How is it possible to deal such low(<10k) dps? (Solved, #1 updated)

Troodon80

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

Seriously there is room for all playstyles in this game so why pick on those that play it differently than you?

[...]

Posts like this are the main reason I avoid trying to group in any harder content, I refuse to give up my empathy for any elitist sense of superiority.

edit: clarity

I can't see any part of the post you're quoting that says differently to what you've said? You've just about proven everything they said. I'm unsure where the passive-aggressive hostility is coming from?

For the first question, the comment was very obviously aimed at the original poster who is seen using Kilt. To your second question, I've know many new players who get to CP, climb to 300-ish CP all without ever having Mundus stone. Simply because no one told them it was necessary (and it's technically not necessary). I fail to see why you call that a mental impairment?

As for empathy... off-topic, but I'm not sure how empathy comes into the topic of why damage could be low? As an aside, empathy works as a two-way street. You're perfectly entitled to play how you want, though it doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to be happy with it. To completely disregard anyone elses' view or unhappiness about it shows a lack of empathy, not the opposite.

I am going to address some of your other statements, though, as some might not be obvious.

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

2) Not a moron so I use what suits my character.
Also why does everyone assume that if I want to just be a casual player I must have some kind of mental impairment?

So what do you use?

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

5) Again who cares If I have a stat at cap, some of us care much more about the fun than the numbers.

The only way you're going to get a stat at cap is under the most ideal circumstances. The trial dummy, for example. Or being unoptimised to the degree that you're over cap and are now lacking in another area. The comment is aimed at the original poster's screenshots.

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

I don't play an RPG to become a math professor.

Some people do care about this aspect and do find this fun. I, for example, make spreadsheets and utilities for everything.

To calculate maximum uptimes, for example:

I'm also going to assume you're not familiar with tabletop RPGs, which do requrie some mathematical skills. You don't necessarily need to be a professor.

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

6) What exactly is wrong with a character wanting to be a bit tankier?
Is that something that is also never allowed in most groups, good thing I solo 99% of the time?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with a character wanting to be a bit tankier, but here comes the numbers game: the further you spec towards defence, the less offensive output you will have. It's not even specifically a scientific equation. It's just a matter of reading the tooltips. Light armour gives more crit rating and offensive penetration. Medium gives more crit damage rating. Heavy gives more health and resistances. It doesn't even matter how much, exactly; I'm not here to teach you the mathematics behind it, just to explain it.

This is why full spec PvE tanks do very little damage compared to either a healer or a DD, and it is a good explanation as to why newer players are lacking on the DPS front when they don't take the time to understand the core concepts of the game on a fundamental level.

blacksghost

Ahhh glasshoppa it is a rare skill. Honed with years of dedicated “having a life-ness”and a soupçon of “incredible naff internet.” But above all never underestimate the laws of “chill man it’s just a game”.

hakan

lauykanson wrote: »

Take off your meta fake sets, put julianos, spinner and a 2-piece monster set on then redo the parse on a 3 mil dummy and we can proceed to talk about the rest. But chances are this is a bait thread anyway.

You can still do more than 10k though. I dont know what this comment is trying to achieve.

Regardless, you guys underestimating being casual. Not every casual just slays 2 rats and logs off from the game. There are lot of inbetween players.

You dont need the game to teach you the ani cancel either. I was just running around trying to tackle as many enemies as possible when i found out i could block and steel tornado. I do think they are many players do this kind of stuff and explore the game. Exploring isnt only for new maps.

ALSO you dont need dps meters or have to play like wow to reach decent dps at all. I dont know why you guys talk about it like everyone has to do 100k dps. 40k is enough for lots of things.

Elsonso

hakan wrote: »

ALSO you dont need dps meters or have to play like wow to reach decent dps at all. I dont know why you guys talk about it like everyone has to do 100k dps. 40k is enough for lots of things.

The thing is that if you just play.... you do the quests, play events, run normal dungeons, do a BG or two on occasion, tackle a world boss or public dungeon when someone is around... and pay no attention to DPS... you are probably doing half that, or less. My feeling is that this is where the majority of players are at, right now. No one needs more than 20k DPS to do any of that, and they certainly ain't doing anywhere near 17k DPS spamming light attacks.

drunkendx

Divines perverse me this is still going on?

Kiralyn2000

drunkendx wrote: »

Divines perverse me this is still going on?

...perhaps you meant "preserve"?


edit: I suppose you could have been meaning Dibella...

drunkendx

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

drunkendx wrote: »

Divines perverse me this is still going on?

...perhaps you meant "preserve"?


edit: I suppose you could have been meaning Dibella...

*sigh*

I knew someone would be clever.

Yes, I know difference between "perverse" and "preserve"

No, I did not misspell.

I'm just that much surprised people are failing to grasp trial dummy is not good measure for DPS check.

Kiralyn2000

Sorry.

blktauna

Ratinira wrote: »

blktauna wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

People don't care about pulling their own weight.

Rude man. Low level dungeons simply don't need a lot of DPS. There's no reason to be harsh on folks who are doing ok but not what you personally want.

Low lvl dungeons don't need a lot of DPS when you are grouped with someone who has a lot of DPS
But when your group's overall DPS is around 12k and you struggling to kill even trash mobs the opinion about the amount of DPS is changing... somewhere after waisting 30 min in lvl 10 dungeon...

my straight tank does less than 12k and he solos fungal grotto, so I don't buy that. That sounds like a mechanics and communication problem not a dps problem

Brrrofski

thorwyn wrote: »

I think there is a common misconception that keeps popping up over and over again in these discussions. The misconception is the "I'm not chasing the meta, I am playing to have fun" narrative, which insinuates that everyone out there who is in some shape or form trying to optimize, practice and invest time and effort is not having fun. That is wrong! Playing a complex game like ESO is like playing the piano. Some people enjoy hitting random keys and listening to the sound they produce, maybe even a small melody. Other people keep practicing and trying to get better at controlling the instrument. They are trying to find out how far they can go, how good they can get and they enjoy the progress and the results. The path might be boring, repetitive and frustrating, but the result is the reward. This is a different approach to having fun, but it is fun nonetheless.

