When could we play TESO for a gameplay instead of always favoring the max damage?

JKorr

Khatou wrote: »

We're entitled to tons of very interesting sets, but unfortunately they're barely usable because if we don't have a sufficient set with + in dps we don't type anything at all, it's really confusing the vision of zos for TESO, we're supposed to play what we want but now it's not really the case anymore, only the tanks and the cheat mages by ZOS have the right to get their kicks as well as the berserkers, that's what TESO wants us to play, why not give the freedom to the players to create original builds, isn't that the strength of an MMORPG ?

um...no. There seems to be a portion of the *playerbase* who believes that it is MANDATORY for everyone to do ELEVENTY BILLION KAZILLION dps constantly. If others in the guild/group/whatever DON'T do eleventy billion kazillion DPS all the time, the routine seems to be heap scorn and derision on the "underperformers" and kick them from groups, then heaping various forms of abuse on them in whisper or mail afterward. In other words, the players are enforcing the concept that only the bestest version of whatever is appropriate, not ZOS. Players are free to create original builds. However other players won't let them use the new creative builds because in THEIR viewpoint those creative builds are useless/pointless/crap.

I've seen no announcements from ZOS that there is some kind of requirement for eleventy billion kazillion dps is needed to do any content. Do the harder vet trials need a higher level of performance? Yes. Is there a requirement that forces people to clear any content in 5 seconds or less that would need eleventy billion kazillion dps or your character is insta-killed/deleted from your account? No.

Elsonso

gatekeeper13 wrote: »

1) The game is designed in such a way that it needs high dps to complete end game content. More dps, faster boss death, less chances for wipes. I disagree with the design but thats how it is.

You have just described a rather large number of games, single player and MMO.

There are few combat situations in Fallout 4 that cannot be suitably solved in a few seconds with a thoughtful application of one or more uses of Fat Man. It can be used to resolve the problem with the Forged boss in a single application and very few Deathclaws need more than one application. This does not mean that you have to run around the entire game nuking every boss.

This relates to ESO in that there are some players who insist that everyone in the group have an ESO equivalent of the Fat Man build, and know how to use it effectively. Often, they really don't need that level of firepower. They can succeed with less, but they don't want to. It is more work, takes longer, and might be more frustrating. They want it easy, with few complications, and few, if any, deaths.

That is fine. They can do that. There are achievements that reward many of those things, the first time it is done.

Still, you can play a whole lot, if not almost all of the game, without needing to do that. That is the point of a lot of comments here in the forum.

Wifeaggro13

Khatou wrote: »

We're entitled to tons of very interesting sets, but unfortunately they're barely usable because if we don't have a sufficient set with + in dps we don't type anything at all, it's really confusing the vision of zos for TESO, we're supposed to play what we want but now it's not really the case anymore, only the tanks and the cheat mages by ZOS have the right to get their kicks as well as the berserkers, that's what TESO wants us to play, why not give the freedom to the players to create original builds, isn't that the strength of an MMORPG ?

First and foremost the game was inherently flawed when it decided it would bite on the industry trend at the time of who needs roles. Like GW2 did which on the front end while lvling worked great. but once you hit group play was a vapid vortex of messy zerg play. So in a effort to minimize development they went with a hybrid trinity system and touted that as the standard old school system they were making combat foundation on. The problem is the trinity was a made up theory by dev's that wanted to devolve game play to make it easy. True dynamic combat had far more roles then tank ,dps,heals. There was true crowd control and true utility. Making for a larger group. Some will ssay it's too hard to field that many spots. but its usually the isolating soloist that didnt care for group play in the first place.
Secondly they made their competitive pve leader boards all about damage which further exacerbated a pure dps dynamic play. Right now the whole game can be played with pure dps groups and avoid most of the mechanics in a pure burn. But you cant play any aspect of the game with out dps including the solo lvling experience. The games base design is flawed and un fixable. So as you can see Zos just said screw it we will just homogenize the whole damn thing remove class strengths and erase roles . This allows them to pump out horizontal progression content with very little effort and steel it to you at a premium. These guys are worse then EA at this point

Stevie6

There is an issue with doing normal or vet trials or really any dungeon for casual players in general. In order to do some content; ie, any vet dungeon (pugs), a player is expected to do X amount of damage or they will be kicked or others will just leave. This is not known to newer players and when they pug, they find out the hard way.

After a few years of this, I like many others gave up, and solo a lot of content without the hassle of trying to perform / chasing the meta builds, or other player's expectations. So when a player looks at the local chat and see someone typing "lf DD , tank, or healer or nSS" It really becomes a turn off. Some players will think:

I'm not good enough why bother? I lack dps. Not really "trained up" for the content. There is a lack of a dungeon tutorial. There needs to be a training dungeon installed for players to do the normal, vet, and hard mode content and a personal guide that will teach the group or individual their mistakes.

If the devs want to make changes, they are going to have to address the root cause/issues that plague this game for new/casual players.The hit box is really too small and a lot of dps is going out the window. I can stand point blank on a target and miss with LA attack or DD attack. why? because I'm off just a fraction. Make the hit boxes large enough so the average joe/casual player will have a better chance of hitting the target.

Roll back to Pre Morrowind or at least see what really worked back then. The players had damage, shields, and resource sustain and it worked. Was there lag back then..not so much. I could hit a couple of skills and do LA or HA and kill serveral targets (pve) at once. Now, it take freaking longer...longer is not fun.

