The people upset about the proc test don't make any sense

Jaraal

BardInSolitude wrote: »

I personally think that "zerging", as it is called, is a valid strategy but often real wars have been won by sides with far fewer numbers but with better technology and tactics, so where is that representation in game?

A few well placed lancers, coldfires, and meatbags will destroy a ball group. Which is why balls tend to prefer farming towers and luring players out into the field away from keeps.

Imagine what would happen if more people invested in good siege and developed the discipline to not chase and zerg! But it seems to be human nature to attack at all costs, especially when there's no real price to pay.

AuraNebula

spacefracking wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Another reason for griping about the test that you don't mention is that many players assumed that no-procs would be around for three weeks to test the impact on performance, then ZOS would evaluate it. They tailored their feedback accordingly - performance certainly didn't improve.

Then they got blindsided by ZOS' choice to use the three-week test as a referendum on no-proc gameplay and to lock in no-procs for at least 6 months.

There was a poll, on here no less, during the test, which showed 80%+ of players preferred no proc. That was the feedback period, and the results were overwhelming.

I didn't use that poll. I thought it would only be a test. I didn't come to the forums until after they had announced they were going to make it permanent.

I'm sure many others thought the same as me, so the only people responding to that poll were people who frequent the forums regularly, and not people like me that just check it when there is a major update.

I'm here more now because I dont want to get blindsided again.

Elo106

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

spacefracking wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Another reason for griping about the test that you don't mention is that many players assumed that no-procs would be around for three weeks to test the impact on performance, then ZOS would evaluate it. They tailored their feedback accordingly - performance certainly didn't improve.

Then they got blindsided by ZOS' choice to use the three-week test as a referendum on no-proc gameplay and to lock in no-procs for at least 6 months.

There was a poll, on here no less, during the test, which showed 80%+ of players preferred no proc. That was the feedback period, and the results were overwhelming.

I didn't use that poll. I thought it would only be a test. I didn't come to the forums until after they had announced they were going to make it permanent.

I'm sure many others thought the same as me, so the only people responding to that poll were people who frequent the forums regularly, and not people like me that just check it when there is a major update.

I'm here more now because I dont want to get blindsided again.

Same, after they announced it we had a new poll but that was closed and they linked to the old one.
I was just going to wait till the test was over like we did for the last one.