comparing objective based PVP versus DM

_adhyffbjjjf12

There is a lot of chat about where some people perceive DM as being a purer version of PVP, so I wanted to show the differences between both to show that objective PVP is actually a superset of DM.

DM

• Primary Goal, kill the most.
• Secondary Goal - attain alliance points through kills
• Primary Strategy - more effectively X v 1 in a fight.
• ---- Effectively call out targets and overpower X v 1
• ---- Overwhelm and control enemy spawn point to control game
• ---- Stay/Retreat/Regroup/Push/Attack

Objective Based PVP

• Primary Goal - Varied depending on Map
• Secondary Goal - attain alliance points through objectives and kills
• Primary Strategy - varied depending on map. Includes :
• -- Take control of key objectives
• -- Kill to gain control of objectives
• ---- Effectively call out targets and overpower X v 1
• ---- Overwhelm and control enemy spawn point to control game
• -- React to fight composition, monitor fights across map:
• ---- Move to new objective/Stay/Retreat/Regroup/Push/Split up group/Rotate as Group/Attack/Defend/Carry/Hide/Distract

gariondavey

Maybe your argument holds some semblance of correctness, but only if you have 2 teams for objectives.
3 team objectives becomes a sprinting race to empty flags/wherever there isn't fighting.

Also DM at the highest mmr is the most tactical the game gets. Everything matters. The tiniest mistep can result in wipes.

_adhyffbjjjf12

MMR is irrelevant, its a measure of player skill and a measured player may play DM or non DM. Furthermore, being optimal in non DM is greater than being optimal in DM as DM has less aspects and variables to contend with. This is why DM is obviously less tactical - in non DM you ALSO fight for kill superiority. 'The tiniest mistep can result in wipes' ironically shows how simplistic DM is.

gariondavey

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Have a nice day!

PhoenixGrey

The only difference is objective based BG's involves no fighting and should be in the dungeon finder queue instead

RedTalon

One is quicker and the other is slower, really the only differences

Objective matches tend to be faster and dms are a grid really.

_adhyffbjjjf12

gariondavey wrote: »

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Have a nice day!

About? Its pretty evident DM is a subset of the overall goals in richer objective based PVP in fact DM fans actually tunnel vision to Combat in non DM, they even brag about it lol! This is why PVP with objectives is much more popular in more developed and stable mmorpg with PVP, it requires a higher skill ceiling and is much more satisfying than kill kill kill kill kill...die..kill etc...

Amottica

gariondavey wrote: »

Maybe your argument holds some semblance of correctness, but only if you have 2 teams for objectives.
3 team objectives becomes a sprinting race to empty flags/wherever there isn't fighting.

Also DM at the highest mmr is the most tactical the game gets. Everything matters. The tiniest mistep can result in wipes.

I agree about the difference between a three-team vs two-team design. However, the opinion about DM being the most tactical is more about perspective since the same things that would be tactical in DM are still present with objective matches plus more strategy is required in obj matches.

Dem_kitkats1

gariondavey wrote: »

Maybe your argument holds some semblance of correctness, but only if you have 2 teams for objectives.
3 team objectives becomes a sprinting race to empty flags/wherever there isn't fighting.

Also DM at the highest mmr is the most tactical the game gets. Everything matters. The tiniest mistep can result in wipes.

I agree that the Objective modes are poorly designed for sure, but that doesn't make them any less tactical than DM. If they were actually better designed they would absolutely require more tactics than any DM. Objective mode design aside, engagement doesn't equate tactics. Whether you agree with it or not, trying to completely avoid combat in order to achieve the objective is a form of tactical play. Running behind teams to steal points is a tactical strategy. It's not engaging, but they are strategies nevertheless.

"High MMR" DM games have had some of the least engaging combat that I have played as well. Teams with the most group healing are the ones that win. Those with equal healing and group versatility often end in a stalemate or with 1-2 kills more. Most of the match is a game of "poking the bear" until someone cracks and then the teams descend on one player trying the get the final blow. There's a lot of standing around and not engaging in combat for fear of dying in DMs as well.

xDeusEJRx

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

MMR is irrelevant, its a measure of player skill and a measured player may play DM or non DM. Furthermore, being optimal in non DM is greater than being optimal in DM as DM has less aspects and variables to contend with. This is why DM is obviously less tactical - in non DM you ALSO fight for kill superiority. 'The tiniest mistep can result in wipes' ironically shows how simplistic DM is.

