Highest level PVP in ESO…?

DaniimalsSF

How do you personally define top tier, high end, competitive, end game, etc. PVP in ESO?

I often see these terms used and I am curious if there is consensus or general themes in what people specifically mean.

I assume some common answers will be high MMR BGs, strict ruleset duels, organized ball group, and open world 1vX.

Why do you believe one is a superior test of ability over the others?

Flame away.

xylena_lazarow

DaniimalsSF wrote: »

Why do you believe one is a superior test of ability over the others?

They all demand different skill sets, so no point trying to say which is superior. There's enough overlap that a player strong in one of those domains is at least decent in the others.

While there's no ladder or ELO or any competitive infrastructure, the PvP community being so small means you play enough and you learn which names are threats. If I need to judge an unfamiliar opponent quickly, the speed of their movements gives a decent indicator of how tough they'll be to fight.

Urzigurumash

Solo Queue Chaosball

the1andonlyskwex

PvYouTube (or Twitch or other video/streaming site).

HowlKimchi

grand overlord of course (real) especially when they have the "former emperor" tag holy *** i just run away when I see that

xylena_lazarow

in place of skill, you can also simply declare on the forums that you're a Real MagSorc

fred4

OK, let's have some fun with this.

I can definitely see that, if you garner respect from hostile players, you might be a high end player. This has only happened to me occasionally and has never lasted, but if you duel someone to a standstill and run into them again, later that evening, you typically won't zerg each other. If you consistently do this, you end up like a friend of mine. He also duelled in Alik'r and knew a lot of people. Playing with him in open world, every other encounter devolved into a duelling session with me as a bystander.

Some of the chasm between "high end players" and "zerglings" can IMO be explained by the mutual respect that naturally develops between players, particularly duellers. They won't necessarily fight each other. That only leaves them fighting the anonymous masses and, hence, we get 1vXing and small-scaling. The ugly side of that can be disdain towards the "zerglings", even though the skill gap is real and uneven numbers are a core attraction of open world.

That said, 1vXing is arguably a top tier activity. Videos that you see may be cherry-picked. Sometimes you end up 1vXing successfully, because your opponents are all weak and disorganised. On the other hand, if you watched someone on Twitch doing this for a whole evening, chances are they're a good player. It is genuinely hard, though it should be said that 2vXing / small-scaling already feels substantially easier.

I'm an open world player, so I can't really speak to BGs, but I also can't really speak to ball groups. It must be a different mindset. I feel that the connectedness I have with my character is very important to me, both for my survival and my enjoyment of the game. How well I move against (perceived) equal or superior foes impacts how I feel about my performance in a big way. As a nightblade or a streaking sorc, a good escape against (suddenly) superior numbers can be as satisfying as a kill. I probably look down on ballgroups, because I imagine they have much more of a safety net and just need to follow the leader. On the other hand I'm also not trying to take on, say, a whole other ballgroup, and I typically play a solo class, mostly a nightblade.

As to duels, I watched a strict ruleset tournament video a long time ago. The rock / paper / scissors effect was still very apparent. A nightblade had been dominating until they ran into the DK who won the tournament. It was painfully obvious how the nightblade was suddenly taking tremendous pressure. Their tactics simply didn't work against the DK. It seemed to me this was saying more about the class / build matchup, and possibly about the tournament rules, than the relative strength of the players. Since then I've come to believe that ESO is not a truly competitive game. It's very hard to reach conclusions about player skill while people play different builds and classes at all.

xylena_lazarow

fred4 wrote: »

That said, 1vXing is arguably a top tier activity.

It is, and it isn't. It takes skill, but it also takes unskilled opponents. Aside from skill variables, there's also defining 1vX. Does it have to be open field or can I use LoS? Can I use npcs? What if I had allies but they all died immediately?

Turtle_Bot

DaniimalsSF wrote: »

How do you personally define top tier, high end, competitive, end game, etc. PVP in ESO?

I often see these terms used and I am curious if there is consensus or general themes in what people specifically mean.

I assume some common answers will be high MMR BGs, strict ruleset duels, organized ball group, and open world 1vX.

