The Current Destro Pain Train Meta Needs To Die

Kilandros

umagon wrote: »

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.

AoE already caps at 6 I don't really see what reducing that to 5 would do. Especially considering many (if not most) PvPers agree that AoE caps should be removed, not reduced.

As I see it, as long as the AoE cap protects players who stack (i.e., if I'm around more than 6 players, some of us will take reduced damage) the gameplay is only going to promote stacking. Remove AoE caps (i.e., there's no damage reduction benefit to being near other players) and people will start to spread out more to get away from the VD pinatas.

Like a couple of other people mentioned in this thread already, the only advantage of having greater numbers should be greater numbers. You shouldn't also benefit from a damage reduction simply because you've managed to stack enough people in a particular space.

Kilandros

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.

That's not even remotely close to what Arya was saying though. He's saying that a group of 16 shouldn't have any additional advantage over a group of 6, for example, other than the advantage of having more numbers, more ultimates, more specific roles. A group of 16 shouldn't also benefit from reduced AoE damage thanks to AoE caps--a benefit that a group of 6 does not enjoy.

umagon

Kilandros wrote: »

umagon wrote: »

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.

AoE already caps at 6 I don't really see what reducing that to 5 would do. Especially considering many (if not most) PvPers agree that AoE caps should be removed, not reduced.

As I see it, as long as the AoE cap protects players who stack (i.e., if I'm around more than 6 players, some of us will take reduced damage) the gameplay is only going to promote stacking. Remove AoE caps (i.e., there's no damage reduction benefit to being near other players) and people will start to spread out more to get away from the VD pinatas.

Like a couple of other people mentioned in this thread already, the only advantage of having greater numbers should be greater numbers. You shouldn't also benefit from a damage reduction simply because you've managed to stack enough people in a particular space.

You aren’t considering that part of the performance issues is due to players using large amounts of aoe in a small area. Taking the caps off will just increase the amount of calculations the server will have to do. Allowing collision addresses both the issue of players clustering into one small area and theoretically should alleviate some of the performance problems with the server by lowering the calculations it has to preform for skills, etc. Lowering the targets 5 is about reducing the calculations over a large area, all of those 1 less events to calculate for add up.

Every attempt zos has tried by allowing for more damage and/or skills to cascade over a large area in hopes players would spread out has failed. I think it’s time to try something else.

Kilandros

umagon wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

umagon wrote: »

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.

AoE already caps at 6 I don't really see what reducing that to 5 would do. Especially considering many (if not most) PvPers agree that AoE caps should be removed, not reduced.

As I see it, as long as the AoE cap protects players who stack (i.e., if I'm around more than 6 players, some of us will take reduced damage) the gameplay is only going to promote stacking. Remove AoE caps (i.e., there's no damage reduction benefit to being near other players) and people will start to spread out more to get away from the VD pinatas.

Like a couple of other people mentioned in this thread already, the only advantage of having greater numbers should be greater numbers. You shouldn't also benefit from a damage reduction simply because you've managed to stack enough people in a particular space.

You aren’t considering that part of the performance issues is due to players using large amounts of aoe in a small area. Taking the caps off will just increase the amount of calculations the server will have to do. Allowing collision addresses both the issue of players clustering into one small area and theoretically should alleviate some of the performance problems with the server by lowering the calculations it has to preform for skills, etc. Lowering the targets 5 is about reducing the calculations over a large area, all of those 1 less events to calculate for add up.

Every attempt zos has tried by allowing for more damage and/or skills to cascade over a large area in hopes players would spread out has failed. I think it’s time to try something else.

I'm not sure the increased calculations is true though. You might know more about server calcs and stuff in which case definitely feel free to enlighten me, but it was my understanding that the way AoE is currently calculated actually adds considerable calculation stress because AoE has diminishing returns at certain target threshholds which each have to be calculated, whereas a total removal would simplify calculations considerably.

So for example, currently if player A hits a Destro on 60 players, the server needs to calculate the Destro at 100% damage on the first 6 players, then 50% on the next 24, then 25% on the remaining 30.

Compared to if caps were removed, the server just calculates 100% damage on all 60.

EDIT: I agree that every attempt ZOS has made to spread out players has failed, but I think it's failed because AoE caps removal was never tried. ZOS can add as much crazy AoE damage, VD, proxy det, whatever they want but players will still stack if putting 24 people in one place means 18 of them get a 50% damage reduction from any one source of AoE.

AngryOldMan

I saw 3 DK bombers taking out whole ball group. I thing they used proximity detonation and take flight, in one go the ball group was gone.

Psilent

Anazasi wrote: »

. While others like Invictus, who have no regard for campaign health tend to surf along with other causal raids feeding off the zergs.

Taran, please keep this post on topic; bringing up lies is only going to incite players and get a good thread locked. I can tell you from experience that Invictus is very much not a toxic guild at all; never has been and never will be in the future.

Anyway...

Being a player who prefers stamina over magicka; I really dislike this meta. Playing StamDK/StamSorc is a lot of fun, but this meta relegated me to a life of rapid spamming and negating. I think at one point I had two attack abilities on my bar; Blade Cloak and Hurricane. Got so bored of the meta that I have quit ESO PvP; I still login, but I just do dailies and logout.

It would be nice if other ultimates were brought up to be made useful enough that groups would need members to slot them.

Anazasi

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

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.

You want to see other Ulti's that's fine and would be nice but face the reality players aren't using them for a reason. None of the old nostalgic Ultis are being used because huh there OLD out of date and sub par to mobility.

Agrippa_Invisus

Anazasi wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

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.

You want to see other Ulti's that's fine and would be nice but face the reality players aren't using them for a reason. None of the old nostalgic Ultis are being used because huh there OLD out of date and sub par to mobility.