I'm sure it will impact PVP. I played a magNB in Cyrodiil and it was great fun. Died a lot but fun and no complaints. Now peeps complain because they can kill one dude. Well, cry me a new river. Git GUD and get over it. Find a way to kill that target. I did.

Everest_Lionheart

More damage = more easy.

Instant gratification is the name of the game, people are just too impatient to slog through anything. One poster above gave a nice description of another Bethesda game FO4, it’s super easy when you bring a nuke to a gunfight.

Seems that what people want to do with content here, basically a quick run and gun with minimal opposition. Now have they setup dungeons encouraging this type of gameplay? Probably. So the players adjust by going big or going home. Do they need to? Probably not, but easy mode beats slog fest 95% of the time.

Now here is another question. Everyone playing this style has a reason for being so “selective” when playing it, why? Farming gear? Achievements? Speed running for bragging rights?

Personally I’m still months away from this content as I am a new player as of a few weeks ago, but I’ve come to the forums to try to learn more about the game and interact with some of its players. As a new player that wants to complete all the content and collect all of the shiny toys reading through some of these threads makes me wonder just how hard I will be willing to work when the task can seem so daunting. But then I realize that forums such as these generally contain the more experienced players which ultimately make up a minority of the overall player base.

So final question does a noob like me stand a chance of completing endgame content unless I “git gud” and follow the meta?

YandereGirlfriend

To cite the saying, "There's no 'I' in 'team'" but that is exactly what is happening when one insists on inflicting an ill-conceived build or playstyle on the other 3 (or 11) members of your dungeon or trial team.

Truly, unless there is a hard-and-fast DPS check in a dungeon or trial, then you can technically complete the dungeon if you have literally any amount of DPS over 0.0 DPS. However, if you have 1 DPS and the boss has 6 million HP then you will be at it for 6 million seconds! (But hey, it's still technically viable.)

Point being, that it is selfish to do this to other people, people who have their own busy lives and limited playing time. Knowingly not playing well (which is what I hear when I read "I refuse to practice on a dummy") or intentionally using a poor build extends the time-to-complete of any dungeon or trial in ways that are often unpredictable.

DPS is a defined role in the game, it means "Damage Per Second" which is why your expectation when filling that role is to provide damage, lots of it. Some people seem to believe that providing any amount of damage is fulfilling the role of DPS, but that is simply not true. Healers and Tanks also provide damage (sometimes more than a bad DPS...) but that does not make them DPS.

Finally, you know what I have literally never heard after completing a dungeon: "I'm mad, we cleared that way too fast!" On the other hand, the forums are littered with salty tales of the opposite.

To sum up, playing your chosen role well equates to being conscientious to your fellow players. And we all want to be conscientious, right?

Glurin

JayKwellen wrote: »

Personally, I think part of it stems from people feeling perturbed about others being, in their mind, better than them solely because of "crutches" like meta builds or CP or gear or whatever, or bristling at the idea that they may have to do something other than exactly what they want to reach certain levels of achievement -- this insidious idea that rather than equal opportunity to achieve something, instead achievement itself should be guaranteed. This idea that anything which challenges someones own individuality is somehow an attack on their own worthiness and value as a player. It's rather weird and infantile tbqh.

Here's where you're going wrong. "Equal opportunity to achieve something" should not mean "You have the choice to use this build or die." That's not diversity or choice, and it sure as hell isn't "play as you want". The so called RP builds should be viable even for difficult content. (Within reason of course.) Build diversity isn't about showing drastically different DPS meter results or what name is engraved on your metal undewear. Far from it. You should be killing stuff within a similar time span whether you use a staff or a sword or a bow. The diversity is in how you get there. It's the reason we can use any class to fill any role as opposed to being stuck as a tank just because you picked DK on the character creation screen.

Kelces

Yes, it is already very hard to tell the difference from other games now than it was before. The more content is being released, the more it slides into the same one-way road, that is called "progression" in a game. Due to the apparent need for more powerful sets than before, or the nerfing of previous sets to create demand for those.

I think though it has more to do with the community than anything else, that impacts on this development. Since players are divided in their oponion of "worthiness" to compete somewhere, be that trials or whatever. Sort of: "Don't dare to do less damage/healing/surviving than we expect you to, or we say you are being carried!" What an encouragement...

Glurin

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

To cite the saying, "There's no 'I' in 'team'" but that is exactly what is happening when one insists on inflicting an ill-conceived build or playstyle on the other 3 (or 11) members of your dungeon or trial team.

Truly, unless there is a hard-and-fast DPS check in a dungeon or trial, then you can technically complete the dungeon if you have literally any amount of DPS over 0.0 DPS. However, if you have 1 DPS and the boss has 6 million HP then you will be at it for 6 million seconds! (But hey, it's still technically viable.)

Point being, that it is selfish to do this to other people, people who have their own busy lives and limited playing time. Knowingly not playing well (which is what I hear when I read "I refuse to practice on a dummy") or intentionally using a poor build extends the time-to-complete of any dungeon or trial in ways that are often unpredictable.

DPS is a defined role in the game, it means "Damage Per Second" which is why your expectation when filling that role is to provide damage, lots of it. Some people seem to believe that providing any amount of damage is fulfilling the role of DPS, but that is simply not true. Healers and Tanks also provide damage (sometimes more than a bad DPS...) but that does not make them DPS.

