Revert the Azureblight Nerf

Galeriano2

I must say I find it funny that ZoS always refuses to balance PvE and PvP separately but the moment something starts to threaten zergs in PvP, Zos just straight disables it there like they did with plaguebreak and azureblight. It kinda comes in line with new banner ability from scribing that is a massive buff to zergs. ZoS's love for zergs is really more than obvious which is kinda sad considering that their game cannot handle more than 10 people fighting in the same place.

ForumSavant

Aldoss wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

You'll help me stay on topic after you were the one who changed topic to begin with? Hilarious. Not here to argue semantics yet that's what your entire earlier comment was, funny when things get pointed out and the argument falls apart. Maybe don't make things up in an attempt to get your point across?

False. Perhaps you missed it? @BardInSolitude made a bold claim saying that ballgroups were an intended behavior by the devs when they designed Cyro. I disagreed and produced an argument with evidence to support the argument.

If you don't think my evidence backs up my argument, then by all means, argue against it and provide evidence of your own to support it. It's just that you have yet to do that. You're focused on me saying a word that you don't like. That's fine. Arguing over what "exploit" means doesn't seem like a beneficial use of time because ultimately, it's not that big of a deal. I'm not married to the word and I gave you an alternate interpretation of it. It seems like it triggered you. That wasn't my intention.

ForumSavant wrote: »

Since you still want to be passive aggressive for zero reason, aside from the fact that you got called out for making stuff up, here, I will help you get up to speed and stay on topic. Just because a group of people kill you, that does not make that inherently unbalance. This is an MMO, it is intended for people to play together if they want. The nerf was warranted, it was over performing.

This is a strawman. That's not my stance here and I haven't said that. I don't get killed by ballgroups because I choose to ignore them. However, that choice doesn't mean there's some inherent right for ballgroup behavior to continue. People are here asking the devs to reconsider their choices in removing a tool that is proven to be effective against ballgroups. You clearly disagree and that's fine. They're not here to change your mind. They're here to change the dev's mind.

I'm not arguing for there to not be grouping in this game. I'm arguing against the claim that the devs designed Cyro with current ballgroup behavior in mind.

My comments here are pretty plainly directed to @BardInSolitude, since I quoted them. You wanted to join in, as you're welcome to, since this is a public forum. However, do stay on topic, otherwise I'll just ignore you. This will be my last reply to you, so as to not derail the topic. I'd be happy to continue debating the argument at hand if you'd like to participate in it, however.

Your entire comment history on the thread is a strawman.

The AB nerf was warranted, it was overpowered, hence why it was nerfed.

You can make another build with another set. The reason people are so upset about the nerf is because they were so reliant on AB because it was so overpowered.

Aldoss

ForumSavant wrote: »

Your entire comment history on the thread is a strawman.

Evidence? Otherwise it just looks like you don't know what a strawman is.

ForumSavant wrote: »

The AB nerf was warranted, it was overpowered, hence why it was nerfed.

I agree. It was overpowered. That's why it was AWESOME to read that ZOS was fixing it. And then after they were done fixing it... They removed it from PvP.

I don't actually agree with the OP on this thread. I don't want AB to be reverted, but it does need to stay within the PvP realm and remain a good option at what it's been adopted for, which is reigning in the oppression from ballgroups that have been vastly increased since scribing opened up new limits of power we've never seen, such as shield stacking to 80k-100k effective hp.

ForumSavant wrote: »

You can make another build with another set. The reason people are so upset about the nerf is because they were so reliant on AB because it was so overpowered.

I agree you. Some people probably crutched on it. That doesn't mean it should be removed from PvP. It needed to be adjusted. ZOS adjusted it AND removed it from PvP. All they needed to do was adjust it.