Sadly, you can not put both types of piano players in a band and expect both sides to be happy about the result.

Which is totally correct. Playing the game well IS fun to me. Spending 4 times the time it should take on something is not.

Also, people who are "having fun so leave me along", that's fine if you're playing with friends or solo.

When you're in group content with random people though, you're having fun at the cost of impacting.others. Nobody wants to spend longer on something that there's no need to.

Even then, still not an excuse for terrible DPS. You can pull 20k+ in the most trash sets.

VaranisArano

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

No, you didn't name and shame, but still. [snip]

Word of advice. You don't have the time to PM 6 complete strangers to point out their problems? Honestly, have you considered that such advice may not be desirable? Especially coming from someone who's response was that you don't have time to PM them, but you DO have time to post their gear and parse to the forums?

If you wanted to help those players, this wasn't the way to do it. I'd suggest tact and discretion if you do reach out to these players.

If you just wanted to prove a point on the forums, you kinda did, but it's a point most of us already understood from personally observation, without needing you to post the Encounter Log info from your teammates that you deemed underperforming.

[edited for rude/insulting comment]

Grandchamp1989

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

Edit: I think I just found the answer.

Joined a random vRG pug, and this is what showed up on log:


Let's see what the ~9k range dps have and what they were doing during the fight:
Magplar no.1 (9228.7)

Gear: (All in correct traits)


Perfectly normal, right? (Except for the crown poison)
However...

Skills:


Wait...

Cast:



Now I see why their Sweep is doing a measly 3k dps even with all gold Medusa/Julianos/Slimecraw...

Magplar no.2 (9736.0)

Gear:


Huh???

Skills:


HUH?????

Cast:


Somehow this guy's Sweep is 2x the dps than the previous dude...
My brain is hurting so much right now...

Honorable mentions:

1. Magplar no.3, dps: 14,357.2

Skills:


2. Magsorc, dps: 12581.5

(Pets doing 4x more damage than their Elemental Weapon...)

---

Normally I'd be more than happy to give underperforming dps with the right gears some tips to boost their damage.
But I don't have the time to PM 6 complete strangers to point out their problems.

They were doing the right mechs and even got the 1st boss down to 15% health that attempt.
Almost all of them had bis gears with the correct traits.

Yet, no one told Magplar no.2 that, as a dps, their job is to damage the boss instead of adding heals.
No one told Magplar no.1 and no.3 that their skills are all over the place.
And no one told Magsorc no.4 that Force Shock is a much better spammable in real combats, and that Alcast only uses Elemental Weapon on parses.

All of the aforementioned dps were sitting >1000cp, some were even >1500cp.

This is why, it is possible for ppl to have <10k dps--Information inequality, the lack of critical thinking skills, and herd mentality

---

You can easily reach 17k dps by spamming light attack


You can easily reach 40k dps by spamming light attack + 2 skills


How is <10k dps even possible?

I have seen this many times before.
It is not uncommon for me to be at around 30% dmg in a veteran pug trial.
30% is what you should be at in a 3dd dungeon run.. Not a Trial.

I think the reason you see this is people who buy carry runs to get into vet trials but they can't do any damage.

Facefister

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

No, you didn't name and shame, but still. [snip]

Word of advice. You don't have the time to PM 6 complete strangers to point out their problems? Honestly, have you considered that such advice may not be desirable? Especially coming from someone who's response was that you don't have time to PM them, but you DO have time to post their gear and parse to the forums?

If you wanted to help those players, this wasn't the way to do it. I'd suggest tact and discretion if you do reach out to these players.

If you just wanted to prove a point on the forums, you kinda did, but it's a point most of us already understood from personally observation, without needing you to post the Encounter Log info from your teammates that you deemed underperforming.

Analysing the numbers of your [snip] low performance might be the first step to get you better though.

[edited for baiting & to remove quote]

etchedpixels

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

The point of the combat log is to collect data. I don't get why you think it's designed for shaming people. Doubly so given they carefully removed any names so they could just discuss the actual data not the people.

Grandchamp1989 wrote: »

I think the reason you see this is people who buy carry runs to get into vet trials but they can't do any damage.

I don't think so. In that group I could easily believe the extra healer came along because their mates said they needed someone to make up the numbers but the others are typical of the problem with the high end of the game

- It's not intuitive how to get good results
- Most of the material about it is impenetrable unless you already understand a lot of it. It's not a learning curve, it's a cliff.
- In many cases the difference between 10 and 30K really is telling someone "slot this skill but don't use it, use this non obvious skill as a spammable, and you need this passive from a different tree for no apparent reason but a small note at the bottom"

Much as I love ESO most of the CP system and many elements of the way the combat system presents are deeply flawed in the way they throw things that should not need to matter at all players (eg by not having a default automatic CP assignment you can adjust) , and then hide other critical information from everyone or put stuff in weird places in unrelated skills (magelight being prime example)

The 10K ceiling many players hit really is about lack of available information and understanding of some of the weird ways the ESO combat model works. It's not weaving (you can do 30K without weaving and good players way more) it's the basic buffs and bonuses.

spartaxoxo

When you make a pickup group without reqs, you get what you get.

The number of people who can't think critically about what it is they are signing up for and then complain about predictable results are way too high.

Don't pug vet trials that aren't asking for specific people and don't join random normals (which is literally the casual queue) if you don't want to play with casual players.

Elsonso

etchedpixels wrote: »

The point of the combat log is to collect data. I don't get why you think it's designed for shaming people. Doubly so given they carefully removed any names so they could just discuss the actual data not the people.

It isn't the data, it is how it is presented. Just showing numbers and pictures and saying things are wrong isn't enough. Data presented with informational context that explains why something is wrong, and how to fix it, is useful.

VaranisArano

Facefister wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

No, you didn't name and shame, but still. [snip]

Word of advice. You don't have the time to PM 6 complete strangers to point out their problems? Honestly, have you considered that such advice may not be desirable? Especially coming from someone who's response was that you don't have time to PM them, but you DO have time to post their gear and parse to the forums?

If you wanted to help those players, this wasn't the way to do it. I'd suggest tact and discretion if you do reach out to these players.