That's more of a different topic to this discussion. Bad DPS is bad DPS regardless of what build they use. Even people with carbon copies of whatever the meta is at the time can have absolutely abysmal DPS.

What's at issue here though is the idea that you have to have some arbitrarily astronomical DPS number in order to do any endgame content and that the only way to get those numbers is to use very specific builds. All we're saying is that, in essence, the array of builds than can get to those numbers (or threshold, I should say) needs to be expanded.

It's actually a multifaceted problem because it's not just the raw difficulty of the dungeons or the math behind the builds causing it. The community itself is one of it's contributing factors, since it's generally the players taking those requirements to unreasonably high thresholds.

JumpmanLane

In the end it comes down to this: can YOU perform, can YOU compete.

If you run a crap build that is by design unable to work in a competitive environment (vTrials, vDungeons, PvP) and refuse to put in the time practicing, training, getting better...well then, that’s all on you.

PvPers spend hours, days, months, even years testing and dueling in order to get better. PvEers spend similar amounts of time parsing and testing to get better. BOTH theory craft optimal builds to COMPETE.

IF anybody isn’t doing the same in a competitive environment they are shortchanging themselves. Asking ZOS for “help” is a confession of sorts.

tmbrinks

Glurin wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

To cite the saying, "There's no 'I' in 'team'" but that is exactly what is happening when one insists on inflicting an ill-conceived build or playstyle on the other 3 (or 11) members of your dungeon or trial team.

Truly, unless there is a hard-and-fast DPS check in a dungeon or trial, then you can technically complete the dungeon if you have literally any amount of DPS over 0.0 DPS. However, if you have 1 DPS and the boss has 6 million HP then you will be at it for 6 million seconds! (But hey, it's still technically viable.)

Point being, that it is selfish to do this to other people, people who have their own busy lives and limited playing time. Knowingly not playing well (which is what I hear when I read "I refuse to practice on a dummy") or intentionally using a poor build extends the time-to-complete of any dungeon or trial in ways that are often unpredictable.

DPS is a defined role in the game, it means "Damage Per Second" which is why your expectation when filling that role is to provide damage, lots of it. Some people seem to believe that providing any amount of damage is fulfilling the role of DPS, but that is simply not true. Healers and Tanks also provide damage (sometimes more than a bad DPS...) but that does not make them DPS.

That's more of a different topic to this discussion. Bad DPS is bad DPS regardless of what build they use. Even people with carbon copies of whatever the meta is at the time can have absolutely abysmal DPS.

What's at issue here though is the idea that you have to have some arbitrarily astronomical DPS number in order to do any endgame content and that the only way to get those numbers is to use very specific builds. All we're saying is that, in essence, the array of builds than can get to those numbers (or threshold, I should say) needs to be expanded.

It's actually a multifaceted problem because it's not just the raw difficulty of the dungeons or the math behind the builds causing it. The community itself is one of it's contributing factors, since it's generally the players taking those requirements to unreasonably high thresholds.

Emphasis mine.

There are a wide variety of builds that I see in the "endgame"

What are you quantifying as "endgame"?
Veteran Base game dungeons? You can do this in pretty much any build
Veteran DLC dungeons? You can do these is just about any build (with some knowledge of mechanics)
normal Trials? Can be done in pretty much anything you want.
veteran Trials? Yeah, you're going to have to be in some sets that are appropriate for your role. I've cleared vMoL on a healer in Julianos/Seducer. I wasn't as effective as I could be, but I've done it.
veteran HM Trials? Yes, you will need to build for these, but there is still a HUGE variety of builds you could use
Trinity achievements (No-death/HM/Speedrun in trials). These are where you certainly have some mandatory thresholds and gear requirements to complete.

So... maybe <1% of the game's content (HM DLC trials, and trinity runs) require that "astronomical" DPS number you claim. The rest is accessible to you on your builds, within reason. To do the other 99% of content, there is a huge number of builds that are viable.

But, please continue to pass blame onto others.

Your argument to me reads like this.
"I have a high school diploma, my neighbor has a PhD. I should be able to have the same $200k a year job, and the $100k Lexus he has... it's not fair" You want that job? You want that car? You gotta do something to earn it. This whole "I should be entitled to do everything, and they should bend the rules to fit what I deem appropriate" attitude from many in today's society is sickening to me.

LuxLunae

Kadoin wrote: »

When ZOS team learns that DPS checks aren't the only thing that matter, hard DPS checks are bad for any game, and introduces real mechanics that punish DPS more often. Until then

I remember in an MMO EE where I was doing super damage and then the boss put a reflective barrier on that killed me...because I was too dumb to stop my dps...The game punished blindly dealing dps..that was like 10 yrs ago tho...

That is where I (although others use it as well) coined the term meat heads.. the DPS of the mmo world... I transitioned to a healer and let a lot of meat heads die ... those were fun times.. since I controlled most of the heals and who got them. Then I tried my hand at tanking.... I loved being a tank...

Glurin

tmbrinks wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Your argument to me reads like this.
"I have a high school diploma, my neighbor has a PhD. I should be able to have the same $200k a year job, and the $100k Lexus he has... it's not fair" You want that job? You want that car? You gotta do something to earn it. This whole "I should be entitled to do everything, and they should bend the rules to fit what I deem appropriate" attitude from many in today's society is sickening to me.

Then you're not reading my argument.