Why do you believe one is a superior test of ability over the others?

Flame away.

All of them take different skillsets to do well at.

IMO: I would rank them as follows:
1) OW 1vX
1.5) Leading organized ball group
2) Strict Duels
3) High MMR BGs
3.5) Small scale/duos/trios
4) Organized ball group

Note:

• This isn't to detract from any of them as arguments can be made for all of them to be number 1 (hence why it is just my opinion), but for me it's simply down to the fact that the 1vX typically doesn't have the back-up of others to help cover their weaknesses/mistakes, that essentially makes it a combination of all of the others at once.
• I have specifically put leading organized group play as it's own thing because that is very intensive and demanding, just like OW 1vX is and is significantly more skill intensive than simply participating in a ball group.
• I have also separated small scale, duo and trio from other organized play since those are typically different to other organized groups, especially when trying to go up against the types of numbers that only ball groups would typically face as that becomes significantly closer to a 1vX situation than GvG.
• Yes, 1vX typically requires facing opponents of lower skill, especially if a player wants to pull off the clip worthy 1v10s or more that get the views, but a 1vX can still be a 1v2, 1v3 etc. and that will involve just as much, if not more skill, because the smaller numbers difference allows for the X of the 1v2/1v3 to be significantly closer in skill level to the 1, than the opponents would be to pull off a successful 1v10 or more.
• In terms of skills required, 1vX, small scale and dueling typically requires significantly more individual skill to pull off successfully, but the coordination, discipline and organization required to pull off a truly top tier ball group is it's own skillset that can't be denied.

TL//DR:
All of them can be considered "end game" and "top tier" PvP. They will all be ranked differently by different players who will value different skillsets over others, but they also all have their own nuances that help to separate the truly top end players that can successfully do these things compared to the rest.

xylena_lazarow

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

separate the truly top end players that can successfully do these things compared to the rest.

The player that excels across multiple of these domains would represent the truly top end then. Being able to excel on multiple classes would also be a factor in my view.

adirondack

I have reached GO. I am former emp. And if you are wise never run away from me cause am not a fabulous player. I’m average. But the years of time in pvp have translated to a GO (or a few) and several emps. Which is not the same as skill.

My old fingers don’t play the game as well as others. I die in pvp like everyone else and like everyone else I dust off and head back at it. The fun is in the playing. Winning of course is nice - but a good battle where everyone gave their all is the true reward for me.

There are some really amazing players out there who just perform at a tier beyond the rest of the masses. These are the small scalers who win through better rotations better gear and better positioning. Some of them are streamers but not all.

So to get back to your original question - I’m not sure how to define top tier, but the people who play with some humor, understand that it is just a game, and find enjoyment in competitive play (on same or differing teams) are the best players. These are the ones who others are drawn to, who encourage better play instead of ridiculing bad choices, and who add so much to a social game.

My $0.02.

fred4

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Aside from skill variables, there's also defining 1vX. Does it have to be open field or can I use LoS?

I don't think it's possible without LoS and would call judicious use of it a skill, so long as you get some kills and don't just hide. If you're able to 1vX in open field, I think that says more about the quality of your opposition than about your skill. This includes cloaking nightblades picking off players one by one in open field, which I would not usually count as 1vX.

Can I use npcs?

Yes, absolutely. Are you specifically referring to heavy attack builds? I wouldn't count someone dying to that as a particularly good 1vX. However, if you manage to 1vX consistently with such a build against players who don't immediately die, I think that's fair. Heck, you might even be ultra top tier, because I don't know how you'd do it. I never quite got the fuss about these builds when they were strong, but now they're not even strong in a PvE damage sense anymore.

There are other ways of using NPCs that you may not have been thinking of, such as streaking through them as a sorc, whereas they body-block other players. I think that's totally legit.

What if I had allies but they all died immediately?