If you just wanted to prove a point on the forums, you kinda did, but it's a point most of us already understood from personally observation, without needing you to post the Encounter Log info from your teammates that you deemed underperforming.

Analysing the numbers of your [snip] low performance might be the first step to get you better though.

[edited for baiting & to remove quote]

Yes, but analyzing the data for ways to improve your own performance supposed to be something you do on your own or with your group.

It's generally not intended for posting on the forum to say: Look at how low these other people's DPS is because of their specific gear and skill usage.

The first is using it to improve, as intended. The later is not, especially when the OP doesn't intend to offer any help to the individuals involved.

etchedpixels wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

The point of the combat log is to collect data. I don't get why you think it's designed for shaming people. Doubly so given they carefully removed any names so they could just discuss the actual data not the people.

Encounter Log is not designed for shaming people - though upon rereading I can see where I have have been unclear. The OP is the first person I've seen use Log info to shame teammates they deemed underperforming by posting those teammates' specific gear and skill use combat info. That it's anonymous doesn't really make a big difference for me.

See, while I cannot identify the players from the information posted, I strongly suspect that given the combat information posted, at least two of the players in that raid would be able to identify that their builds were singled out for attention as examples of low DPS, should they be active on the forums and interested in this thread.

I can't speak for everyone, but if it were my build, I'd really rather not find that a stranger in my PUG raid decided that I was so bad they just had to show everyone else my gear and damage to prove their point (and then add their own judgment on why I played that way: to quote the OP, "Information inequality, the lack of critical thinking skills, and herd mentality."

The time and place for that sort of analysis is privately with an individual or group interested in improving. The OP makes it clear they won't be offering to help, so...maybe the OP wasn't intending to shame their unnamed teammates, but that's what I see here, and I don't care for it.

There's a way to use Encounter Logging to help underperforming PUG teammates. Posting their gear and skill on the forums for judgment? I don't think that's the way to do it.

Alemtuzumab

VaranisArano wrote: »

Facefister wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

No, you didn't name and shame, but still. [snip]

Word of advice. You don't have the time to PM 6 complete strangers to point out their problems? Honestly, have you considered that such advice may not be desirable? Especially coming from someone who's response was that you don't have time to PM them, but you DO have time to post their gear and parse to the forums?

If you wanted to help those players, this wasn't the way to do it. I'd suggest tact and discretion if you do reach out to these players.

If you just wanted to prove a point on the forums, you kinda did, but it's a point most of us already understood from personally observation, without needing you to post the Encounter Log info from your teammates that you deemed underperforming.

Analysing the numbers of your [snip] low performance might be the first step to get you better though.

[edited for baiting & to remove quote]

Yes, but analyzing the data for ways to improve your own performance supposed to be something you do on your own or with your group.

It's generally not intended for posting on the forum to say: Look at how low these other people's DPS is because of their specific gear and skill usage.

The first is using it to improve, as intended. The later is not, especially when the OP doesn't intend to offer any help to the individuals involved.

etchedpixels wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

The point of the combat log is to collect data. I don't get why you think it's designed for shaming people. Doubly so given they carefully removed any names so they could just discuss the actual data not the people.

Encounter Log is not designed for shaming people - though upon rereading I can see where I have have been unclear. The OP is the first person I've seen use Log info to shame teammates they deemed underperforming by posting those teammates' specific gear and skill use combat info. That it's anonymous doesn't really make a big difference for me.

See, while I cannot identify the players from the information posted, I strongly suspect that given the combat information posted, at least two of the players in that raid would be able to identify that their builds were singled out for attention as examples of low DPS, should they be active on the forums and interested in this thread.

I can't speak for everyone, but if it were my build, I'd really rather not find that a stranger in my PUG raid decided that I was so bad they just had to show everyone else my gear and damage to prove their point (and then add their own judgment on why I played that way: to quote the OP, "Information inequality, the lack of critical thinking skills, and herd mentality."

The time and place for that sort of analysis is privately with an individual or group interested in improving. The OP makes it clear they won't be offering to help, so...maybe the OP wasn't intending to shame their unnamed teammates, but that's what I see here, and I don't care for it.

There's a way to use Encounter Logging to help underperforming PUG teammates. Posting their gear and skill on the forums for judgment? I don't think that's the way to do it.

I asked a question.

And I found the answer by analyzing the combat data of anonymous players.

I posted the data and my thought process.

Why is it problematic? How do you suggest to approach the problem without presenting the actual data?

Elsonso

VaranisArano wrote: »

Encounter Log is not designed for shaming people - though upon rereading I can see where I have have been unclear. The OP is the first person I've seen use Log info to shame teammates they deemed underperforming by posting those teammates' specific gear and skill use combat info. That it's anonymous doesn't really make a big difference for me.

Interestingly, this was a concern when ZOS announced this, and the opt-in that they provide really does not go far enough.

VaranisArano wrote: »

There's a way to use Encounter Logging to help underperforming PUG teammates. Posting their gear and skill on the forums for judgment? I don't think that's the way to do it.

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

Why is it problematic? How do you suggest to approach the problem without presenting the actual data?

The data was presented in a manner that was critical in nature, and that is pretty much where it stopped. It did not elaborate on the problems and conclusions observed, so I am sure some people will wonder what was wrong because they don't see anything wrong. It did not go into any suggestions that a player could use to take away and learn something.

VaranisArano

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Facefister wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

No, you didn't name and shame, but still. [snip]

Word of advice. You don't have the time to PM 6 complete strangers to point out their problems? Honestly, have you considered that such advice may not be desirable? Especially coming from someone who's response was that you don't have time to PM them, but you DO have time to post their gear and parse to the forums?

If you wanted to help those players, this wasn't the way to do it. I'd suggest tact and discretion if you do reach out to these players.

If you just wanted to prove a point on the forums, you kinda did, but it's a point most of us already understood from personally observation, without needing you to post the Encounter Log info from your teammates that you deemed underperforming.

Analysing the numbers of your [snip] low performance might be the first step to get you better though.

[edited for baiting & to remove quote]

Yes, but analyzing the data for ways to improve your own performance supposed to be something you do on your own or with your group.

It's generally not intended for posting on the forum to say: Look at how low these other people's DPS is because of their specific gear and skill usage.