Those primary reasons are that Earthgore and that Destro still remain so good it dwarfs the ability of the other ultis to keep up. How many times has a negate or a nova vanished into an Earthgore proc? I literally haven't seen someone drop a Veil in months.

Being old doesn't negate the fact that they should be at least a somewhat viable option. Should I take Flame Lash off my DK's bar because it was around at game inception? Or Coagulated Blood? The age of the skill vis a vis the game's life span has no bearing on the utility of said skill.

Anazasi

Psilent wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

. While others like Invictus, who have no regard for campaign health tend to surf along with other causal raids feeding off the zergs.

Taran, please keep this post on topic; bringing up lies is only going to incite players and get a good thread locked. I can tell you from experience that Invictus is very much not a toxic guild at all; never has been and never will be in the future.

Anyway...

Being a player who prefers stamina over magicka; I really dislike this meta. Playing StamDK/StamSorc is a lot of fun, but this meta relegated me to a life of rapid spamming and negating. I think at one point I had two attack abilities on my bar; Blade Cloak and Hurricane. Got so bored of the meta that I have quit ESO PvP; I still login, but I just do dailies and logout.

It would be nice if other ultimates were brought up to be made useful enough that groups would need members to slot them.

Again everything I have said is true on topic and factual. Perhaps the jab at Invictus was unfair or uncalled and for that i can apologize. But the mechanics, comp, meta, desire to change part is on the money and I support it.

Anazasi

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

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.

You want to see other Ulti's that's fine and would be nice but face the reality players aren't using them for a reason. None of the old nostalgic Ultis are being used because huh there OLD out of date and sub par to mobility.

Those primary reasons are that Earthgore and that Destro still remain so good it dwarfs the ability of the other ultis to keep up. How many times has a negate or a nova vanished into an Earthgore proc? I literally haven't seen someone drop a Veil in months.

Being old doesn't negate the fact that they should be at least a somewhat viable option. Should I take Flame Lash off my DK's bar because it was around at game inception? Or Coagulated Blood? The age of the skill vis a vis the game's life span has no bearing on the utility of said skill.

You are right and change should happen. Does the community advocate to ZOS to balance all the ultimates or does the community decide well zos won't do it so we have to. Now look kids that gun on the wall is not to be touched don't use it because its too dangerous. No the change you are asking for has to come from the developer side and no matter how much discussion and change you talk about its simply talk. Yes a much needed conversation under the current conditions. Don't get me wrong, I've been preaching class diversity a long time to my guild. We don't require a certain number of x or y to be in raids. We know what we need to have to make a good comp but we don't get it that often. And we never stacked magblades the EP does. Hell I want to see the meta change. You just aren't changing it at the moment. Last night you just added more stam based players.

Anazasi

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

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.

You want to see other Ulti's that's fine and would be nice but face the reality players aren't using them for a reason. None of the old nostalgic Ultis are being used because huh there OLD out of date and sub par to mobility.

Those primary reasons are that Earthgore and that Destro still remain so good it dwarfs the ability of the other ultis to keep up. How many times has a negate or a nova vanished into an Earthgore proc? I literally haven't seen someone drop a Veil in months.

Being old doesn't negate the fact that they should be at least a somewhat viable option. Should I take Flame Lash off my DK's bar because it was around at game inception? Or Coagulated Blood? The age of the skill vis a vis the game's life span has no bearing on the utility of said skill.

You you be happier if players had a counter to Earthgore? should it be fixed so that it can be negated by sorcs? Should the destro ulti be changed so that it could be negated? Earthgore was put into the game because of the burst damage potential of everything these days. It's as necessary as air unfortunately because of the power creep. It's not an easy dungeon for the casual player so access to it has yet to be on a vendor. It has a really long cool down. In fact if you think about it from a 1vX perspective. All you need to do is get it to proc once and then burst the player no 1vX player i have ever met can't hit burst dps rotation in 10 seconds. So if stacking this monster set in raids is the issue then so is stacking grothdar. Does anyone talk about that? I just don't see why how when it comes to this monster set its an issue.

Ixtyr

More than balance, more than "meta shifting", more than anything else discussed here, the PvP community needs the following:

1) More Players
2) Less Salt

How we get to those things is a fine point of contention, but every time someone like Agrippa pops on and makes a thread like this one to discuss a single topic, salty derpnuggets come along and derail the discussion with either "well why isn't anyone talking about XYZ thing" (newsflash, it's because this thread LITERALLY IS NOT ABOUT THAT THING), or baseless, shameless crap-flinging directed at other guilds, factions, servers or playstyles. That isn't constructive whatsoever and keeps us all in the same sad loop of whining and bitching and getting nowhere. Have a civil discussion, come to a more-or-less general consensus, and it'll be a lot easier for the dev team to actually gain actionable insights rather than blanket dismiss anything coming out of these forums because of the cesspool of mindless hate and vitriol that overshadows good insights from passionate players.

Rivalries are one thing, the constant "screw you your opinion doesn't matter because you play X faction or were once spotting in Y guild's TeamSpeak" crap is another.

---

That being said, I tend to agree with those who have suggested the community needs more players and groups spreading the wealth of knowledge. As much as I'd prefer a refreshed meta that called for a more diverse collection of skills, classes, builds, Ultimates, etc. than we have currently, what I'd really prefer were more organized, consistent, committed groups, ones that focus on group theorycraft and defined comps. On all factions. And that in and of itself would probably lead to meta shifts, actually. Let me mansplain that to you in a totally-not-intended-to-be-condescending way:

I agree about how much of the toolkits we have access to having been basically eliminated by Earthgore sucks. But even so, the Destro meta isn't the only way to have success in a mid-large size group. Stack well-timed, well-aimed Stamden shalk bursts, they're literally a faster, easier to coordinate, harder-hitting Proxy that still requires some shred of coordination. Supplement Templar healers with Wardens and Sorcs that are more mobile and equally potent. Dragon Leap squads can still be made to work if built right. Heck, even Bat Swarms are still pretty strong. But it requires good players, good coordination, good leadership, and most importantly the right mentality to actually test and re-test and try to make those things work, whereas mindlessly stacking Magblades is just an easier I-Win button right now. If Cyrodiil saw more serious competition between legit "meta" groups than just the same couple guilds having the same easy mode glorified pug-farming fights, someone would start innovating. And when someone finds a hard counter for the current meta (and I'm telling you, one exists) and then actually executes it, people will have to adapt.