I would very much count that as a 1vX from that point forward. In fact, them all dying immediately is probably a sign of superior opposition (and all too common when your allies are randoms).

xylena_lazarow

fred4 wrote: »

I would very much count that as a 1vX from that point forward

That's fair, I'm in agreement that a loose definition of 1vX is more appropriate. I suppose 1vX could be assessed by threat level: when a given player is alone and outnumbered, how much of a threat do they pose, if any threat at all? When that lone player becomes enough of a threat that entire groups or zergs are on notice, zerging them like their lives are on the line, or even backing off the objective entirely... perhaps that is the top level of 1vX.

To answer your earlier question, I meant using resource or keep npcs to help win, I assume yes it still counts based on the rest of your post. I've gotten hate tells like "it doesn't count because you had npc help" of course.

NyassaV

I consider 1vX and Coordinated group play (Small or large scale) to be the highest level.

Dueling can be however at a certain point when two players of high skill duel each other chances are the fight is gonna take 10+ mins and it's really just a question of who fat fingers the wrong key first. I find this especially true with Nightblade V Nightblade because of how incap works.

SkaraMinoc

The premade Deathmatch 4v4 community is about the highest level PvP in ESO. Too bad it died out years ago.

NordSwordnBoard

Grand Potato Lord. Submit to the mighty 🥔

fred4

NordSwordnBoard wrote: »

Grand Potato Lord. Submit to the mighty 🥔

Admit it: You're baked.

Miracle19

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

The premade Deathmatch 4v4 community is about the highest level PvP in ESO. Too bad it died out years ago.

Agreed, no CP carry and anything goes/works. Definitely the bar IMO

a_u_s_t_y

PvP in eso shouldn’t be seen as competitive, with the balance/proc sets/healing it shouldn’t be taken seriously at all..

So I would say there isn’t a top tier “pvp” in eso, it’s a fun part of the game with a lot of cheese and imbalance. Of course some people are better at it than others but that’s the same with any game with pvp.

Jsmalls

Castle defense used to be a high level group activity. Was more so tactics and execution. Everyone has a role. This used to happen more waaaay back in the day.

Honestly it still exists to an extent in No CP Ravenwatch since there isn't as much permanent sustain, Uber healing, everyones a tank situations.

SDC has had some incredible 12 v 50+ stops in Ravenwatch.

Now CP ball groups render siege irrelevant with their 20k HPS.

Id definitely rank 1vXing and Small scale as Top Tier.

I consider small scale a group of 3-6 players completely outnumbered (3x+). Every action you make is completely detrimental to the groups survival. And if one person goes down, it likely means a group wipe. I think these take more skill when there is a dedicated healer versus stacked group heals. Stacked HoTs are just too incredibly strong.

Anything higher than 6 players becomes way to easy to passively heal with echoing vigor and regen.

I wouldn't even rank ball groups on this list, it's just a conglomeration of 12 mediocre players roleplaying as 1 Great player. They utilize pull sets that do half the work for them and run around cycling HoTs until their Ultimates are back up.

That and it's completely awful for the health and performance of the game. You're knowingly causing server issues and you just don't care because that's how you need to play to "win".

The absolute lowest tier PvP is running around as a Tank (40k+ health) doing minimal damage and Zerging single players.

This straight up didn't exist early in the game and it's the biggest plague I see.

xylena_lazarow

Jsmalls wrote: »

The absolute lowest tier PvP is running around as a Tank (40k+ health) doing minimal damage and Zerging single players.

Nah those guys are just derpy casuals, the fact that they annoy opponents is at least something.

The lowest tier is those mired in Scrub Mentality.

ToRelax

Jsmalls wrote: »

This straight up didn't exist early in the game and it's the biggest plague I see.

It did, but it was either performing some role in a group or seeing how many opponents you can tank at once. Not annoying solo players.

Necrotech_Master

i tend to get more of a competitive vibe from BGs than i do cyro or IC

me personally i think that "high end play" would be defined as deathmatch BGs, ball groups, and small scaler/1vXers

when i run into someone who is doing well and proving a challenging fight, i dont hesitate to go after them even knowing my chance of success on a kill is low, but i wont repeatedly go back to them to the point of getting farmed either

IncultaWolf

High MMR solo queue battlegrounds, mainly deathmatch

Jsmalls

IncultaWolf wrote: »

High MMR solo queue battlegrounds, mainly deathmatch

This is so hit and miss. Sometime your team is good (you have a healer and competent DPS). Other times they are just high MMR because they have played a lot.