Then you better clarify it. Because that is how I (and others here) read it.

You want to use a subpar build and still be able to accomplish the hardest content in the game. Just like how in my example somebody who has subpar education feels entitled to have the same opportunities as somebody who has worked hard to improve themselves.

No, we want to take that subpar build and make it par. Or take those way above par builds and bring them down to par. Or adjust par so that it is not a hole in one on every hole. Or do all three. The disparity between builds is just too wide. To use your analogy, the manager at McDonald's shouldn't be requiring a PhD in quantum physics in order to hire you to flip burger patties. Nor should you be denied a high paying job just because you didn't go to MIT or Harvard.

tmbrinks

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Your argument to me reads like this.
"I have a high school diploma, my neighbor has a PhD. I should be able to have the same $200k a year job, and the $100k Lexus he has... it's not fair" You want that job? You want that car? You gotta do something to earn it. This whole "I should be entitled to do everything, and they should bend the rules to fit what I deem appropriate" attitude from many in today's society is sickening to me.

Then you're not reading my argument.

Then you better clarify it. Because that is how I (and others here) read it.

You want to use a subpar build and still be able to accomplish the hardest content in the game. Just like how in my example somebody who has subpar education feels entitled to have the same opportunities as somebody who has worked hard to improve themselves.

No, we want to take that subpar build and make it par. Or take those way above par builds and bring them down to par. Or adjust par so that it is not a hole in one on every hole. Or do all three. The disparity between builds is just too wide. To use your analogy, the manager at McDonald's shouldn't be requiring a PhD in quantum physics in order to hire you to flip burger patties. Nor should you be denied a high paying job just because you didn't go to MIT or Harvard.

But that isn't the case in this game. As has been stated numerous times. 99% of content can be completed with virtually any build.

The reverse analogy doesn't even make sense in this case.

I guess subpar is a bad term to use, because it can still complete 99% of the content.

A "par" build in ESO is running around naked light attacking everything, since with that you'll be able to do about half of the content.

If you want Godslayer, or Gryphon Heart, or Tick-Tock-Tormenter, you need to get the hole-in-one, as those are among the most difficult achievements to get.

Average doesn't get you on the PGA tour. Average doesn't make you a quantum physicist. Average is fine, but it shouldn't let you complete everything. You have to be above average if you want those things.

idk

Glurin wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

You can’t expect a roleplaying build to be only barely worse than a BIS build.

Why not?

Seriously, why not? One can hardly call wearing a different shirt an original build if you're still restricted to all the same skills, weapons and stat allocation that the meta builds have. So yeah, damn right you should be able to build an ice mage or an evasive archer and still expect to be viable. They don't have to be "barely worse" though. Just good enough to be capable of doing well.

Zos gave us "play as you want" but that never meant every possible build would be optimal or even close to it. A great example is someone that wants do have a tanky build should not be able to put out the same amount of damage as a glass cannon. Simple logic prevails.

It is good to have a choice. Choose wisely.

idk

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Your argument to me reads like this.
"I have a high school diploma, my neighbor has a PhD. I should be able to have the same $200k a year job, and the $100k Lexus he has... it's not fair" You want that job? You want that car? You gotta do something to earn it. This whole "I should be entitled to do everything, and they should bend the rules to fit what I deem appropriate" attitude from many in today's society is sickening to me.

Then you're not reading my argument.

It seems they summed it up fairly well. Especially since you questioned, apparently very serious questions, why an RP build does not perform anywhere near a BiS build. Oddly you equate this to merely wearing a different shirt but you are literally saying any build should perform at least near to how well a BiS build performs.

If you were suggesting that someone should be able to come up with an off-meta build to perform close to what a BiS build do that would make sense, and it happens. However, that is not what you are suggesting.

JayKwellen

Glurin wrote: »

JayKwellen wrote: »

Personally, I think part of it stems from people feeling perturbed about others being, in their mind, better than them solely because of "crutches" like meta builds or CP or gear or whatever, or bristling at the idea that they may have to do something other than exactly what they want to reach certain levels of achievement -- this insidious idea that rather than equal opportunity to achieve something, instead achievement itself should be guaranteed. This idea that anything which challenges someones own individuality is somehow an attack on their own worthiness and value as a player. It's rather weird and infantile tbqh.

Here's where you're going wrong. "Equal opportunity to achieve something" should not mean "You have the choice to use this build or die." That's not diversity or choice, and it sure as hell isn't "play as you want". The so called RP builds should be viable even for difficult content. (Within reason of course.) Build diversity isn't about showing drastically different DPS meter results or what name is engraved on your metal undewear. Far from it. You should be killing stuff within a similar time span whether you use a staff or a sword or a bow. The diversity is in how you get there. It's the reason we can use any class to fill any role as opposed to being stuck as a tank just because you picked DK on the character creation screen.

Why?

I mean, don't think that "choose this or die" is an acceptable outcome either, but neither do I believe RP builds should perform equally as builds specifically optimized for a certain function. If you believe outcomes should be the same despite the input, then that's really no different than saying someone who chooses to spend four years to become a nurse should have the same earning power and scope of practice as someone who spent 12-16 years to become a physician. What's the point of putting in different amounts of effort if everyone ends up in the same place anyway? Different inputs should create different outputs.

I suppose though the scope of your objection should be clarified. Do you believe that an RP build should be able to compete in PvE/PvP, or do you believe it should be able to compete while providing similar damage and survivability as builds specifically optimized for one function?