The reason why metas adapted in the past wasn't just because of ZOS nerfing or buffing something. It honestly has just as much to do with competitive groups developing new, creative ways to play and getting their members to buy into it. A new patch just provides an added excuse to shake things up significantly and make big changes to your guild's strategy. This is something we honestly failed to do in VE when Morrowind hit, at least the way we wanted to and frankly, looking back now, should have. We started trying to, too, but couldn't get everyone to buy into it, myself included at times. But there are certainly a lot of good players out there outside of the old VE crew that could do the exact same thing if they wanted to. And I'd encourage them to, seriously, because having your friends quit the game you're still playing because they burnt out from doing the same *** over and over again is a pretty awful feeling, if I'm being honest here. A major part of the reason we burnt out and quit a few months after Morrowind was a direct reflection of that - everything got more and more stale, and enough of us weren't willing or able to adapt and adjust, try something completely new and "outside the box", to keep things interesting and force other groups to change the way they played to counter us.

Point is, I'm still convinced a lot of the ideas we had could and would work, with the current state of the game, and it wouldn't really require anything from ZOS to do it. Get the right players together and the right leadership and you can force the meta to change. It's just on the players figuring it out, and being motivated to figure it out and act on it. They gave us the (albeit frustrating and oft-misguided) tools, it's on us to find clever ways to use them, rather than follow the same model everyone else has for that past calendar year.

But anyway, I've rambled too much. Carry on.

umagon

Kilandros wrote: »

umagon wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

umagon wrote: »

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.

AoE already caps at 6 I don't really see what reducing that to 5 would do. Especially considering many (if not most) PvPers agree that AoE caps should be removed, not reduced.

As I see it, as long as the AoE cap protects players who stack (i.e., if I'm around more than 6 players, some of us will take reduced damage) the gameplay is only going to promote stacking. Remove AoE caps (i.e., there's no damage reduction benefit to being near other players) and people will start to spread out more to get away from the VD pinatas.

Like a couple of other people mentioned in this thread already, the only advantage of having greater numbers should be greater numbers. You shouldn't also benefit from a damage reduction simply because you've managed to stack enough people in a particular space.

You aren’t considering that part of the performance issues is due to players using large amounts of aoe in a small area. Taking the caps off will just increase the amount of calculations the server will have to do. Allowing collision addresses both the issue of players clustering into one small area and theoretically should alleviate some of the performance problems with the server by lowering the calculations it has to preform for skills, etc. Lowering the targets 5 is about reducing the calculations over a large area, all of those 1 less events to calculate for add up.

Every attempt zos has tried by allowing for more damage and/or skills to cascade over a large area in hopes players would spread out has failed. I think it’s time to try something else.

I'm not sure the increased calculations is true though. You might know more about server calcs and stuff in which case definitely feel free to enlighten me, but it was my understanding that the way AoE is currently calculated actually adds considerable calculation stress because AoE has diminishing returns at certain target threshholds which each have to be calculated, whereas a total removal would simplify calculations considerably.

So for example, currently if player A hits a Destro on 60 players, the server needs to calculate the Destro at 100% damage on the first 6 players, then 50% on the next 24, then 25% on the remaining 30.

Compared to if caps were removed, the server just calculates 100% damage on all 60.

EDIT: I agree that every attempt ZOS has made to spread out players has failed, but I think it's failed because AoE caps removal was never tried. ZOS can add as much crazy AoE damage, VD, proxy det, whatever they want but players will still stack if putting 24 people in one place means 18 of them get a 50% damage reduction from any one source of AoE.

It’s not just about damage the server has to account for all the skills effects, status effects, item set bonuses, etc. For an example: for every one player hit by an attack there could be 10 different events that trigger. If 200 players are hit by one player then all those 10 events trigger including all of their sub interactions for each player hit within that single time frame.

So now say in one second it’s 2000+ things it has to work out. Now think about what happens when 20 players attack 100 players. Or 70 vs 50 vs 60 on different factions. Even players are taking a full 100% damage the server is still preforming a large amount of calculations in a small time frame.

The other problem I see with allowing for 100% damage from aoe is that it will empower organized groups more. I highly doubt one or two players are going aoe bomb an organized group and be successful with it. And to be clear by organized group I mean players who have synchronized builds and work together on a regular basis.

What would most likely happen is the same thing with all the other high damage aoe tools; but with 100% damage taken on all targets large groups will be able to uses less dps players and more healing/tanking setups. So in that case being in a large group means even more survivability.

CyrusArya

Anazasi wrote: »

You you be happier if players had a counter to Earthgore? should it be fixed so that it can be negated by sorcs? Should the destro ulti be changed so that it could be negated? Earthgore was put into the game because of the burst damage potential of everything these days. It's as necessary as air unfortunately because of the power creep. It's not an easy dungeon for the casual player so access to it has yet to be on a vendor. It has a really long cool down. In fact if you think about it from a 1vX perspective. All you need to do is get it to proc once and then burst the player no 1vX player i have ever met can't hit burst dps rotation in 10 seconds. So if stacking this monster set in raids is the issue then so is stacking grothdar. Does anyone talk about that? I just don't see why how when it comes to this monster set its an issue.