The circumstances have to be just right for an elite player to do really well in solo que.

And that usually depends on the majority of the players running high damage builds over middle of the pack tanky average damage builds that take to much time to focus and pressure down than is ideal in a 4v4v4 situation

Also fully depends on if your teammates want to work together or not.

Alchimiste1

Solo outnumbered is the hardest. Not that other forms of pvp don't take skill but the more group members you add the more mistakes you can afford to make.

Any yes most decent players can pull off a 1vX if they run into the right group of enemy players, but it takes an exceptionally skilled player to be able to 1vX consistently.

RomanRex

Master ToT players.

buzzclops

It’s definitely “high mmr” bgs. But even then it’s rare you get the games with the 40-50 players that play at the highest lvl. The “known names” in the bgs community. When you get 12 of these players in a lobby it doesn’t get any higher/sweaty than this. It’s a really small community. Most of these players know each other and are in 2-3 guilds that spam bgs all days. There was even a bg tournament today. I say it’s the highest lvl mostly because sometimes it will only take 1 or 2 of these players to completely decimate a regular high mmr bg lobby.

I think there’s too many variables to cyrodiil to call it high lvl PvP.

You could argue duels but again it’s hard to say because it can be a bit rock paper scissors depending on matchups

Edit: talking about pc-na and ps4 na

gariondavey

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

The premade Deathmatch 4v4 community is about the highest level PvP in ESO. Too bad it died out years ago.

Agreed. It is fairly dead but still alive a bit. A few teams like godmode, stuhn's goons, etc are still around.

aetherial_heavenn

adirondack wrote: »

I have reached GO. I am former emp. And if you are wise never run away from me cause am not a fabulous player. I’m average. But the years of time in pvp have translated to a GO (or a few) and several emps. Which is not the same as skill.

My old fingers don’t play the game as well as others. I die in pvp like everyone else and like everyone else I dust off and head back at it. The fun is in the playing. Winning of course is nice - but a good battle where everyone gave their all is the true reward for me.

There are some really amazing players out there who just perform at a tier beyond the rest of the masses. These are the small scalers who win through better rotations better gear and better positioning. Some of them are streamers but not all.

So to get back to your original question - I’m not sure how to define top tier, but the people who play with some humor, understand that it is just a game, and find enjoyment in competitive play (on same or differing teams) are the best players. These are the ones who others are drawn to, who encourage better play instead of ridiculing bad choices, and who add so much to a social game.

My $0.02.

I was going to say much the same about not being scared of me just because of being GO and former Empress. I played a healer to get those titles so I am not likely to ever kill you. Unless it's by boring you to death. My fingers are too old and my net too slow to play as well these days but I did have fun getting those ranks, mostly because of the people who helped me learn along the way.

I only open world solo or small group in GH these days but the most valuable/ end game players are the ones that pick up LFG's and teach them the basics of sieging and of fighting in open field, patiently herd cats on slow mounts, get those people AP, and help them read the map so they can fight for the campaign for their faction, all while maintaining good humour!

(Pretty much the same characteristics as makes a good, most valued person in real life.)

To OP
I do admire some 1 v Xers. Most just stream their wins against newer or squishy players and don't show their losses to other players in similar set ups and skill but there are some players whose names are known to all regular Cyro players because they are just plain good.

In my opinion, using the landscape is part of the game in open world. Deciding not to chase tower humpers and speedy freaks is also part of the game. I'm too old and wise to X v 1 any tower ***! But if you want to play with limits like no LoS or bans on particular skills, then I guess that's what organised tourneys or duelling bouts are for.
The results of these organised comps would show those valuable players for those circumstances.

xylena_lazarow

OP didn't even list what I'd consider hardest, way harder than open world 1vX: lead a faction to win the campaign. No not PvDooring empty maps in the off hours, like actually leading one's faction against even numbers on a populated server, which most zerglords fail miserably at. That would be my vote, followed by running crown in organized groups.