Synapsis123

Due to all the pugs using it, it probably created more lag than a ball group ever could've hoped to. For that reason alone, good riddance. The set was also super overpowered against everyone in pvp. The tooltip on mine is around 12k. Due to the scaling starting with a single person, that meant that that it is hitting for 19.2k before mitigation against 2 players. This set is absurd. I think the set would've been okay in pvp if they had left the base damage but removed the scaling. With how high the scaling is in its current form, it is basically doing the same damage as vicious death but without having to kill anyone. Also, it is counting as single target damage so it bypasses minor and major evasion. There are so many problems with this set its better that it is just removed from pvp.

Azrael001

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Due to all the pugs using it, it probably created more lag than a ball group ever could've hoped to. For that reason alone, good riddance. The set was also super overpowered against everyone in pvp. The tooltip on mine is around 12k. Due to the scaling starting with a single person, that meant that that it is hitting for 19.2k before mitigation against 2 players. This set is absurd. I think the set would've been okay in pvp if they had left the base damage but removed the scaling. With how high the scaling is in its current form, it is basically doing the same damage as vicious death but without having to kill anyone. Also, it is counting as single target damage so it bypasses minor and major evasion. There are so many problems with this set its better that it is just removed from pvp.

"Before mitigation" is the key here. You do realize that nearly everyone in PvP has at least 75% mitigation, right? Just as an inherent part of their build, no need to block or anything. Therefore, your argument is down to less than 5k damage for a proc. And this is after you apply 20 dot ticks to your target. Now, lets compare it to other proc sets. I've been hit with many tarnished nightmare procs averaging around 15k, with the highest I've been hit for on a regular basis being about 25k. I have 75% mitigation as well. And what do you need to proc tarnished nightmare? One single attack to crit, which is extremely easy to do compared to a full setup of dots. And honestly? Tarnished nightmare while annoying is perfectly fine and doesn't need a nerf, and neither does azureblight. If anything, azureblight needs to scale up to 24 people.

To say that azureblight is a problem for anyone but ball groups is not just disingenuous, it's a blatant and shameless lie. I have run in Cyrodiil for months with an organized group that loosely stacks, and I've only died to azureblight. One single time in months since the set was last changed.

RaikaNA

acastanza_ESO wrote: »

To counter the dev comment, Plaguebreak does NOT fill the same niche, not at all. The entire point of Azureblight in PVP is that it is, literally, the only thing in the game capable of outputting enough damage to counter the absurd 60k+ shield stacks of Ballgroups that scribing and additional shield sets have enabled. Plaguebreak does NOTHING to this because the damage scaling is so inadequate that they can easily outshield it if it even manages to proc (they don't bother to purge it because it's damage is so pitiful, and they don't proc it by dying because the entire problem is that they can output so much disgusting shielding that they literally can never die).

I remember back when Plaguebreak was a great set to use against ball groups

Someone posted this on the forums a long time ago... https://streamable.com/9kbyis

Synapsis123

RaikaNA wrote: »

acastanza_ESO wrote: »

To counter the dev comment, Plaguebreak does NOT fill the same niche, not at all. The entire point of Azureblight in PVP is that it is, literally, the only thing in the game capable of outputting enough damage to counter the absurd 60k+ shield stacks of Ballgroups that scribing and additional shield sets have enabled. Plaguebreak does NOTHING to this because the damage scaling is so inadequate that they can easily outshield it if it even manages to proc (they don't bother to purge it because it's damage is so pitiful, and they don't proc it by dying because the entire problem is that they can output so much disgusting shielding that they literally can never die).

I remember back when Plaguebreak was a great set to use against ball groups

Someone posted this on the forums a long time ago... https://streamable.com/9kbyis

That group you posted that is using plaguebreak in that streamable clip is now running a similarly sized group ALL using azureblight. The set is extremely broken when stacked with multiple players.

Morvan

Azureblight is also a pretty good tool on PvE for classes that lack AoE damage, nerfing Azureblight is pretty much a hit against DPS in nearly every PvE setting, it will affect damage, class and set diversity.

If the feedback on this gets ignored and azureblight goes on live the state it is it will just show that nothing was learned from patch U35.