The first is using it to improve, as intended. The later is not, especially when the OP doesn't intend to offer any help to the individuals involved.

etchedpixels wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

The point of the combat log is to collect data. I don't get why you think it's designed for shaming people. Doubly so given they carefully removed any names so they could just discuss the actual data not the people.

Encounter Log is not designed for shaming people - though upon rereading I can see where I have have been unclear. The OP is the first person I've seen use Log info to shame teammates they deemed underperforming by posting those teammates' specific gear and skill use combat info. That it's anonymous doesn't really make a big difference for me.

See, while I cannot identify the players from the information posted, I strongly suspect that given the combat information posted, at least two of the players in that raid would be able to identify that their builds were singled out for attention as examples of low DPS, should they be active on the forums and interested in this thread.

I can't speak for everyone, but if it were my build, I'd really rather not find that a stranger in my PUG raid decided that I was so bad they just had to show everyone else my gear and damage to prove their point (and then add their own judgment on why I played that way: to quote the OP, "Information inequality, the lack of critical thinking skills, and herd mentality."

The time and place for that sort of analysis is privately with an individual or group interested in improving. The OP makes it clear they won't be offering to help, so...maybe the OP wasn't intending to shame their unnamed teammates, but that's what I see here, and I don't care for it.

There's a way to use Encounter Logging to help underperforming PUG teammates. Posting their gear and skill on the forums for judgment? I don't think that's the way to do it.

I asked a question.

And I found the answer by analyzing the combat data of anonymous players.

I posted the data and my thought process.

Why is it problematic? How do you suggest to approach the problem without presenting the actual data?

Well, since you asked...(Fair warning, I am not a statistician nor a clinical researcher, but I am a science teacher who knows enough about it to be dangerous.)

My concern is that this data is displaying something generally perceived as negative: low DPS. The conclusions given are negative: the players are said to be underperforming and to lack critical thinking skills. That makes anonymity even more important.

It's not that you can't show the data - scientific studies do it all the time. It's that you either get permission to share it with whatever identifying info you have to include or you fully anonymize it. Now, ZOS doesn't require permission before posting Encounter Log stuff, but in my opinion, it's only polite when you know that it's going up on the forum.

I did not see that you had permission from the Magplars in question. If you do, that changes my perception quite a bit.

Now, assuming you didn't get permission, you can still show the data, but it's even more important to fully anonymize it.

Unfortunately, your data collection is extremely limited and not fully anonymized. Part of anonymity is also that the clinical participants can't easily identify their own info. Whereas you gave identifying factors like "Joined a random vRG pug", in addition to the specific class, gear, and skills that is integral to the data.

If I'd been a MagPlar PUG in a vetRG trial between now and when this thread was first posted and remembered getting the boss down to 15% one attempt...well, I'd be looking at the posted info in a different light.

Saying "Joined a random vet trial PUG" would make the potential sample size of Magplar players a lot bigger, and thus much less likely that the players can identify their own builds definitively. It's a lot harder than if one of your teammates is a forum user, finds this thread, and thinks, "Huh, I ran vRG the last couple of days on my Magplar, and that's my gear. That's the skills I use. Oh, people are judging my performance on the forums."

Does that distinction make sense?

I appreciate that you didn't name the players, but there's a fair bit of identifying info nonetheless.

The data also gets stronger when you have more of it. Let's say you took the vRG PUG data for 10+ runs over a month, and pulled all the <10k DPS gear/parses. Then label it "I ran the same vet DLC trial for a month and took the logs." At that point, the potential sample size is large enough that not only are your conclusions that much better supported, but it's also a lot harder for any individual player to say "That's my build. I ran that specific trial. That's me that players are judging."

That might be a lot more work than you want to put in, but hey, you asked what I'd recommend.


I guess I should end this with an apology to you:

I'd have probably come off a lot better if I'd asked you to just change the extra identifying info like the name of the trial and the specifics of the boss fight attempt in the first place. I was too fast to condemn and not quick enough to explain how to fix the problem I saw.

I'm sorry.

Alemtuzumab

VaranisArano wrote: »

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Facefister wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

No, you didn't name and shame, but still. [snip]

Word of advice. You don't have the time to PM 6 complete strangers to point out their problems? Honestly, have you considered that such advice may not be desirable? Especially coming from someone who's response was that you don't have time to PM them, but you DO have time to post their gear and parse to the forums?

If you wanted to help those players, this wasn't the way to do it. I'd suggest tact and discretion if you do reach out to these players.

If you just wanted to prove a point on the forums, you kinda did, but it's a point most of us already understood from personally observation, without needing you to post the Encounter Log info from your teammates that you deemed underperforming.

Analysing the numbers of your [snip] low performance might be the first step to get you better though.

[edited for baiting & to remove quote]

[]

Yes, but analyzing the data for ways to improve your own performance supposed to be something you do on your own or with your group.

It's generally not intended for posting on the forum to say: Look at how low these other people's DPS is because of their specific gear and skill usage.

The first is using it to improve, as intended. The later is not, especially when the OP doesn't intend to offer any help to the individuals involved.

etchedpixels wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

The point of the combat log is to collect data. I don't get why you think it's designed for shaming people. Doubly so given they carefully removed any names so they could just discuss the actual data not the people.

Encounter Log is not designed for shaming people - though upon rereading I can see where I have have been unclear. The OP is the first person I've seen use Log info to shame teammates they deemed underperforming by posting those teammates' specific gear and skill use combat info. That it's anonymous doesn't really make a big difference for me.

See, while I cannot identify the players from the information posted, I strongly suspect that given the combat information posted, at least two of the players in that raid would be able to identify that their builds were singled out for attention as examples of low DPS, should they be active on the forums and interested in this thread.

I can't speak for everyone, but if it were my build, I'd really rather not find that a stranger in my PUG raid decided that I was so bad they just had to show everyone else my gear and damage to prove their point (and then add their own judgment on why I played that way: to quote the OP, "Information inequality, the lack of critical thinking skills, and herd mentality."

The time and place for that sort of analysis is privately with an individual or group interested in improving. The OP makes it clear they won't be offering to help, so...maybe the OP wasn't intending to shame their unnamed teammates, but that's what I see here, and I don't care for it.