Lol no. Earthgore was added to allow mediocre raids to perform like the good ones without...you know...getting good. Precise coordination of layered heals and ultimates? Nah just slot this monster set and you’re good fam.

It’s the same philosophy as the old heavy armor and proc sets, but in a group context. Dumbing the game down to allow ppl to artificially perform at a higher level. Earthgore mindlessly carries players. Just like the old heavy armor and proc sets did. And it will meet the same fate eventually. We can only hope.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Kilandros wrote: »

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.

That's not even remotely close to what Arya was saying though. He's saying that a group of 16 shouldn't have any additional advantage over a group of 6, for example, other than the advantage of having more numbers, more ultimates, more specific roles. A group of 16 shouldn't also benefit from reduced AoE damage thanks to AoE caps--a benefit that a group of 6 does not enjoy.

Lets not assume what other people are saying shall we? we already discussed its perhaps not the best way of promoting conversation.

Talking about the situation with advantage vs disadvantage.
If numbers were the only thing difference in groups then why is healing capped at 6, why is purge, ulti effects, etc all capped. Groups have a lot of things which already disadvantage them compared to the old days. VD is the main one. Purge / Rapids changes are another, inability to use synergies effectively due to the bug with them.

If you support removal of caps do you also support removal of healing and effect caps? or is it just the burst damage increase from removal of caps which is in question?

The situation now is that only extremely strong groups are in any way competitive, mediocre groups who used to be able to make some impact to the map previously can only really take empty keeps or stack into their faction zerg so their numbers grow and grow. This is why the playstyle of VD bombing is then required because of this exact situation.

The pug zerg will never stop stacking so instead of trying to get it to unstack we just have to empower other groups (not by giving them some 'advantage' but by removing the constant nerfs to the group playstyle) to move away from this stack. This would hopefully bring back the old spread out fight around the map which were really interesting. But they will never do it if when they move away they instantly die to 1 VD bomb (which can happen in the current game state).

Strong groups, 1vXers, Smallscalers all use the same principles and ideas behind their builds and setups. If you combat one you combat all of them. The PVP we have now is a result of the outcries for nerfs which has lead up to this point and now very few players and groups can survive the meta's as they change and the majority struggle to compete with them instead turning to more numbers as their only answer.


An example: The nerf to rapids was made in order to combat large groups however it didn't combat them at all because they just overwhelm the area (if big enough) or have someone on speeds (if coordinated enough)
Instead only small groups are affected because they cannot afford to include a dedicated rapids role. If rapids was equal for everyone to use it then it wouldn't make or break the situation for people in the way it does now. This nerf however was requested by the smaller groups thinking it would cripple larger ones. I remember people saying my group of 12 on EU would be completely screwed after this rapids change and we would wipe like trash etc etc. and what happens, now we are more mobile than ever.

Lucky28

Anazasi wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

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.

You want to see other Ulti's that's fine and would be nice but face the reality players aren't using them for a reason. None of the old nostalgic Ultis are being used because huh there OLD out of date and sub par to mobility.

Those primary reasons are that Earthgore and that Destro still remain so good it dwarfs the ability of the other ultis to keep up. How many times has a negate or a nova vanished into an Earthgore proc? I literally haven't seen someone drop a Veil in months.

Being old doesn't negate the fact that they should be at least a somewhat viable option. Should I take Flame Lash off my DK's bar because it was around at game inception? Or Coagulated Blood? The age of the skill vis a vis the game's life span has no bearing on the utility of said skill.

You you be happier if players had a counter to Earthgore? should it be fixed so that it can be negated by sorcs? Should the destro ulti be changed so that it could be negated? Earthgore was put into the game because of the burst damage potential of everything these days. It's as necessary as air unfortunately because of the power creep. It's not an easy dungeon for the casual player so access to it has yet to be on a vendor. It has a really long cool down. In fact if you think about it from a 1vX perspective. All you need to do is get it to proc once and then burst the player no 1vX player i have ever met can't hit burst dps rotation in 10 seconds. So if stacking this monster set in raids is the issue then so is stacking grothdar. Does anyone talk about that? I just don't see why how when it comes to this monster set its an issue.

i don't know what you're talking about. earthgore is not and was not necessary the game did not ever need a monster set that spawned a negate. make earthgore a heal set and take the negate effect off of it.

Kilandros

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

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.

That's not even remotely close to what Arya was saying though. He's saying that a group of 16 shouldn't have any additional advantage over a group of 6, for example, other than the advantage of having more numbers, more ultimates, more specific roles. A group of 16 shouldn't also benefit from reduced AoE damage thanks to AoE caps--a benefit that a group of 6 does not enjoy.

Lets not assume what other people are saying shall we? we already discussed its perhaps not the best way of promoting conversation.

Talking about the situation with advantage vs disadvantage.
If numbers were the only thing difference in groups then why is healing capped at 6, why is purge, ulti effects, etc all capped. Groups have a lot of things which already disadvantage them compared to the old days. VD is the main one. Purge / Rapids changes are another, inability to use synergies effectively due to the bug with them.

If you support removal of caps do you also support removal of healing and effect caps? or is it just the burst damage increase from removal of caps which is in question?

The situation now is that only extremely strong groups are in any way competitive, mediocre groups who used to be able to make some impact to the map previously can only really take empty keeps or stack into their faction zerg so their numbers grow and grow. This is why the playstyle of VD bombing is then required because of this exact situation.

The pug zerg will never stop stacking so instead of trying to get it to unstack we just have to empower other groups (not by giving them some 'advantage' but by removing the constant nerfs to the group playstyle) to move away from this stack. This would hopefully bring back the old spread out fight around the map which were really interesting. But they will never do it if when they move away they instantly die to 1 VD bomb (which can happen in the current game state).