In non TDM having kill superiority is mostly irrelevant though considering most game modes don't require fighting to win. If I had super untouchable speed in Chaos ball I can win without ever having to fight a player. Even with chaos ball ramping damage, you can reset chaos ball in tons of the maps like the map with lava and map with death pits, toss the ball before you die and then run back to middle to grab and continue until you win.
Same strategy applies to domination/crazy king. You flip flags to win, if the enemy team is pre-occupied fighting, why should I engage in that fight? The smart thing to do is to run and capture flags no one is at, that increases my chances of winning.
Having kill superiority literally means 0 in objective game modes, you can win a lot of them without ever needing to fight another player.
If you ever played max mmr games, most top of the leaderboard players are some form of a run speed build/tanky build to keep themselves alive to be able to flip flags. The "tactic" is to not be bogged down fighting other players, because why waste time fighting when I can use that gaining points on the objective?

OBJnoob

All the hardcore DMers combine with casual pvpers to make it seem like a majority of objective modes can be won without fighting. It’s not true, it just seems true because the people are fulfilling their own prophecy. If all three teams played correctly, understanding tactics rather than turning their nose up at the mode and flippantly deciding there aren’t any valid tactics, then there would be combat at most if not all of the objectives.

And honestly the fact that it’s 3 teams instead of 2 doesn’t ruin a thing either. It makes it unique from other games and adds variables outside your control— at least in as much as you can’t be in two places at once. But again certain people don’t like it… can’t figure it out… and it instantly gets labeled a pointless mode with talentless players.

Frankly while the straightforward competitive nature of deathmatch is certainly alluring, the nuances of the other modes seem to elude a lot of people that don’t have the patience or intelligence to jostle multiple strategies in their head at once, choose a correct course of action, and change it again 5 minutes later if needed.

If I may use a metaphor…. Chess. One of the oldest games. One of the most strategic and competitive. Anybody good at chess must be smart. They like starting with a set number of pieces that can move in a set way and they like going against a single opponent with the exact same tools at their disposal. A perfect vacuum sealed box of competitiveness. So if that’s what you enjoy then go on and enjoy it. But don’t start acting like people who play Chinese checkers instead,with 4 or 6 people on the board at a time, don’t have their own strategies and intelligence.

The answer to this discussion and any discussion like it is stupidly simple. We deserve to have both choices and they need to both work reliably. Anything more on the matter is just a glorified poll where people stop by to announce their personal favorite.

xDeusEJRx

OBJnoob wrote: »

All the hardcore DMers combine with casual pvpers to make it seem like a majority of objective modes can be won without fighting. It’s not true, it just seems true because the people are fulfilling their own prophecy. If all three teams played correctly, understanding tactics rather than turning their nose up at the mode and flippantly deciding there aren’t any valid tactics, then there would be combat at most if not all of the objectives.

It's true that majority of games aren't won by not fighting but the fact of the matter is you can. And it's immediately not fun to play when people cheese the games to win this way.
15-30 minute waits just to get into a game where people cheese their way into winning is no fun. If they reworked the game modes this wouldn't be a problem but there's literally no reason to commit to a long 1 minute fight in Battlegrounds when I can just let the other teams be bait while I earn points. In a lot of high MMR games this happens a lot and it makes BGs really unfun to play if you are looking to actually get into fights.

Aldoss

My wife and I waited 10 minutes in group queue for this match. We know names. We knew pvper's were on purple. We attacked purple rather than "griefing" the obj's.



This match was over in less than 5 minutes.

The only response to this is to purposefully and knowingly avoid the pvper's we know and initiate combat on the obvious obj's in order to maximize and give value to the queue times.

Last night we also played a capture the relic that had a full team of pvpers who kept both team's relics the entire match. It was the best match of the night after my wife and I failed to get DM out of 5 bg queues. The obj's were seriously pissed.

OBJnoob

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

All the hardcore DMers combine with casual pvpers to make it seem like a majority of objective modes can be won without fighting. It’s not true, it just seems true because the people are fulfilling their own prophecy. If all three teams played correctly, understanding tactics rather than turning their nose up at the mode and flippantly deciding there aren’t any valid tactics, then there would be combat at most if not all of the objectives.