If it's the former, then I 100% agree with you. If it's the latter, than I honestly think you're incredibly misguided.

Diversity means more than just "equal outcome". The range of results should be just as diverse as the range of inputs. If every build, no matter what its purpose, is able to achieve the same exact outcome then that is literally the opposite of diversity. It's a type of forced parity in which everyone and everything is the same, and it robs everyone of the ability to actually be diverse or unique, as, like I've said, anything you do will create the same result.

I literally can't even imagine a worse way to kill unique and diverse playstyles than to forcably homogenized the entire game and create a situation in which everyone is the same regardless of the choices they make.

Malkiv

If I may, I just want to give some perspective when anyone is considering what DPS means to them and their role. Interested? Read on.

Truth time - If you are filling the Damage Dealer role, no one gives two *** about what sets you are running, how your CP is distributed, or what your dummy parses are (more on that later). You know what they do give a bunch of *** about? Damage contribution and situational awareness. How much of the total damage did you contribute, and how effective were you in adhering to the mechanics of the encounter?

Do not look at the actual DPS, because it's largely irrelevant in encounters - unless you're dummy parsing. Instead, look at the percentage of the damage done, as that is the actual measure of your level of contribution in dealing damage. A very loose, easy rule-of-thumb to follow is this: If you are in 4 player content, your damage contribution should be no less than 40% of the total group damage. If you are in 12 player content with 4 support roles, your damage contribution should be no less than 10%. If you are in 12 player content with 3 support roles, your damage contribution should be no less than 9%.

If you're achieving far above these values for the content, then you're ready to move on to the next step. If you're achieving under these values, then there is room for personal improvement. If you do not want to personally improve for whatever reason that you may have, then it's okay to take a step back in the difficulty of content until you're able to personally achieve these values.

The only time sets, CP distribution, and dummy parsing matters is where groups are trying for very specific types of goals. Score runs, gear farms, achievement farms are typical examples. With these very narrow objectives, it is expected the player be able to perform certain functions which may require the utility of certain sets, or require the need for certain CP distribution for specific mitigation. When people are gate-keeping with dummy parses, they want to make sure that you understand how to sustain your damage, but don't care how you do it - just let's see that you actually can.

And remember: As long as you're 100% honest with yourself and the people you are grouping with, you can always disarm even the "Worst" of the "toxic elitists" by just saying something like, "Hey, that was my fault. I didn't know. I'm learning."

Glurin

JumpmanLane wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Your argument to me reads like this.
"I have a high school diploma, my neighbor has a PhD. I should be able to have the same $200k a year job, and the $100k Lexus he has... it's not fair" You want that job? You want that car? You gotta do something to earn it. This whole "I should be entitled to do everything, and they should bend the rules to fit what I deem appropriate" attitude from many in today's society is sickening to me.

Then you're not reading my argument.

Then you better clarify it. Because that is how I (and others here) read it.

You want to use a subpar build and still be able to accomplish the hardest content in the game. Just like how in my example somebody who has subpar education feels entitled to have the same opportunities as somebody who has worked hard to improve themselves.

No, we want to take that subpar build and make it par. Or take those way above par builds and bring them down to par. Or adjust par so that it is not a hole in one on every hole. Or do all three. The disparity between builds is just too wide. To use your analogy, the manager at McDonald's shouldn't be requiring a PhD in quantum physics in order to hire you to flip burger patties. Nor should you be denied a high paying job just because you didn't go to MIT or Harvard.

Never happen. Because REALLY good theory crafters don't give out builds. They most certainly don't share them with people like YOU...OR ZOS for that matter.

No real offense intended; however, take it as you will: You must be REALLY far down on the theory crafting totem pole if you want to Nerf what HAS to be mid-tier builds (if they're public and YOU know about them at all). You want to level the playing field between a rank novices Riften Roleplay Build and common cheese meta?
Hmmm...to what end?

So if we take your statement at face value, you don't see the problem with this situation? You're fine with around a 400% difference between low tier and "mid tier"? Let alone whatever you think the difference between mid and high tier is.

Do I want to level the field between a rank novice "roleplay build" and the common cheese meta? Frankly, yes. That's called balancing the game and is something that always needs to happen. Particularly when one side of that field is on top of a gigantic mountain and the other is well below sea level.

Glurin

JayKwellen wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

JayKwellen wrote: »

Personally, I think part of it stems from people feeling perturbed about others being, in their mind, better than them solely because of "crutches" like meta builds or CP or gear or whatever, or bristling at the idea that they may have to do something other than exactly what they want to reach certain levels of achievement -- this insidious idea that rather than equal opportunity to achieve something, instead achievement itself should be guaranteed. This idea that anything which challenges someones own individuality is somehow an attack on their own worthiness and value as a player. It's rather weird and infantile tbqh.

Here's where you're going wrong. "Equal opportunity to achieve something" should not mean "You have the choice to use this build or die." That's not diversity or choice, and it sure as hell isn't "play as you want". The so called RP builds should be viable even for difficult content. (Within reason of course.) Build diversity isn't about showing drastically different DPS meter results or what name is engraved on your metal undewear. Far from it. You should be killing stuff within a similar time span whether you use a staff or a sword or a bow. The diversity is in how you get there. It's the reason we can use any class to fill any role as opposed to being stuck as a tank just because you picked DK on the character creation screen.