Strong groups, 1vXers, Smallscalers all use the same principles and ideas behind their builds and setups. If you combat one you combat all of them. The PVP we have now is a result of the outcries for nerfs which has lead up to this point and now very few players and groups can survive the meta's as they change and the majority struggle to compete with them instead turning to more numbers as their only answer.


An example: The nerf to rapids was made in order to combat large groups however it didn't combat them at all because they just overwhelm the area (if big enough) or have someone on speeds (if coordinated enough)
Instead only small groups are affected because they cannot afford to include a dedicated rapids role. If rapids was equal for everyone to use it then it wouldn't make or break the situation for people in the way it does now. This nerf however was requested by the smaller groups thinking it would cripple larger ones. I remember people saying my group of 12 on EU would be completely screwed after this rapids change and we would wipe like trash etc etc. and what happens, now we are more mobile than ever.

lol, well, if Arya thinks I've misinterpreted what he says he is of course free to correct me.

As for whether changes would also have to be made to heal and effect caps to match AoE cap removal, I think changes should certainly be on the table. What those changes should be I can't really say without experiencing the game sans AoE caps.

As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry but I don't really follow what you're trying to say.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Kilandros wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

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.

That's not even remotely close to what Arya was saying though. He's saying that a group of 16 shouldn't have any additional advantage over a group of 6, for example, other than the advantage of having more numbers, more ultimates, more specific roles. A group of 16 shouldn't also benefit from reduced AoE damage thanks to AoE caps--a benefit that a group of 6 does not enjoy.

Lets not assume what other people are saying shall we? we already discussed its perhaps not the best way of promoting conversation.

Talking about the situation with advantage vs disadvantage.
If numbers were the only thing difference in groups then why is healing capped at 6, why is purge, ulti effects, etc all capped. Groups have a lot of things which already disadvantage them compared to the old days. VD is the main one. Purge / Rapids changes are another, inability to use synergies effectively due to the bug with them.

If you support removal of caps do you also support removal of healing and effect caps? or is it just the burst damage increase from removal of caps which is in question?

The situation now is that only extremely strong groups are in any way competitive, mediocre groups who used to be able to make some impact to the map previously can only really take empty keeps or stack into their faction zerg so their numbers grow and grow. This is why the playstyle of VD bombing is then required because of this exact situation.

The pug zerg will never stop stacking so instead of trying to get it to unstack we just have to empower other groups (not by giving them some 'advantage' but by removing the constant nerfs to the group playstyle) to move away from this stack. This would hopefully bring back the old spread out fight around the map which were really interesting. But they will never do it if when they move away they instantly die to 1 VD bomb (which can happen in the current game state).

Strong groups, 1vXers, Smallscalers all use the same principles and ideas behind their builds and setups. If you combat one you combat all of them. The PVP we have now is a result of the outcries for nerfs which has lead up to this point and now very few players and groups can survive the meta's as they change and the majority struggle to compete with them instead turning to more numbers as their only answer.


An example: The nerf to rapids was made in order to combat large groups however it didn't combat them at all because they just overwhelm the area (if big enough) or have someone on speeds (if coordinated enough)
Instead only small groups are affected because they cannot afford to include a dedicated rapids role. If rapids was equal for everyone to use it then it wouldn't make or break the situation for people in the way it does now. This nerf however was requested by the smaller groups thinking it would cripple larger ones. I remember people saying my group of 12 on EU would be completely screwed after this rapids change and we would wipe like trash etc etc. and what happens, now we are more mobile than ever.

lol, well, if Arya thinks I've misinterpreted what he says he is of course free to correct me.

As for whether changes would also have to be made to heal and effect caps to match AoE cap removal, I think changes should certainly be on the table. What those changes should be I can't really say without experiencing the game sans AoE caps.

As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry but I don't really follow what you're trying to say.

Well from my side one should consider the impact of changes prior to suggesting them. So if you can't really say what the game will be like or have any thoughts towards it then advocating for a change is potentially detrimental.

That's why I was expanding on the problems the game currently faces with the rest of my post in contrast to the problems brought up so far.

Kilandros

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

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.

That's not even remotely close to what Arya was saying though. He's saying that a group of 16 shouldn't have any additional advantage over a group of 6, for example, other than the advantage of having more numbers, more ultimates, more specific roles. A group of 16 shouldn't also benefit from reduced AoE damage thanks to AoE caps--a benefit that a group of 6 does not enjoy.

Lets not assume what other people are saying shall we? we already discussed its perhaps not the best way of promoting conversation.

Talking about the situation with advantage vs disadvantage.
If numbers were the only thing difference in groups then why is healing capped at 6, why is purge, ulti effects, etc all capped. Groups have a lot of things which already disadvantage them compared to the old days. VD is the main one. Purge / Rapids changes are another, inability to use synergies effectively due to the bug with them.

If you support removal of caps do you also support removal of healing and effect caps? or is it just the burst damage increase from removal of caps which is in question?

The situation now is that only extremely strong groups are in any way competitive, mediocre groups who used to be able to make some impact to the map previously can only really take empty keeps or stack into their faction zerg so their numbers grow and grow. This is why the playstyle of VD bombing is then required because of this exact situation.

The pug zerg will never stop stacking so instead of trying to get it to unstack we just have to empower other groups (not by giving them some 'advantage' but by removing the constant nerfs to the group playstyle) to move away from this stack. This would hopefully bring back the old spread out fight around the map which were really interesting. But they will never do it if when they move away they instantly die to 1 VD bomb (which can happen in the current game state).

Strong groups, 1vXers, Smallscalers all use the same principles and ideas behind their builds and setups. If you combat one you combat all of them. The PVP we have now is a result of the outcries for nerfs which has lead up to this point and now very few players and groups can survive the meta's as they change and the majority struggle to compete with them instead turning to more numbers as their only answer.