It's true that majority of games aren't won by not fighting but the fact of the matter is you can. And it's immediately not fun to play when people cheese the games to win this way.
15-30 minute waits just to get into a game where people cheese their way into winning is no fun. If they reworked the game modes this wouldn't be a problem but there's literally no reason to commit to a long 1 minute fight in Battlegrounds when I can just let the other teams be bait while I earn points. In a lot of high MMR games this happens a lot and it makes BGs really unfun to play if you are looking to actually get into fights.

4 v 4 v 4 DM where everybody is some kinda proc set wearing meta Templar or dk with 30+k hp and designated healers could be considered cheese too. In fact I think that’s the more common definition. I can’t duel, cyrodiil, or bg anymore because they all require the same builds and skill sets. I’m just so tired of doing the saaaame thing against the saaame people. At least obj modes change it up a bit and certain other types of builds have use.

I understand what people like about DM. I understand what you say about obj modes and why you don’t like it. It’s just hard for me to empathize… in fact it’s hard for me to remember, since I haven’t gotten an objective mode bg in like 4 months.

I feel like most of these threads are DMers trying to find a middle ground wherein THEY enjoy obj modes— to heck with actual obj loyals and what they like. Like we should appease them so they no longer spawn camp us.

But the truth is DMers aren’t the ones who’ve been screwed over for half a year so nobody should appease them about anything. If you want solutions come to the people that have the problem.

gariondavey

OBJnoob wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

All the hardcore DMers combine with casual pvpers to make it seem like a majority of objective modes can be won without fighting. It’s not true, it just seems true because the people are fulfilling their own prophecy. If all three teams played correctly, understanding tactics rather than turning their nose up at the mode and flippantly deciding there aren’t any valid tactics, then there would be combat at most if not all of the objectives.

It's true that majority of games aren't won by not fighting but the fact of the matter is you can. And it's immediately not fun to play when people cheese the games to win this way.
15-30 minute waits just to get into a game where people cheese their way into winning is no fun. If they reworked the game modes this wouldn't be a problem but there's literally no reason to commit to a long 1 minute fight in Battlegrounds when I can just let the other teams be bait while I earn points. In a lot of high MMR games this happens a lot and it makes BGs really unfun to play if you are looking to actually get into fights.

4 v 4 v 4 DM where everybody is some kinda proc set wearing meta Templar or dk with 30+k hp and designated healers could be considered cheese too. In fact I think that’s the more common definition. I can’t duel, cyrodiil, or bg anymore because they all require the same builds and skill sets. I’m just so tired of doing the saaaame thing against the saaame people. At least obj modes change it up a bit and certain other types of builds have use.

I understand what people like about DM. I understand what you say about obj modes and why you don’t like it. It’s just hard for me to empathize… in fact it’s hard for me to remember, since I haven’t gotten an objective mode bg in like 4 months.

I feel like most of these threads are DMers trying to find a middle ground wherein THEY enjoy obj modes— to heck with actual obj loyals and what they like. Like we should appease them so they no longer spawn camp us.

But the truth is DMers aren’t the ones who’ve been screwed over for half a year so nobody should appease them about anything. If you want solutions come to the people that have the problem.

You do realize that dm players haven't had a dm queue for years, with the exception of the last 6 months, right?

LashanW

Oh please. Sounds like you haven't done objective modes against experienced players. They are full of design flaws.

Crazy King is the only good objective mode. Early stages involve a lot of direct fighting and later stages involve taking as many flags as possible.

Capture the Relic
Three teams is not a good number.
One team can easily throw the match by abandoning their own base and bum-rushing 2nd team's base (but not taking the relic, just stay there and make sure 2nd team can't score). Third team wins easily. 2nd team is helpless and is forced to lose along with first team. This is often done by experienced players when they dislike the mode and want to end the match as quick as possible.
Worse, sometimes experienced players take an enemy relic and bring to their friendly base and they KEEP it there without turning it in. This forces all the 3 teams to a single place and then it's pretty much deathmatch until timeout.

Domination
It's all about who is best at avoiding PvP. Score should be higher for defending flags instead of taking flags without any resistance. But it's not. So equip that wild hunt ring and awaken your inner Usain Bolt.