Synapsis123

Morvan wrote: »

Azureblight is also a pretty good tool on PvE for classes that lack AoE damage, nerfing Azureblight is pretty much a hit against DPS in nearly every PvE setting, it will affect damage, class and set diversity.

If the feedback on this gets ignored and azureblight goes on live the state it is it will just show that nothing was learned from patch U35.

Every class that could utilize azureblight couldn't use it as well as arcanist. If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

Morvan

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Synapsis123

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

pklemming

This is why we are leaving. The constant nerfs. There were issues in PVP and you fixed that by making it not work in PVP, the nerf to PVE is pointless and beyond annoying.

Is a set fun? Lets nerf it.

The game is 'supposed' to be fun. You are removing the fun part of the game.

Mizael

Revert the cooldown at least, or the set is dead for pve

Skolandrikeb17_ESO

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

Nah, with AB you could bring other classes with higher ST damage than arcanist since cleave would be covered.

haleysarahw

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.

The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.

The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.

Synapsis123

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.

The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.

The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.

You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.

haleysarahw

Synapsis123 wrote: »

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.

The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.

The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.

You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.

Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.

haleysarahw

Synapsis123 wrote: »

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.

The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.

The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.

You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.

haleysarahw

Synapsis123 wrote: »

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.

The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.

The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.

You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.

The Rockgrove screenshot is quite literally the world record. I'll let them know they're doing it wrong I guess.

haleysarahw

Synapsis123 wrote: »

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.

The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.

The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.

You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.

and for a bonus, 2 more WRs from this patch (MoL and AS)

sarahthes

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.

The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.

The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.

You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.

and for a bonus, 2 more WRs from this patch (MoL and AS)

@haleysarahw out here with the receipts. I posted them on another thread too (without the ss cuz I'm on mobile) but people just don't want to admit that endgamers don't stack arcs 100% of the time.

haleysarahw

And finally, from an EU "no arcanist" group posting competitive scores with the majority of other Trifecta groups for Lucent Citadel, which requires a high amount of cleave, particularly on the last boss encounter:




The picture of the sets is from the knot run/xoryn encounter, where almost every DD is wearing azureblight.

madmufffin

I believe that is what the kids call getting dunked on

Dactiller

This post is getting LIT.

Anyways, yea arcanist is easy, which makes content more accessible to begginers or even first trifecta groups. But the nerfs done to it in recent updates made it fall down a bit, and opened way to more class diversity in endgame roasters. (Maybe apart from Lucent Citadel due to how the Xoryn fight and the knot run mechanics fit in perfectly with the arcanist kit, but that fight can also be played by stacking a bunch of Necromancers)

sarahthes

Dactiller wrote: »

This post is getting LIT.

Anyways, yea arcanist is easy, which makes content more accessible to begginers or even first trifecta groups. But the nerfs done to it in recent updates made it fall down a bit, and opened way to more class diversity in endgame roasters. (Maybe apart from Lucent Citadel due to how the Xoryn fight and the knot run mechanics fit in perfectly with the arcanist kit, but that fight can also be played by stacking a bunch of Necromancers)

I look forward to everyone quitting endgame because 2/3 of the people we gained after the update 35 debacle don't know how to play any class that requires high apm.

acastanza_ESO

Thanks for updating the patch notes with the full extent of the nerf into complete uselessness and utter trash for Blight, now how about we get it restored to usability in Week 4 by undoing this garbage @ZOS_Kevin

madmufffin

Another iteration of completely ignoring all PVE concerns. Super duper awesome. At least Throne and Liberty is available this week. Maybe their dev team won't actively ruin the game.

Synapsis123

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.

The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.

The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.

You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.

Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.

What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?

We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.

On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.

When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?

Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?

acastanza_ESO

Synapsis123 wrote: »

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.

The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.

The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.

You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.

Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.

What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?

Take the L dude.

haleysarahw

Synapsis123 wrote: »

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

haleysarahw wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.

I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.

Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.

I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.

The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.

The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.

You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.

Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.

What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?

We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.

On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.

When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?

Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?

These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.