An example: The nerf to rapids was made in order to combat large groups however it didn't combat them at all because they just overwhelm the area (if big enough) or have someone on speeds (if coordinated enough)
Instead only small groups are affected because they cannot afford to include a dedicated rapids role. If rapids was equal for everyone to use it then it wouldn't make or break the situation for people in the way it does now. This nerf however was requested by the smaller groups thinking it would cripple larger ones. I remember people saying my group of 12 on EU would be completely screwed after this rapids change and we would wipe like trash etc etc. and what happens, now we are more mobile than ever.

lol, well, if Arya thinks I've misinterpreted what he says he is of course free to correct me.

As for whether changes would also have to be made to heal and effect caps to match AoE cap removal, I think changes should certainly be on the table. What those changes should be I can't really say without experiencing the game sans AoE caps.

As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry but I don't really follow what you're trying to say.

Well from my side one should consider the impact of changes prior to suggesting them. So if you can't really say what the game will be like or have any thoughts towards it then advocating for a change is potentially detrimental.

That's why I was expanding on the problems the game currently faces with the rest of my post in contrast to the problems brought up so far.

Fair enough. With something as big as fully removing AoE caps I just think it's hard to predict how that would affect healing. Other effect caps like Molten Armaments should just be removed or increased to 24 because that makes sense, so that's easy. But admittedly major changes to healing and/or Battle Spirit would likely need to be implemented if AoE caps were to be removed.

We'll likely never see it anyway, so I suppose the point is moot.

Agrippa_Invisus

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

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.

That's not even remotely close to what Arya was saying though. He's saying that a group of 16 shouldn't have any additional advantage over a group of 6, for example, other than the advantage of having more numbers, more ultimates, more specific roles. A group of 16 shouldn't also benefit from reduced AoE damage thanks to AoE caps--a benefit that a group of 6 does not enjoy.

Lets not assume what other people are saying shall we? we already discussed its perhaps not the best way of promoting conversation.

Talking about the situation with advantage vs disadvantage.
If numbers were the only thing difference in groups then why is healing capped at 6, why is purge, ulti effects, etc all capped. Groups have a lot of things which already disadvantage them compared to the old days. VD is the main one. Purge / Rapids changes are another, inability to use synergies effectively due to the bug with them.

If you support removal of caps do you also support removal of healing and effect caps? or is it just the burst damage increase from removal of caps which is in question?

The situation now is that only extremely strong groups are in any way competitive, mediocre groups who used to be able to make some impact to the map previously can only really take empty keeps or stack into their faction zerg so their numbers grow and grow. This is why the playstyle of VD bombing is then required because of this exact situation.

The pug zerg will never stop stacking so instead of trying to get it to unstack we just have to empower other groups (not by giving them some 'advantage' but by removing the constant nerfs to the group playstyle) to move away from this stack. This would hopefully bring back the old spread out fight around the map which were really interesting. But they will never do it if when they move away they instantly die to 1 VD bomb (which can happen in the current game state).

Strong groups, 1vXers, Smallscalers all use the same principles and ideas behind their builds and setups. If you combat one you combat all of them. The PVP we have now is a result of the outcries for nerfs which has lead up to this point and now very few players and groups can survive the meta's as they change and the majority struggle to compete with them instead turning to more numbers as their only answer.


An example: The nerf to rapids was made in order to combat large groups however it didn't combat them at all because they just overwhelm the area (if big enough) or have someone on speeds (if coordinated enough)
Instead only small groups are affected because they cannot afford to include a dedicated rapids role. If rapids was equal for everyone to use it then it wouldn't make or break the situation for people in the way it does now. This nerf however was requested by the smaller groups thinking it would cripple larger ones. I remember people saying my group of 12 on EU would be completely screwed after this rapids change and we would wipe like trash etc etc. and what happens, now we are more mobile than ever.

lol, well, if Arya thinks I've misinterpreted what he says he is of course free to correct me.

As for whether changes would also have to be made to heal and effect caps to match AoE cap removal, I think changes should certainly be on the table. What those changes should be I can't really say without experiencing the game sans AoE caps.

As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry but I don't really follow what you're trying to say.

Well from my side one should consider the impact of changes prior to suggesting them. So if you can't really say what the game will be like or have any thoughts towards it then advocating for a change is potentially detrimental.

That's why I was expanding on the problems the game currently faces with the rest of my post in contrast to the problems brought up so far.

Yeah.

I think it's pretty obvious that there are layered issues that cause the meta and the game to be in the state it's in.

I may have been a bit disingenuous by just labeling the 'Destro pain train' meta. That encompasses both the skill and everything that encompasses how the groups are built around it and why it is outperforming other ultis by such a degree. Everything from Earthgore to Rapid Maneuvers to Bomb Blade builds (and lots of other things in between) is part of that conversation.

Ghostbane

Anazasi wrote: »

Psilent wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

. While others like Invictus, who have no regard for campaign health tend to surf along with other causal raids feeding off the zergs.

Taran, please keep this post on topic; bringing up lies is only going to incite players and get a good thread locked. I can tell you from experience that Invictus is very much not a toxic guild at all; never has been and never will be in the future.

Anyway...

Being a player who prefers stamina over magicka; I really dislike this meta. Playing StamDK/StamSorc is a lot of fun, but this meta relegated me to a life of rapid spamming and negating. I think at one point I had two attack abilities on my bar; Blade Cloak and Hurricane. Got so bored of the meta that I have quit ESO PvP; I still login, but I just do dailies and logout.

It would be nice if other ultimates were brought up to be made useful enough that groups would need members to slot them.

Again everything I have said is true on topic and factual. Perhaps the jab at Invictus was unfair or uncalled and for that i can apologize. But the mechanics, comp, meta, desire to change part is on the money and I support it.