Why?

I mean, don't think that "choose this or die" is an acceptable outcome either, but neither do I believe RP builds should perform equally as builds specifically optimized for a certain function. If you believe outcomes should be the same despite the input, then that's really no different than saying someone who chooses to spend four years to become a nurse should have the same earning power and scope of practice as someone who spent 12-16 years to become a physician. What's the point of putting in different amounts of effort if everyone ends up in the same place anyway? Different inputs should create different outputs.

[snip]

Diversity means more than just "equal outcome". The range of results should be just as diverse as the range of inputs. If every build, no matter what its purpose, is able to achieve the same exact outcome then that is literally the opposite of diversity. It's a type of forced parity in which everyone and everything is the same, and it robs everyone of the ability to actually be diverse or unique, as, like I've said, anything you do will create the same result.

I literally can't even imagine a worse way to kill unique and diverse playstyles than to forcably homogenized the entire game and create a situation in which everyone is the same regardless of the choices they make.

I didn't say equal outcome. You, @idk, @tmbrinks and everyone else need to stop putting words in my mouth. As I have stated numerous times already, just because I say these so called RP builds should be viable does not mean I expect them to be putting out the exact same numbers as the top tier trial speed run builds. But the gap between them does need to be shrunk down, one way or another.

It's not about full on homogenization. If you want your specialized damage dealer putting out more damage than anyone else, fine. That's perfect, and it should be doing that. But the level of damage it's putting out v.s. someone who is not specialized shouldn't be such that you're comparing a nuclear warhead to a spitball.

tmbrinks

Glurin wrote: »

JumpmanLane wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Your argument to me reads like this.
"I have a high school diploma, my neighbor has a PhD. I should be able to have the same $200k a year job, and the $100k Lexus he has... it's not fair" You want that job? You want that car? You gotta do something to earn it. This whole "I should be entitled to do everything, and they should bend the rules to fit what I deem appropriate" attitude from many in today's society is sickening to me.

Then you're not reading my argument.

Then you better clarify it. Because that is how I (and others here) read it.

You want to use a subpar build and still be able to accomplish the hardest content in the game. Just like how in my example somebody who has subpar education feels entitled to have the same opportunities as somebody who has worked hard to improve themselves.

No, we want to take that subpar build and make it par. Or take those way above par builds and bring them down to par. Or adjust par so that it is not a hole in one on every hole. Or do all three. The disparity between builds is just too wide. To use your analogy, the manager at McDonald's shouldn't be requiring a PhD in quantum physics in order to hire you to flip burger patties. Nor should you be denied a high paying job just because you didn't go to MIT or Harvard.

Never happen. Because REALLY good theory crafters don't give out builds. They most certainly don't share them with people like YOU...OR ZOS for that matter.

No real offense intended; however, take it as you will: You must be REALLY far down on the theory crafting totem pole if you want to Nerf what HAS to be mid-tier builds (if they're public and YOU know about them at all). You want to level the playing field between a rank novices Riften Roleplay Build and common cheese meta?
Hmmm...to what end?

So if we take your statement at face value, you don't see the problem with this situation? You're fine with around a 400% difference between low tier and "mid tier"? Let alone whatever you think the difference between mid and high tier is.

Do I want to level the field between a rank novice "roleplay build" and the common cheese meta? Frankly, yes. That's called balancing the game and is something that always needs to happen. Particularly when one side of that field is on top of a gigantic mountain and the other is well below sea level.

You purposeful use of words like "cheese meta" and the use of quite obvious exaggerations, tells me that you're unwilling to even listen to any other argument.

I don't know what happened to make you this cynical towards this, I'm sorry for that. But there is no problem with there being a gap between different builds and sets. If you want the higher levels of DPS, use the new sets.

Glurin

Malkiv wrote: »

When people are gate-keeping with dummy parses, they want to make sure that you understand how to sustain your damage, but don't care how you do it - just let's see that you actually can.

Well with the way some people are fighting me on this, apparently they do care how you do it. They really shouldn't, but they do.

tmbrinks

Glurin wrote: »

Malkiv wrote: »

When people are gate-keeping with dummy parses, they want to make sure that you understand how to sustain your damage, but don't care how you do it - just let's see that you actually can.

Well with the way some people are fighting me on this, apparently they do care how you do it. They really shouldn't, but they do.

No, they don't. But don't use a meme build and expect to get carried. When there are CRAFTED sets you can use to clear pretty much any content in the game. You're not gated behind having to clear the content to get the gear.

JumpmanLane

Glurin wrote: »

JumpmanLane wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Your argument to me reads like this.
"I have a high school diploma, my neighbor has a PhD. I should be able to have the same $200k a year job, and the $100k Lexus he has... it's not fair" You want that job? You want that car? You gotta do something to earn it. This whole "I should be entitled to do everything, and they should bend the rules to fit what I deem appropriate" attitude from many in today's society is sickening to me.

Then you're not reading my argument.

Then you better clarify it. Because that is how I (and others here) read it.

You want to use a subpar build and still be able to accomplish the hardest content in the game. Just like how in my example somebody who has subpar education feels entitled to have the same opportunities as somebody who has worked hard to improve themselves.

No, we want to take that subpar build and make it par. Or take those way above par builds and bring them down to par. Or adjust par so that it is not a hole in one on every hole. Or do all three. The disparity between builds is just too wide. To use your analogy, the manager at McDonald's shouldn't be requiring a PhD in quantum physics in order to hire you to flip burger patties. Nor should you be denied a high paying job just because you didn't go to MIT or Harvard.