Chaosball
Oh man. This one is all about exploiting the map. Or you can use builds with very fast movement speed and just sprint around the map while using line of sight to your advantage. Most players won't be able to hit you thanks to position desync. Especially players with higher than usual ping. They got no chance.
Most maps have very hard to reach places and exp players just take the ball there. Since most heals in this game don't need to be directed, their team just spams heals in the general vicinity.
Here's an example,


Now here's an awesome one. This one is just straight up exploit. (ZoS no need to panic I'm not showing how to exploit, just the result after you do the exploit, if any mods/devs are reading this. PLEASE, fix your battleground maps)

Other 2 teams CANNOT get to the ball. If they try to use the exploit and get to green base, they get one shotted immediately thanks to the kill box at this spawn point.




Riveting gameplay really. Funnily enough, the winning team had a player whose account name was basically a meme way of asking where the deathmatch queue is
These screenshots are just from today's matches.

Urzigurumash

Best solution to make BGs more of an "e-sport":

1. One queue, one mode: Chaosball
2. 90% unpurgeable snare on the ball, and maybe increase its DoT
3. The Dungeon Group Finder system is applied to groupmaking - this way solo players can reliably land on a team which has a chance of winning Chaosball against a pre-made
4. U50 scores will not contribute to the Leaderboard

draigwyrdd

Crazy King should have a single flag which moves about. Domination should have a single static flag. (Assuming we want to keep both Crazy King and Domination as separate modes -- a single flag capture game with one moving flag would also be fine.) Chaosball is more or less okay as-is.

Relic is awful. Three teams is not a good setup for this kind of game.

Deathmatch is fine.

gariondavey

draigwyrdd wrote: »

Crazy King should have a single flag which moves about. Domination should have a single static flag. (Assuming we want to keep both Crazy King and Domination as separate modes -- a single flag capture game with one moving flag would also be fine.) Chaosball is more or less okay as-is.

Relic is awful. Three teams is not a good setup for this kind of game.

Deathmatch is fine.

Amen

blistb16_ESO

Nah domination should have 3 flags, each team camp one, and everyone win.
Also there should be only domination.
Everyone win
Everyone happy

Necrotech_Master

i would rank the modes in this order:

1. crazy king
2. chaosball (only because of geometry glitches otherwise this would be tied at 1, would probably work better on flat, small, open maps)
3. relic
4. domination
5. deathmatch

from personal experience, ive had good games on almost every mode but...ive also been on games against obvious 4 man premade that just dominates the entire match (the more balanced a match is in terms of skill, the more enjoyable it is, it will never be fun for a pvp-noob to fight a sweaty tryhard)

there is a pretty steep curve in pvp, and just removing the CP does not provide enough of a level playing field (although it helps), they could take the approach of some games and give you a fixed set of generic gear (so either everyone is using the exact same gear set loadout, or a loadout with only non-set gear entirely)

cp isnt what will make or break a pvp encounter, it does lessen the gap, but its really the gear + skill that makes the biggest difference

gariondavey

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

i would rank the modes in this order:

1. crazy king
2. chaosball (only because of geometry glitches otherwise this would be tied at 1, would probably work better on flat, small, open maps)
3. relic
4. domination
5. deathmatch

from personal experience, ive had good games on almost every mode but...ive also been on games against obvious 4 man premade that just dominates the entire match (the more balanced a match is in terms of skill, the more enjoyable it is, it will never be fun for a pvp-noob to fight a sweaty tryhard)

there is a pretty steep curve in pvp, and just removing the CP does not provide enough of a level playing field (although it helps), they could take the approach of some games and give you a fixed set of generic gear (so either everyone is using the exact same gear set loadout, or a loadout with only non-set gear entirely)

cp isnt what will make or break a pvp encounter, it does lessen the gap, but its really the gear + skill that makes the biggest difference

1 - deathmatch
2 - chaosball (would be tied for 1 if not for positioning exploits)
3 - crazy king
4 - domination
5 - capture the relic

If crazy king had 1 spot that moved around, that would make it awesome
If domination had 2 spots, that would probably be better
If capture the relic had 1 flag the 3 teams had to fight over to get to their base, that would be better.

Alternatively, if there were just 2 teams for crazy king, domination and capture the relic, that would be just fine to keep them as it.

Chaosball is great when people don't exploit it because it forces everyone to 1 point.

Cuddlypuff

A hypothetical 4v4v4 BG match where every team is on a meta build and line-up will almost always result in a 15 minute stalemate regardless of mode. I'd much prefer if BGs were just changed to mini-scenarios in Cyrodiil such as taking an outpost or fighting over a rss with 2 teams instead of 3.

gariondavey

Cuddlypuff wrote: »

A hypothetical 4v4v4 BG match where every team is on a meta build and line-up will almost always result in a 15 minute stalemate regardless of mode. I'd much prefer if BGs were just changed to mini-scenarios in Cyrodiil such as taking an outpost or fighting over a rss with 2 teams instead of 3.