If you would have posted this first and reworked the title message, it would have come across as strong analytical and critical thinking on why change apology that was needed. Instead you approached the meta thread with gloves on and tickled brawled like a granny at it. Be assertive like this and you will have a lot more support.

Nicely done and totally agreeable with.

Anazasi

Ghostbane wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Psilent wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

. While others like Invictus, who have no regard for campaign health tend to surf along with other causal raids feeding off the zergs.

Taran, please keep this post on topic; bringing up lies is only going to incite players and get a good thread locked. I can tell you from experience that Invictus is very much not a toxic guild at all; never has been and never will be in the future.

Anyway...

Being a player who prefers stamina over magicka; I really dislike this meta. Playing StamDK/StamSorc is a lot of fun, but this meta relegated me to a life of rapid spamming and negating. I think at one point I had two attack abilities on my bar; Blade Cloak and Hurricane. Got so bored of the meta that I have quit ESO PvP; I still login, but I just do dailies and logout.

It would be nice if other ultimates were brought up to be made useful enough that groups would need members to slot them.

Again everything I have said is true on topic and factual. Perhaps the jab at Invictus was unfair or uncalled and for that i can apologize. But the mechanics, comp, meta, desire to change part is on the money and I support it.

If you would have posted this first and reworked the title message, it would have come across as strong analytical and critical thinking on why change apology that was needed. Instead you approached the meta thread with gloves on and tickled brawled like a granny at it. Be assertive like this and you will have a lot more support.

Nicely done and totally agreeable with.

Ha ha Ghost is quoting Taran now the world has turned upside down.....

Ghostbane

Anazasi wrote: »

Ghostbane wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Psilent wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

. While others like Invictus, who have no regard for campaign health tend to surf along with other causal raids feeding off the zergs.

Taran, please keep this post on topic; bringing up lies is only going to incite players and get a good thread locked. I can tell you from experience that Invictus is very much not a toxic guild at all; never has been and never will be in the future.

Anyway...

Being a player who prefers stamina over magicka; I really dislike this meta. Playing StamDK/StamSorc is a lot of fun, but this meta relegated me to a life of rapid spamming and negating. I think at one point I had two attack abilities on my bar; Blade Cloak and Hurricane. Got so bored of the meta that I have quit ESO PvP; I still login, but I just do dailies and logout.

It would be nice if other ultimates were brought up to be made useful enough that groups would need members to slot them.

Again everything I have said is true on topic and factual. Perhaps the jab at Invictus was unfair or uncalled and for that i can apologize. But the mechanics, comp, meta, desire to change part is on the money and I support it.

If you would have posted this first and reworked the title message, it would have come across as strong analytical and critical thinking on why change apology that was needed. Instead you approached the meta thread with gloves on and tickled brawled like a granny at it. Be assertive like this and you will have a lot more support.

Nicely done and totally agreeable with.

Ha ha Ghost is quoting Taran now the world has turned upside down.....

Academic quote

Anazasi

I think what will be really funny are the incoming screams to nerf dawnbreaker and stam warden shalk ability. Those cries will come in like a choir song. You want to complain about earth gore and yet the combined burst from those two abilities hit so hard and so fast earth gore procs after you are dead. If you think the magic based masses that play this game won't scream about the over emphasizing of this burst DPS in group form just wait and see.

We should probably start making prediction bets on how long it will take ZOS to react.

usmcjdking

Anazasi wrote: »

I think what will be really funny are the incoming screams to nerf dawnbreaker and stam warden shalk ability. Those cries will come in like a choir song. You want to complain about earth gore and yet the combined burst from those two abilities hit so hard and so fast earth gore procs after you are dead. If you think the magic based masses that play this game won't scream about the over emphasizing of this burst DPS in group form just wait and see.

We should probably start making prediction bets on how long it will take ZOS to react.

That's not even what makes Warden strong. The signature of warden is that even potato wardens take a lot of work to kill.

Warden burst is tremendously telegraphed. Literally a 3 second telegraph. If you get caught by a dizzy/shalk/db combo at this point and you consider yourself an experienced player then you got either were a) caught being lazy b) not as good as you think.

Maura_Neysa

Adernath wrote: »

Instead of calling for a nerf, I'd like to see some interesting counter abilities, for example perhaps a buff to the 1h and shield ultima which reflects, for a given amount of time, all damage taken to the sender (including aoe). And in such a way that it is not OP in a small fight. So it will be very dangerous for a large zergtrain.

Edit: I know its a just a fun suggestion but let's be creative

They already out there. Meridia’s Blessed completely neuters a bomb blade. Warden Permafrost, Major Protect and moves just like Eye. I essentially bomb the bomber blades.

Anazasi

usmcjdking wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

I think what will be really funny are the incoming screams to nerf dawnbreaker and stam warden shalk ability. Those cries will come in like a choir song. You want to complain about earth gore and yet the combined burst from those two abilities hit so hard and so fast earth gore procs after you are dead. If you think the magic based masses that play this game won't scream about the over emphasizing of this burst DPS in group form just wait and see.

We should probably start making prediction bets on how long it will take ZOS to react.

That's not even what makes Warden strong. The signature of warden is that even potato wardens take a lot of work to kill.

Warden burst is tremendously telegraphed. Literally a 3 second telegraph. If you get caught by a dizzy/shalk/db combo at this point and you consider yourself an experienced player then you got either were a) caught being lazy b) not as good as you think.

in a 1 v 2 or 4 v 4 where you have the ability to see whats coming at you yes i would agree. But when you stack them into a raid of 16 and they are running tight your ability to pick out the telegraph is very hard.

Anazasi

Maura_Neysa wrote: »

Adernath wrote: »

Instead of calling for a nerf, I'd like to see some interesting counter abilities, for example perhaps a buff to the 1h and shield ultima which reflects, for a given amount of time, all damage taken to the sender (including aoe). And in such a way that it is not OP in a small fight. So it will be very dangerous for a large zergtrain.