Never happen. Because REALLY good theory crafters don't give out builds. They most certainly don't share them with people like YOU...OR ZOS for that matter.

No real offense intended; however, take it as you will: You must be REALLY far down on the theory crafting totem pole if you want to Nerf what HAS to be mid-tier builds (if they're public and YOU know about them at all). You want to level the playing field between a rank novices Riften Roleplay Build and common cheese meta?
Hmmm...to what end?

So if we take your statement at face value, you don't see the problem with this situation? You're fine with around a 400% difference between low tier and "mid tier"? Let alone whatever you think the difference between mid and high tier is.

Do I want to level the field between a rank novice "roleplay build" and the common cheese meta? Frankly, yes. That's called balancing the game and is something that always needs to happen. Particularly when one side of that field is on top of a gigantic mountain and the other is well below sea level.

I see it like this. You can run whatever you can dream up to run. To what end is the question though.

If what you come up with is based on wanting to role play some kind of cool looking no dps lore friendly whatever, and you bring that to Cyro, expect to get mopped. If you bring that to a trial or a DLC vet dungeon expect to hear it from people who don’t feel obliged to carry the Crap Build Guy. Expect to get booted.

You shouldn’t be asking ZOS for nerfs concerning your refusing to be competitive in a competitive environment. You can’t pretend to know what a truly BiS build looks like in PvP because no one shares such PvP builds. In PvE you may know, perhaps is easier even possible to know in PvE.

Yet for the sake of argument let’s say you DID know the BiS builds for PvP and PvE. Why wouldn’t you want to run them? And if you chose not to be in the right build why would expect ZOS to nerf ANYTHING? So you could FEEL good, running a crappy build? So, you wouldn’t feel mediocre for BEING mediocre? That’s what it amounts to. Why role play being a gaming god when you can actually BE one...if you put in the time and effort and do a little thinking (theory crafting).

ZOS has said the game has steep learning curve and few enjoy the climb. I beg to differ because those who made it to the top, through countless hours of effort actually ACHIEVED something. You want to be an also ran, or do tyou want to be a WINNER.

Lol enough pep talk...

Glurin

JumpmanLane wrote: »

Yet for the sake of argument let’s say you DID know the BiS builds for PvP and PvE. Why wouldn’t you want to run them?

If you have to ask, you'll never understand.

There shouldn't even be a "right" build. That's the spirit behind play as you want. You can play builds A, B, C, or all the way down the alphabet and then some, but you shouldn't be in a position where you've just cut your whole leg off if you don't play build M. Sure M can put out more damage than any other. That's perfectly reasonable. But if I chose to play build A, I should still be able to hold my own and keep up with him.

idk

Glurin wrote: »

JayKwellen wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

JayKwellen wrote: »

Personally, I think part of it stems from people feeling perturbed about others being, in their mind, better than them solely because of "crutches" like meta builds or CP or gear or whatever, or bristling at the idea that they may have to do something other than exactly what they want to reach certain levels of achievement -- this insidious idea that rather than equal opportunity to achieve something, instead achievement itself should be guaranteed. This idea that anything which challenges someones own individuality is somehow an attack on their own worthiness and value as a player. It's rather weird and infantile tbqh.

Here's where you're going wrong. "Equal opportunity to achieve something" should not mean "You have the choice to use this build or die." That's not diversity or choice, and it sure as hell isn't "play as you want". The so called RP builds should be viable even for difficult content. (Within reason of course.) Build diversity isn't about showing drastically different DPS meter results or what name is engraved on your metal undewear. Far from it. You should be killing stuff within a similar time span whether you use a staff or a sword or a bow. The diversity is in how you get there. It's the reason we can use any class to fill any role as opposed to being stuck as a tank just because you picked DK on the character creation screen.

Why?

I mean, don't think that "choose this or die" is an acceptable outcome either, but neither do I believe RP builds should perform equally as builds specifically optimized for a certain function. If you believe outcomes should be the same despite the input, then that's really no different than saying someone who chooses to spend four years to become a nurse should have the same earning power and scope of practice as someone who spent 12-16 years to become a physician. What's the point of putting in different amounts of effort if everyone ends up in the same place anyway? Different inputs should create different outputs.

[snip]

Diversity means more than just "equal outcome". The range of results should be just as diverse as the range of inputs. If every build, no matter what its purpose, is able to achieve the same exact outcome then that is literally the opposite of diversity. It's a type of forced parity in which everyone and everything is the same, and it robs everyone of the ability to actually be diverse or unique, as, like I've said, anything you do will create the same result.

I literally can't even imagine a worse way to kill unique and diverse playstyles than to forcably homogenized the entire game and create a situation in which everyone is the same regardless of the choices they make.

I didn't say equal outcome. You, [removed tags] and everyone else need to stop putting words in my mouth.

Oddly it is you that is putting words into our mouth as I never said you suggested equal outcome and tmbrinks indicated the same for them.

And my previous comments stand.

Glurin

tmbrinks wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

JumpmanLane wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Your argument to me reads like this.
"I have a high school diploma, my neighbor has a PhD. I should be able to have the same $200k a year job, and the $100k Lexus he has... it's not fair" You want that job? You want that car? You gotta do something to earn it. This whole "I should be entitled to do everything, and they should bend the rules to fit what I deem appropriate" attitude from many in today's society is sickening to me.