There's a way to use Encounter Logging to help underperforming PUG teammates. Posting their gear and skill on the forums for judgment? I don't think that's the way to do it.

I asked a question.

And I found the answer by analyzing the combat data of anonymous players.

I posted the data and my thought process.

Why is it problematic? How do you suggest to approach the problem without presenting the actual data?

Well, since you asked...(Fair warning, I am not a statistician nor a clinical researcher, but I am a science teacher who knows enough about it to be dangerous.)

My concern is that this data is displaying something generally perceived as negative: low DPS. The conclusions given are negative: the players are said to be underperforming and to lack critical thinking skills. That makes anonymity even more important.

It's not that you can't show the data - scientific studies do it all the time. It's that you either get permission to share it with whatever identifying info you have to include or you fully anonymize it. Now, ZOS doesn't require permission before posting Encounter Log stuff, but in my opinion, it's only polite when you know that it's going up on the forum.

I did not see that you had permission from the Magplars in question. If you do, that changes my perception quite a bit.

Now, assuming you didn't get permission, you can still show the data, but it's even more important to fully anonymize it.

Unfortunately, your data collection is extremely limited and not fully anonymized.

Part of anonymity is also that the clinical participants can't easily identify their own info. Whereas you gave identifying factors like "Joined a random vRG pug", in addition to the specific class, gear, and skills that is integral to the data.

If I'd been a MagPlar PUG in a vetRG trial between now and when this thread was first posted and remembered getting the boss down to 15% one attempt...well, I'd be looking at the posted info in a different light.

Saying "Joined a random vet trial PUG" would make the potential sample size of Magplar players a lot bigger, and thus much less likely that the players can identify their own builds definitively. It's a lot harder than if one of your teammates is a forum user, finds this thread, and thinks, "Huh, I ran vRG the last couple of days on my Magplar, and that's my gear. That's the skills I use. Oh, people are judging my performance on the forums."

Does that distinction make sense?

I appreciate that you didn't name the players, but there's a fair bit of identifying info nonetheless.

The data also gets stronger when you have more of it. Let's say you took the vRG PUG data for 10+ runs over a month, and pulled all the <10k DPS gear/parses. Then label it "I ran the same vet DLC trial for a month and took the logs." At that point, the potential sample size is large enough that not only are your conclusions that much better supported, but it's also a lot harder for any individual player to say "That's my build. I ran that specific trial. That's me that players are judging."

That might be a lot more work than you want to put in, but hey, you asked what I'd recommend.


I guess I should end this with an apology to you:

I'd have probably come off a lot better if I'd asked you to just change the extra identifying info like the name of the trial and the specifics of the boss fight attempt in the first place. I was too fast to condemn and not quick enough to explain how to fix the problem I saw.


I'm sorry.

That makes a lot of sense. I edited the post so that it now says "random trial" instead.

Also, I thought I provided the fix already:

Yet, no one told Magplar no.2 that, as a dps, their job is to damage the boss instead of adding heals.
No one told Magplar no.1 and no.3 that their skills are all over the place.
And no one told Magsorc no.4 that Force Shock is a much better spammable in real combats, and that Alcast only uses Elemental Weapon on parses.

which means that:
1.
-ZoS should clearly distinguish the roles during the tutorial (atm, it only includes bare minimum info like heavy attack, block, etc.)
-The raid leader should be more responsible and clarify the group member's roles.
2.
-They can always ask ppl---"Is x skill optimal?" and ppl like me will be more than happy to help. Basically, socialize more.
-If not, the raid leader should keep logs to point out the obvious problems to the group member.
-Again, an informative tutorial can really help.
3.
-Alcast does have great builds. But most importantly, get a dummy and see what suits you the best.
-Ppl should tell them no one uses Elemental Weapon in real combats. (I did, and they responded "but Alcast said so!")
-^^In that case, the GM/leader should explain to them the real reason behind such choice. (inconsistency due to lag)

Basically, it all comes down to what I concluded---practice more, theorize more, gain a better understanding of the game itself, and think critically.

spartaxoxo

Having low dps does not show a lack of critical thinking skills. Some people just aren't interested in doing better and play the game they want in the kinds of groups that they are supposed to join, like PUGs without reqs or normal dungeon queue.

Others are thinking critically, and are at the earliest stages of development. They learn from trying something, failing, and then trying again. And you seeing their failure doesn't mean they aren't thinking critically.

It's more than a bit insulting, imo, to act like these people aren't thinking critically rather than pointing out specific errors. And it's people that say things like this that end up often times making people wary of asking for help. So they'll instead take a lot longer to eventually reach good dps, because they will instead learn through failure from the very beginning instead of learning what works and doesn't work from people who already know and refining from there.

Alemtuzumab

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Having low dps does not show a lack of critical thinking skills. Some people just aren't interested in doing better and play the game they want in the kinds of groups that they are supposed to join, like PUGs without reqs or normal dungeon queue.

Others are thinking critically, and are at the earliest stages of development.

It's more than a bit insulting, imo, to act like these people aren't thinking critically rather than pointing out specific errors.

Notice how they all have the BiS gear?

It signifies they want to perform better, but did nothing else than copy-pasting Alcast builds.

spartaxoxo

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Having low dps does not show a lack of critical thinking skills. Some people just aren't interested in doing better and play the game they want in the kinds of groups that they are supposed to join, like PUGs without reqs or normal dungeon queue.

Others are thinking critically, and are at the earliest stages of development.

It's more than a bit insulting, imo, to act like these people aren't thinking critically rather than pointing out specific errors.

Notice how they all have the BiS gear?

It signifies they want to perform better, but did nothing else than copy-pasting Alcast builds.

And? That doesn't mean they weren't critically thinking. That is the literal first step and seeking out expert advice is already thinking critically. Try it alcast build, fail, refine it into something better, fail some more, do some more tweaks, get it right. That's part of the journey.

Alemtuzumab

VaranisArano wrote: »

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Facefister wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

No, you didn't name and shame, but still. [snip]

Word of advice. You don't have the time to PM 6 complete strangers to point out their problems? Honestly, have you considered that such advice may not be desirable? Especially coming from someone who's response was that you don't have time to PM them, but you DO have time to post their gear and parse to the forums?