While I like that idea, you are completely ignoring the skill of the players, which is the biggest factor in determining outcome in PvP.
Build is like 30 percent, skill the other 70.

the1andonlyskwex

gariondavey wrote: »

Build is like 30 percent, skill the other 70.

Are we playing the same game? That might be sort-of true when everybody has a good PvP build, but if you include people in PvE builds, or mismatched gear, or non-gold weapons, then it's about 99.99% build and 0.01% skill.

Dem_kitkats1

gariondavey wrote: »

Cuddlypuff wrote: »

A hypothetical 4v4v4 BG match where every team is on a meta build and line-up will almost always result in a 15 minute stalemate regardless of mode. I'd much prefer if BGs were just changed to mini-scenarios in Cyrodiil such as taking an outpost or fighting over a rss with 2 teams instead of 3.

While I like that idea, you are completely ignoring the skill of the players, which is the biggest factor in determining outcome in PvP.
Build is like 30 percent, skill the other 70.

Aside from performance...*cough*, I think build is more 70% and skill is 30%. Get any new/casual player in meta gear, on a class with with a well rounded tool kit and they'll still perform decently. For that is what the game intended. A player with skill, but with a bad build will never perform nearly as well as someone who has taken the time to perfect their build. It's why theorycrafting is important in this game, and why there are always set metas. Many games avoid this by implementing one standard set per class and letting player skill speak for itself. Don't get me wrong though, theorycrafting is a skill itself.

gariondavey

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

Build is like 30 percent, skill the other 70.

Are we playing the same game? That might be sort-of true when everybody has a good PvP build, but if you include people in PvE builds, or mismatched gear, or non-gold weapons, then it's about 99.99% build and 0.01% skill.

I'm talking about competent pvpers. Lol. The best pvpers I know all echo this sentiment. It is why if you take an average player and give him a build that one of the best performing players use, they will do average, but one of the best players using that same build will absolutely destroy.
It is also why my best games in ultra sweaty dms, I'd end up in the 2-3m damage range, but others in those games who are better than me can do 4-6m with the same gear.
(Yes, damage isn't the sole metric of someone's capability, but it is a good indicator in sweaty premade bgs).

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

Cuddlypuff wrote: »

A hypothetical 4v4v4 BG match where every team is on a meta build and line-up will almost always result in a 15 minute stalemate regardless of mode. I'd much prefer if BGs were just changed to mini-scenarios in Cyrodiil such as taking an outpost or fighting over a rss with 2 teams instead of 3.

While I like that idea, you are completely ignoring the skill of the players, which is the biggest factor in determining outcome in PvP.
Build is like 30 percent, skill the other 70.

Aside from performance...*cough*, I think build is more 70% and skill is 30%. Get any new/casual player in meta gear, on a class with with a well rounded tool kit and they'll still perform decently. For that is what the game intended. A player with skill, but with a bad build will never perform nearly as well as someone who has taken the time to perfect their build. It's why theorycrafting is important in this game, and why there are always set metas. Many games avoid this by implementing one standard set per class and letting player skill speak for itself. Don't get me wrong though, theorycrafting is a skill itself.

I'm sorry but this is wrong. A highly skilled player in bad gear can, and will absolutely destroy a less skilled player with better gear. I've seen it happen all the time. Or high skilled players with virtually 0 cp beating less skilled players with a ton of cp.

Skill is the largest contributor to success in PvP in this game. By a long shot.

divnyi

@LashanW players are helpless if they are getting dragged into teamfight before they get to chaosball team too, just like the relic scenario you mentioned.

Completely agree with everything else.

Problem with objective modes is that they are badly built and generally promote avoiding teamfights in every scenario.
DM is the only mode where you want to jump into teamfight that is ongoing rather than use that as opportunity to flip some flags.

Dem_kitkats1

gariondavey wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is wrong. A highly skilled player in bad gear can, and will absolutely destroy a less skilled player with better gear. I've seen it happen all the time. Or high skilled players with virtually 0 cp beating less skilled players with a ton of cp.

Skill is the largest contributor to success in PvP in this game. By a long shot.