Then you're not reading my argument.

Then you better clarify it. Because that is how I (and others here) read it.

You want to use a subpar build and still be able to accomplish the hardest content in the game. Just like how in my example somebody who has subpar education feels entitled to have the same opportunities as somebody who has worked hard to improve themselves.

No, we want to take that subpar build and make it par. Or take those way above par builds and bring them down to par. Or adjust par so that it is not a hole in one on every hole. Or do all three. The disparity between builds is just too wide. To use your analogy, the manager at McDonald's shouldn't be requiring a PhD in quantum physics in order to hire you to flip burger patties. Nor should you be denied a high paying job just because you didn't go to MIT or Harvard.

Never happen. Because REALLY good theory crafters don't give out builds. They most certainly don't share them with people like YOU...OR ZOS for that matter.

No real offense intended; however, take it as you will: You must be REALLY far down on the theory crafting totem pole if you want to Nerf what HAS to be mid-tier builds (if they're public and YOU know about them at all). You want to level the playing field between a rank novices Riften Roleplay Build and common cheese meta?
Hmmm...to what end?

So if we take your statement at face value, you don't see the problem with this situation? You're fine with around a 400% difference between low tier and "mid tier"? Let alone whatever you think the difference between mid and high tier is.

Do I want to level the field between a rank novice "roleplay build" and the common cheese meta? Frankly, yes. That's called balancing the game and is something that always needs to happen. Particularly when one side of that field is on top of a gigantic mountain and the other is well below sea level.

You purposeful use of words like "cheese meta" and the use of quite obvious exaggerations, tells me that you're unwilling to even listen to any other argument.

I don't know what happened to make you this cynical towards this, I'm sorry for that. But there is no problem with there being a gap between different builds and sets. If you want the higher levels of DPS, use the new sets.

Those weren't my words. Look at what I quoted in that post.

Malkiv

Glurin wrote: »

Malkiv wrote: »

When people are gate-keeping with dummy parses, they want to make sure that you understand how to sustain your damage, but don't care how you do it - just let's see that you actually can.

Well with the way some people are fighting me on this, apparently they do care how you do it. They really shouldn't, but they do.

I have read the thread in its entirety, and no one is fighting you regarding how someone meets their damage sustain target on a dummy parse. Besides, anyone that thinks there is one single BIS setup for anything is largely delusional. Even at the very top, you will change ability bar and set load-outs in the same instance, depending on the encounters.

Glurin

idk wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

JayKwellen wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

JayKwellen wrote: »

Personally, I think part of it stems from people feeling perturbed about others being, in their mind, better than them solely because of "crutches" like meta builds or CP or gear or whatever, or bristling at the idea that they may have to do something other than exactly what they want to reach certain levels of achievement -- this insidious idea that rather than equal opportunity to achieve something, instead achievement itself should be guaranteed. This idea that anything which challenges someones own individuality is somehow an attack on their own worthiness and value as a player. It's rather weird and infantile tbqh.

Here's where you're going wrong. "Equal opportunity to achieve something" should not mean "You have the choice to use this build or die." That's not diversity or choice, and it sure as hell isn't "play as you want". The so called RP builds should be viable even for difficult content. (Within reason of course.) Build diversity isn't about showing drastically different DPS meter results or what name is engraved on your metal undewear. Far from it. You should be killing stuff within a similar time span whether you use a staff or a sword or a bow. The diversity is in how you get there. It's the reason we can use any class to fill any role as opposed to being stuck as a tank just because you picked DK on the character creation screen.

Why?

I mean, don't think that "choose this or die" is an acceptable outcome either, but neither do I believe RP builds should perform equally as builds specifically optimized for a certain function. If you believe outcomes should be the same despite the input, then that's really no different than saying someone who chooses to spend four years to become a nurse should have the same earning power and scope of practice as someone who spent 12-16 years to become a physician. What's the point of putting in different amounts of effort if everyone ends up in the same place anyway? Different inputs should create different outputs.

[snip]

Diversity means more than just "equal outcome". The range of results should be just as diverse as the range of inputs. If every build, no matter what its purpose, is able to achieve the same exact outcome then that is literally the opposite of diversity. It's a type of forced parity in which everyone and everything is the same, and it robs everyone of the ability to actually be diverse or unique, as, like I've said, anything you do will create the same result.

I literally can't even imagine a worse way to kill unique and diverse playstyles than to forcably homogenized the entire game and create a situation in which everyone is the same regardless of the choices they make.

I didn't say equal outcome. You, [removed tags] and everyone else need to stop putting words in my mouth.

Oddly it is you that is putting words into our mouth as I never said you suggested equal outcome and tmbrinks indicated the same for them.

That's true. You didn't use the exact words "equal outcome". You said:

idk wrote: »

Zos gave us "play as you want" but that never meant every possible build would be optimal or even close to it. A great example is someone that wants do have a tanky build should not be able to put out the same amount of damage as a glass cannon.

(God how I hate that every argument has to be so literal now. And I'm using the original definition of literal in that statement, not the new one that says literal is virtual.)

Malkiv

Glurin wrote: »

(God how I hate that every argument has to be so literal now. And I'm using the original definition of literal in that statement, not the new one that says literal is virtual.)

I think you meant "figurative," as opposed to "virtual."