Edit: I know its a just a fun suggestion but let's be creative

They already out there. Meridia’s Blessed completely neuters a bomb blade. Warden Permafrost, Major Protect and moves just like Eye. I essentially bomb the bomber blades.

This is very interesting. I have often thought this set would have some use although not sure in group play. As i have been told it only affects 1 player at a time so in group play it's simply not reliable. Although for all those templars that weren't around at launch the predecessor of Radiant Destruction was called blinding flashes and it was an aoe ability that hit everyone around you blinding them for several seconds making all their attacks miss. This was a mainstay ability for group pvp and I so wish it was still in game instead of RD. Shame those nasty pve players used it to exploit trial bosses and zos removed it under the pretense of giving templars an execute ability that they eventually nerfed anyways instead of fixing a solid group play ability.

Anazasi

Ixtyr wrote: »

More than balance, more than "meta shifting", more than anything else discussed here, the PvP community needs the following:

1) More Players
2) Less Salt

How we get to those things is a fine point of contention, but every time someone like Agrippa pops on and makes a thread like this one to discuss a single topic, salty derpnuggets come along and derail the discussion with either "well why isn't anyone talking about XYZ thing" (newsflash, it's because this thread LITERALLY IS NOT ABOUT THAT THING), or baseless, shameless crap-flinging directed at other guilds, factions, servers or playstyles. That isn't constructive whatsoever and keeps us all in the same sad loop of whining and bitching and getting nowhere. Have a civil discussion, come to a more-or-less general consensus, and it'll be a lot easier for the dev team to actually gain actionable insights rather than blanket dismiss anything coming out of these forums because of the cesspool of mindless hate and vitriol that overshadows good insights from passionate players.

Rivalries are one thing, the constant "screw you your opinion doesn't matter because you play X faction or were once spotting in Y guild's TeamSpeak" crap is another.

---

That being said, I tend to agree with those who have suggested the community needs more players and groups spreading the wealth of knowledge. As much as I'd prefer a refreshed meta that called for a more diverse collection of skills, classes, builds, Ultimates, etc. than we have currently, what I'd really prefer were more organized, consistent, committed groups, ones that focus on group theorycraft and defined comps. On all factions. And that in and of itself would probably lead to meta shifts, actually. Let me mansplain that to you in a totally-not-intended-to-be-condescending way:

I agree about how much of the toolkits we have access to having been basically eliminated by Earthgore sucks. But even so, the Destro meta isn't the only way to have success in a mid-large size group. Stack well-timed, well-aimed Stamden shalk bursts, they're literally a faster, easier to coordinate, harder-hitting Proxy that still requires some shred of coordination. Supplement Templar healers with Wardens and Sorcs that are more mobile and equally potent. Dragon Leap squads can still be made to work if built right. Heck, even Bat Swarms are still pretty strong. But it requires good players, good coordination, good leadership, and most importantly the right mentality to actually test and re-test and try to make those things work, whereas mindlessly stacking Magblades is just an easier I-Win button right now. If Cyrodiil saw more serious competition between legit "meta" groups than just the same couple guilds having the same easy mode glorified pug-farming fights, someone would start innovating. And when someone finds a hard counter for the current meta (and I'm telling you, one exists) and then actually executes it, people will have to adapt.

The reason why metas adapted in the past wasn't just because of ZOS nerfing or buffing something. It honestly has just as much to do with competitive groups developing new, creative ways to play and getting their members to buy into it. A new patch just provides an added excuse to shake things up significantly and make big changes to your guild's strategy. This is something we honestly failed to do in VE when Morrowind hit, at least the way we wanted to and frankly, looking back now, should have. We started trying to, too, but couldn't get everyone to buy into it, myself included at times. But there are certainly a lot of good players out there outside of the old VE crew that could do the exact same thing if they wanted to. And I'd encourage them to, seriously, because having your friends quit the game you're still playing because they burnt out from doing the same *** over and over again is a pretty awful feeling, if I'm being honest here. A major part of the reason we burnt out and quit a few months after Morrowind was a direct reflection of that - everything got more and more stale, and enough of us weren't willing or able to adapt and adjust, try something completely new and "outside the box", to keep things interesting and force other groups to change the way they played to counter us.

Point is, I'm still convinced a lot of the ideas we had could and would work, with the current state of the game, and it wouldn't really require anything from ZOS to do it. Get the right players together and the right leadership and you can force the meta to change. It's just on the players figuring it out, and being motivated to figure it out and act on it. They gave us the (albeit frustrating and oft-misguided) tools, it's on us to find clever ways to use them, rather than follow the same model everyone else has for that past calendar year.

But anyway, I've rambled too much. Carry on.

Awesome post with accurate and detailed information with a concise understanding of the past and current situation while looking, optimistically, to the future. Dam i would vote you for president. A++

Fyaal

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Back when Hijinx existed, I used to be able to tell folks that the requirements for group were a basic framework of skills that filled a particular niche. Things like 'spammable aoe, aoe cc, and strong aoe ulti'. I was able to let people choose how to build their character to meet those requirements. Tatsu would spam Steel Tornado even before the Stam buffs, and we had banners and novas and dawnbreakers all mixed as the type of ultis we'd drop.

That build diversity is not viable in this meta, and that's a shame. For a game that advertises 'play as you want', the pvp has very much become 'play this way or die'.

I think Agrippa really hit the nail on the head here.

Everything in large PvP is built around supporting the proxy destro bombs. Negates support the bombs, speed builds support the bomb, purge builds support the bombs.

I like playing my stamplar. I really do. And I know my job in raid is to support the destro bombs with speed and knockdowns.