If you're a highly skilled player, you don't go into any match blind, you still have an idea as to what will still work. So yeah if you don't have meta golded out gear, but it's still a semblance of decent build, you can still win against players through skill I agree. However, you can't base skill off of killing inexperienced players though. Skill is based on how well you do against other experienced players. You can't tell me that in a 1v1 between equally skilled players, that someone geared in blue overland trash is going to perform anywhere near as well as another in a gold theorycrafted sets. I bet they would struggle against an average player because ESO is a numbers game. There's no denying that build is very important, which includes good gear, slotting the right combo of skills, maximizing on all skill line passives, CP, etc. Anyone who says otherwise I would invite you to roll up SOLO (no friends or guildies to save you), in random gear, and no passives and see how far skill alone takes you. I bet you won't have a good time when you hit like a wet noodle which means you can't self heal through anything and so you pop in an instant when a couple of players hit you, and procs do nothing to help you.

CameraBeardThePirate

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is wrong. A highly skilled player in bad gear can, and will absolutely destroy a less skilled player with better gear. I've seen it happen all the time. Or high skilled players with virtually 0 cp beating less skilled players with a ton of cp.

Skill is the largest contributor to success in PvP in this game. By a long shot.

If you're a highly skilled player, you don't go into any match blind, you still have an idea as to what will still work. So yeah if you don't have meta golded out gear, but it's still a semblance of decent build, you can still win against players through skill I agree. However, you can't base skill off of killing inexperienced players though. Skill is based on how well you do against other experienced players. You can't tell me that in a 1v1 between equally skilled players, that someone geared in blue overland trash is going to perform anywhere near as well as another in a gold theorycrafted sets. I bet they would struggle against an average player because ESO is a numbers game. There's no denying that build is very important, which includes good gear, slotting the right combo of skills, maximizing on all skill line passives, CP, etc. Anyone who says otherwise I would invite you to roll up SOLO (no friends or guildies to save you), in random gear, and no passives and see how far skill alone takes you. I bet you won't have a good time when you hit like a wet noodle which means you can't self heal through anything and so you pop in an instant when a couple of players hit you, and procs do nothing to help you.

Isth3reno1else has made a video demonstrating just how little gear matters where he solo Q'd into a BG with Rubedo Leather gear and still managed to dominate. Mechanics and skill greatly outweigh gear. Yes, if 2 equally skilled players roll up with different builds, the better build will win, but that's kind of in support of the argument. If they're equally skilled then of course the better build will win because there's nothing else separating the players.

But a really good player absolutely can dominate with literally no gear bonuses.

jaws343

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is wrong. A highly skilled player in bad gear can, and will absolutely destroy a less skilled player with better gear. I've seen it happen all the time. Or high skilled players with virtually 0 cp beating less skilled players with a ton of cp.

Skill is the largest contributor to success in PvP in this game. By a long shot.

If you're a highly skilled player, you don't go into any match blind, you still have an idea as to what will still work. So yeah if you don't have meta golded out gear, but it's still a semblance of decent build, you can still win against players through skill I agree. However, you can't base skill off of killing inexperienced players though. Skill is based on how well you do against other experienced players. You can't tell me that in a 1v1 between equally skilled players, that someone geared in blue overland trash is going to perform anywhere near as well as another in a gold theorycrafted sets. I bet they would struggle against an average player because ESO is a numbers game. There's no denying that build is very important, which includes good gear, slotting the right combo of skills, maximizing on all skill line passives, CP, etc. Anyone who says otherwise I would invite you to roll up SOLO (no friends or guildies to save you), in random gear, and no passives and see how far skill alone takes you. I bet you won't have a good time when you hit like a wet noodle which means you can't self heal through anything and so you pop in an instant when a couple of players hit you, and procs do nothing to help you.

Isth3reno1else has made a video demonstrating just how little gear matters where he solo Q'd into a BG with Rubedo Leather gear and still managed to dominate. Mechanics and skill greatly outweigh gear. Yes, if 2 equally skilled players roll up with different builds, the better build will win, but that's kind of in support of the argument. If they're equally skilled then of course the better build will win because there's nothing else separating the players.

But a really good player absolutely can dominate with literally no gear bonuses.

A great example of this is when I run new characters in found gear and skill leveling loadouts through BGs. I may have zero heals on my bar and wearing mismatched underleveled gear but I still can go 15-0 because I know how to use the limited skills at level 10 to my advantage.