a meta shift is going to cause more players to leave either the game entirely or the campaign. Why you ask? The skill level gap between these players who naturally gravitate towards each other and the casual gamer who just likes to play is already too wide (indicator of incoming nerfs). It is easier, to reroll to another faction so you can be on the winning side than to learn how to be a better player thus a population imbalance exists. It's not about "play as you like" or even about cross faction play. It's about human nature and the culture of winning.

So how does any of this meta change actually help the obvious issues the community faces on a daily basis?

*you can argue about everything I have said here. You can complain about all the abilities you want. But the fact is all the issues the community faces is not 1 or 2 "new things" it's a culmination of it all. I believe IZY used the term power creep or health creep at one point and that perhaps is the real issue we should be looking at.

Taran I can't help it if my group zerg of 8 wipes your group twice and then caps Alessia out from underneath you like last night. Nice attempt at a stealth bomb btw.

Joy_Division

@Anazasi

Was it necessary to insult and make (what I feel are baseless) accusations? You aren't in their Teamspeak, you have zero insight into their motivations. Just what you assume from an opponent and an outsider.

How would you like it is we took shots at your guild from this very same biased and problematic perspective? How would you like it if I screenshot what EP zone chats says about your guild and proclaim it to be factual and the truth? So cut the crap.

Ghostbane

Joy_Division wrote: »

@Anazasi

Was it necessary to insult and make (what I feel are baseless) accusations? You aren't in their Teamspeak, you have zero insight into their motivations. Just what you assume from an opponent and an outsider.

How would you like it is we took shots at your guild from this very same biased and problematic perspective? How would you like it if I screenshot what EP zone chats says about your guild and proclaim it to be factual and the truth? So cut the crap.

umagon

The aoe spam will remain effective if the mechanics that allow it function continue to exist. If the ability for 20+ player to stand in one place was removed then the effectiveness of spamming aoe would be reduced. And players would be forced to use varied tactics.

What I would like to see zos do is turn on player collision outside of the border keeps. Then setup non-collision zones around the keep/outpost transitus shrines, and vendors; that are only active when the keep/outpost isn’t on fire.

Followed by extending the interaction range of the doors and allowing dodge rolling to clip though friendly units. And limit aoe to 5 targets. Leave it like that for a week and see what happens.

vortexman11

Apologies for whoever *** in your cereal Taran, but you should of put that bowl down the second you noticed how salty it was. Sometimes I wonder if the PvP community's inability to have open discussions without taking shots at each other is the reason we're so often brushed to the side. Anyways, time to get this train back on track.

As with many things in ESO this meta is a complicated issue. Eye of The Storm follows the whole direction which both aspects of the game are going by attempting to decrease the gap between the casual player that simply wants to login, cast their ultimate, get a few kills, call it a day, and the more serious players who login daily and often play at a higher level. This is why I have my doubts that it will ever be nerfed to the point where another ultimate overtakes it's spot as "meta".

Now, I understand that not everyone will find the EoTS meta stale, some people may even enjoy it, but I think we can all agree on the fact that build diversity and class diversity has taken a nose dive in organised PvP over the last year or so, in fact from my view group play has been getting stale ever since Vicious Death was released. When we were essentially told that in order to fight outnumbered (I'm not talking about Small/Medium scale outnumbered, I mean fighting 35+ people) and output enough DPS to burst through heals and AoE caps we MUST equip this set. Ever since then, any iteration of a "bomb build" was more or less forced into including this set.

Even after EoTS was initially released we still had mDKs, mTemplars, mSorcs all running (you guessed it) Vicious Death + ________ successfully bombing groups, we had class diversity in roles but a lack of build diversity. Don't get me wrong Nightblades always output more damage than the rest, but the reason they seem to outshine every other class by so much right now is simply because the nerfs to EoTS increased the importance of pushing every last bit of damage out of your main damage dealers.

I know I ramble a lot but I'm honestly just trying to explain that this whole "meta" is a product of more than just EoTS, there are layers upon layers plastered ontop of each other. For all we know it might be messier peeling them back than keeping them in place and focusing elsewhere.