If you wanted to help those players, this wasn't the way to do it. I'd suggest tact and discretion if you do reach out to these players.

If you just wanted to prove a point on the forums, you kinda did, but it's a point most of us already understood from personally observation, without needing you to post the Encounter Log info from your teammates that you deemed underperforming.

Analysing the numbers of your [snip] low performance might be the first step to get you better though.

[edited for baiting & to remove quote]

[]

Yes, but analyzing the data for ways to improve your own performance supposed to be something you do on your own or with your group.

It's generally not intended for posting on the forum to say: Look at how low these other people's DPS is because of their specific gear and skill usage.

The first is using it to improve, as intended. The later is not, especially when the OP doesn't intend to offer any help to the individuals involved.

etchedpixels wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

The point of the combat log is to collect data. I don't get why you think it's designed for shaming people. Doubly so given they carefully removed any names so they could just discuss the actual data not the people.

Encounter Log is not designed for shaming people - though upon rereading I can see where I have have been unclear. The OP is the first person I've seen use Log info to shame teammates they deemed underperforming by posting those teammates' specific gear and skill use combat info. That it's anonymous doesn't really make a big difference for me.

See, while I cannot identify the players from the information posted, I strongly suspect that given the combat information posted, at least two of the players in that raid would be able to identify that their builds were singled out for attention as examples of low DPS, should they be active on the forums and interested in this thread.

I can't speak for everyone, but if it were my build, I'd really rather not find that a stranger in my PUG raid decided that I was so bad they just had to show everyone else my gear and damage to prove their point (and then add their own judgment on why I played that way: to quote the OP, "Information inequality, the lack of critical thinking skills, and herd mentality."

The time and place for that sort of analysis is privately with an individual or group interested in improving. The OP makes it clear they won't be offering to help, so...maybe the OP wasn't intending to shame their unnamed teammates, but that's what I see here, and I don't care for it.

There's a way to use Encounter Logging to help underperforming PUG teammates. Posting their gear and skill on the forums for judgment? I don't think that's the way to do it.

I asked a question.

And I found the answer by analyzing the combat data of anonymous players.

I posted the data and my thought process.

Why is it problematic? How do you suggest to approach the problem without presenting the actual data?

Well, since you asked...(Fair warning, I am not a statistician nor a clinical researcher, but I am a science teacher who knows enough about it to be dangerous.)

My concern is that this data is displaying something generally perceived as negative: low DPS. The conclusions given are negative: the players are said to be underperforming and to lack critical thinking skills. That makes anonymity even more important.

It's not that you can't show the data - scientific studies do it all the time. It's that you either get permission to share it with whatever identifying info you have to include or you fully anonymize it. Now, ZOS doesn't require permission before posting Encounter Log stuff, but in my opinion, it's only polite when you know that it's going up on the forum.

I did not see that you had permission from the Magplars in question. If you do, that changes my perception quite a bit.

Now, assuming you didn't get permission, you can still show the data, but it's even more important to fully anonymize it.

Unfortunately, your data collection is extremely limited and not fully anonymized.

Part of anonymity is also that the clinical participants can't easily identify their own info. Whereas you gave identifying factors like "Joined a random vRG pug", in addition to the specific class, gear, and skills that is integral to the data.


If I'd been a MagPlar PUG in a vetRG trial between now and when this thread was first posted and remembered getting the boss down to 15% one attempt...well, I'd be looking at the posted info in a different light.

Saying "Joined a random vet trial PUG" would make the potential sample size of Magplar players a lot bigger, and thus much less likely that the players can identify their own builds definitively. It's a lot harder than if one of your teammates is a forum user, finds this thread, and thinks, "Huh, I ran vRG the last couple of days on my Magplar, and that's my gear. That's the skills I use. Oh, people are judging my performance on the forums."

Does that distinction make sense?

I appreciate that you didn't name the players, but there's a fair bit of identifying info nonetheless.

The data also gets stronger when you have more of it. Let's say you took the vRG PUG data for 10+ runs over a month, and pulled all the <10k DPS gear/parses. Then label it "I ran the same vet DLC trial for a month and took the logs." At that point, the potential sample size is large enough that not only are your conclusions that much better supported, but it's also a lot harder for any individual player to say "That's my build. I ran that specific trial. That's me that players are judging."

That might be a lot more work than you want to put in, but hey, you asked what I'd recommend.


I guess I should end this with an apology to you:

I'd have probably come off a lot better if I'd asked you to just change the extra identifying info like the name of the trial and the specifics of the boss fight attempt in the first place. I was too fast to condemn and not quick enough to explain how to fix the problem I saw.


I'm sorry.

I can say with certainty that the problems are universal based on the comments in this thread and empirical evidence.



Based on estimation, they cover ~70% of the player base.

Grab a pug in Craglorn on weekends, and chances are the underperforming dps are facing the aforementioned problems.

Alemtuzumab

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Having low dps does not show a lack of critical thinking skills. Some people just aren't interested in doing better and play the game they want in the kinds of groups that they are supposed to join, like PUGs without reqs or normal dungeon queue.

Others are thinking critically, and are at the earliest stages of development.

It's more than a bit insulting, imo, to act like these people aren't thinking critically rather than pointing out specific errors.

Notice how they all have the BiS gear?

It signifies they want to perform better, but did nothing else than copy-pasting Alcast builds.

And? That doesn't mean they weren't critically thinking. That is the literal first step and seeking out expert advice is already thinking critically. Try it alcast build, fail, refine it into something better, fail some more, do some more tweaks, get it right. That's part of the journey.

[Snip]

Notice how they're all above 1k, or even 1.5k cp?

The "try and fail", or experimental phase, comes around 200-700cp for most players. By the time they 1k cp, they've already established their builds.

It could be that they paid for power leveling, or a bit late to that phase. But in that case they are the exception, not the majority.

[Edited for bait]

VaranisArano

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Facefister wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

No, you didn't name and shame, but still. [snip]

Word of advice. You don't have the time to PM 6 complete strangers to point out their problems? Honestly, have you considered that such advice may not be desirable? Especially coming from someone who's response was that you don't have time to PM them, but you DO have time to post their gear and parse to the forums?

If you wanted to help those players, this wasn't the way to do it. I'd suggest tact and discretion if you do reach out to these players.

If you just wanted to prove a point on the forums, you kinda did, but it's a point most of us already understood from personally observation, without needing you to post the Encounter Log info from your teammates that you deemed underperforming.

Analysing the numbers of your [snip] low performance might be the first step to get you better though.

[edited for baiting & to remove quote]

[]

Yes, but analyzing the data for ways to improve your own performance supposed to be something you do on your own or with your group.

It's generally not intended for posting on the forum to say: Look at how low these other people's DPS is because of their specific gear and skill usage.

The first is using it to improve, as intended. The later is not, especially when the OP doesn't intend to offer any help to the individuals involved.

etchedpixels wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Congrats.

You're the first person I've seen use Encounter Log to copy paste combat information meant to shame their teammates' specific builds for underperforming.

The point of the combat log is to collect data. I don't get why you think it's designed for shaming people. Doubly so given they carefully removed any names so they could just discuss the actual data not the people.

Encounter Log is not designed for shaming people - though upon rereading I can see where I have have been unclear. The OP is the first person I've seen use Log info to shame teammates they deemed underperforming by posting those teammates' specific gear and skill use combat info. That it's anonymous doesn't really make a big difference for me.

See, while I cannot identify the players from the information posted, I strongly suspect that given the combat information posted, at least two of the players in that raid would be able to identify that their builds were singled out for attention as examples of low DPS, should they be active on the forums and interested in this thread.

I can't speak for everyone, but if it were my build, I'd really rather not find that a stranger in my PUG raid decided that I was so bad they just had to show everyone else my gear and damage to prove their point (and then add their own judgment on why I played that way: to quote the OP, "Information inequality, the lack of critical thinking skills, and herd mentality."

The time and place for that sort of analysis is privately with an individual or group interested in improving. The OP makes it clear they won't be offering to help, so...maybe the OP wasn't intending to shame their unnamed teammates, but that's what I see here, and I don't care for it.

There's a way to use Encounter Logging to help underperforming PUG teammates. Posting their gear and skill on the forums for judgment? I don't think that's the way to do it.

I asked a question.

And I found the answer by analyzing the combat data of anonymous players.

I posted the data and my thought process.

Why is it problematic? How do you suggest to approach the problem without presenting the actual data?

Well, since you asked...(Fair warning, I am not a statistician nor a clinical researcher, but I am a science teacher who knows enough about it to be dangerous.)

My concern is that this data is displaying something generally perceived as negative: low DPS. The conclusions given are negative: the players are said to be underperforming and to lack critical thinking skills. That makes anonymity even more important.

It's not that you can't show the data - scientific studies do it all the time. It's that you either get permission to share it with whatever identifying info you have to include or you fully anonymize it. Now, ZOS doesn't require permission before posting Encounter Log stuff, but in my opinion, it's only polite when you know that it's going up on the forum.

I did not see that you had permission from the Magplars in question. If you do, that changes my perception quite a bit.

Now, assuming you didn't get permission, you can still show the data, but it's even more important to fully anonymize it.

Unfortunately, your data collection is extremely limited and not fully anonymized.

Part of anonymity is also that the clinical participants can't easily identify their own info. Whereas you gave identifying factors like "Joined a random vRG pug", in addition to the specific class, gear, and skills that is integral to the data.

If I'd been a MagPlar PUG in a vetRG trial between now and when this thread was first posted and remembered getting the boss down to 15% one attempt...well, I'd be looking at the posted info in a different light.

Saying "Joined a random vet trial PUG" would make the potential sample size of Magplar players a lot bigger, and thus much less likely that the players can identify their own builds definitively. It's a lot harder than if one of your teammates is a forum user, finds this thread, and thinks, "Huh, I ran vRG the last couple of days on my Magplar, and that's my gear. That's the skills I use. Oh, people are judging my performance on the forums."

Does that distinction make sense?

I appreciate that you didn't name the players, but there's a fair bit of identifying info nonetheless.

The data also gets stronger when you have more of it. Let's say you took the vRG PUG data for 10+ runs over a month, and pulled all the <10k DPS gear/parses. Then label it "I ran the same vet DLC trial for a month and took the logs." At that point, the potential sample size is large enough that not only are your conclusions that much better supported, but it's also a lot harder for any individual player to say "That's my build. I ran that specific trial. That's me that players are judging."

That might be a lot more work than you want to put in, but hey, you asked what I'd recommend.


I guess I should end this with an apology to you:

I'd have probably come off a lot better if I'd asked you to just change the extra identifying info like the name of the trial and the specifics of the boss fight attempt in the first place. I was too fast to condemn and not quick enough to explain how to fix the problem I saw.


I'm sorry.

That makes a lot of sense. I edited the post so that it now says "random trial" instead.

Also, I thought I provided the fix already:

Yet, no one told Magplar no.2 that, as a dps, their job is to damage the boss instead of adding heals.
No one told Magplar no.1 and no.3 that their skills are all over the place.
And no one told Magsorc no.4 that Force Shock is a much better spammable in real combats, and that Alcast only uses Elemental Weapon on parses.

which means that:
1.
-ZoS should clearly distinguish the roles during the tutorial (atm, it only includes bare minimum info like heavy attack, block, etc.)
-The raid leader should be more responsible and clarify the group member's roles.
2.
-They can always ask ppl---"Is x skill optimal?" and ppl like me will be more than happy to help. Basically, socialize more.
-If not, the raid leader should keep logs to point out the obvious problems to the group member.
-Again, an informative tutorial can really help.
3.
-Alcast does have great builds. But most importantly, get a dummy and see what suits you the best.
-Ppl should tell them no one uses Elemental Weapon in real combats. (I did, and they responded "but Alcast said so!")
-^^In that case, the GM/leader should explain to them the real reason behind such choice. (inconsistency due to lag)

Basically, it all comes down to what I concluded---practice more, theorize more, gain a better understanding of the game itself, and think critically.

Thanks for the change and listening to my concerns!

spartaxoxo

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Having low dps does not show a lack of critical thinking skills. Some people just aren't interested in doing better and play the game they want in the kinds of groups that they are supposed to join, like PUGs without reqs or normal dungeon queue.

Others are thinking critically, and are at the earliest stages of development.

It's more than a bit insulting, imo, to act like these people aren't thinking critically rather than pointing out specific errors.

Notice how they all have the BiS gear?

It signifies they want to perform better, but did nothing else than copy-pasting Alcast builds.

And? That doesn't mean they weren't critically thinking. That is the literal first step and seeking out expert advice is already thinking critically. Try it alcast build, fail, refine it into something better, fail some more, do some more tweaks, get it right. That's part of the journey.

[Snip]

Notice how they're all above 1k, or even 1.5k cp?

The "try and fail", or experimental phase, comes around 200-700cp for most players. By the time they 1k cp, they've already established their builds.

It could be that they paid for power leveling, or a bit late to that phase. But in that case they are the exception, not the majority. [Edited for bait]

Your CP has absolutely NOTHING to do with your interest in hitting higher damage. You could decide to do this at level 10 or CP 3000 thousand. CP is NOT a measurement of skill. It has NOTHING to do with skill at all. It's only a measurement of hours played.
'
Not everyone has the same interest as you do. You need to stop thinking that every player is the same when in reality, the people even interested in vet content and that kind of DPS are by far in the minority. Why do you think you get so many cosmetics and titles for hitting those kinds of numbers? Because almost nobody does or has any interest in it.

Your first mistake is thinking that CP is a measure of skill. Your second mistake is assuming everyone's playstyle aligns with yours. Your last mistake is assuming that the people who align with your playstyle are in the majority. According to the PSN, it's like 0.1% of the playerbase that finishes that content on par with VRG, and some of those people got carried.

Once you understand that most people don't care about hitting harder, and of those that do most of them will do so at different CP points, you'll start to have a much better understanding of the game and the experiences you have will cease to be confusing.

PUGS and Normal mode are going to be chock full of players doing DPS that isn't great, because that is the VAST majority of the playerbase. If you want to only group with people with good DPS, you need to be making premades or to put restrictions on who you group with. If you don't, you have no right to expect anything else because the vast majority of the pool you're pulling from is not going to be have high dps.

It has nothing to do with an inability to critically think. The first barrier is interest/capabilities. The second barrier is stage of development. And copying a build is quite often the start of that development, no matter your CP level when you start to develop your character.

Alinhbo_Tyaka

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Having low dps does not show a lack of critical thinking skills. Some people just aren't interested in doing better and play the game they want in the kinds of groups that they are supposed to join, like PUGs without reqs or normal dungeon queue.

Others are thinking critically, and are at the earliest stages of development.

It's more than a bit insulting, imo, to act like these people aren't thinking critically rather than pointing out specific errors.

Notice how they all have the BiS gear?

It signifies they want to perform better, but did nothing else than copy-pasting Alcast builds.

You can't make the assumption that just because a player has BiS that it means they want to improve. It could be as simple as they asked someone what gear should I get and someone told use these sets or referred them to Alcast's site. Or they might like the looks of it. Even if they want to improve getting better gear is a way to see better stats without having to spend time improving skills.

A lot of players just don't care what their DPS is and don't care that they might not be using their skills to the best effect. They play the game to have fun and don't worry if they aren't a high level player. I know this is at the beating a dead horse point but if other player DPS is important to you them you should not be running PUGs. Instead you should be building your own group where you can put requirements on the players you allow to join.

VaranisArano

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Alemtuzumab wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Having low dps does not show a lack of critical thinking skills. Some people just aren't interested in doing better and play the game they want in the kinds of groups that they are supposed to join, like PUGs without reqs or normal dungeon queue.

Others are thinking critically, and are at the earliest stages of development.

It's more than a bit insulting, imo, to act like these people aren't thinking critically rather than pointing out specific errors.

Notice how they all have the BiS gear?

It signifies they want to perform better, but did nothing else than copy-pasting Alcast builds.

And? That doesn't mean they weren't critically thinking. That is the literal first step and seeking out expert advice is already thinking critically. Try it alcast build, fail, refine it into something better, fail some more, do some more tweaks, get it right. That's part of the journey.

Plz pay more attention to the data.

Notice how they're all above 1k, or even 1.5k cp?

The "try and fail", or experimental phase, comes around 200-700cp for most players. By the time they 1k cp, they've already established their builds.

It could be that they paid for power leveling, or a bit late to that phase. But in that case they are the exception, not the majority.

I think you are underestimating how long players can stay in the experimental phase in ESO.

In my own experience, one of the reasons players with high CP stay in that phase is that they lack the fundamentals to make those meta builds perform properly. So it's a constant experiment. "Well, maybe if I grind this gear, I'll get good DPS? No. Huh, well, maybe I should try this gear instead. Did that work? No..."

That's one way to get high CP players in meta builds doing a fraction of the damage their build should be capable of in theory.

My own experience with that was in PVP. I wasn't particularly good prior to the Morrowind patch, so the pre-nerf Blazing Shield 1vX Templar looked really attractive. It had an easy gear requirement, so I threw on what I needed, went out to PVP...

...and sucked. I died so much. Meanwhile the forums were complaining that Blazeplars were the most OP thing to be overpowered in a long while.

Problem was, I had the gear and the right skills equipped. What I didn't have was practice and experience using a Blazeplar, and so I died. Realizing that I needed to practice more than I needed a new build, I abandoned the Blazeplar and went back to my first character and practiced.

I see this a lot in PVP when players try to slap on a meta build but don't have the player skill to use it effectively, then complain that it's useless. I see less threads from players in PVE with the same issue, but that may be because the feedback is less immediate than dying to other players when you mess up, and low DPS can be carried in some content.

A lot of times, it's the fundamentals - proper rotations especially - that make the biggest difference. Too many players experiment with their builds, jumping from meta gear set to meta gear set, and wondering why their DPS never gets much better, when they don't practice the fundamentals (which, of course, ESO doesn't really teach.) Meanwhile, the players who have the fundamentals down do focus a lot on sets and weaving, because that makes a good player even better.