What is PVE DPS meta now (u47)
-
tomofhyrule✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Player populations in most, if not all, games have a habit of optimizing the fun out of games and distilling the play down to what's most efficient/effective.
This is true. But that's not the issue here.
However, let's consider a hypothetical game with three builds:- Build A: very easy to use (difficulty = 1/5) and has decent power no matter who plays it (power = 3/5)
- Build B: a bit more technical (difficulty = 3/5) which is okay normally (power = 2/5), but players who understand the game do better with it (power = 4/5)
- Build C: really difficult to master (difficulty = 5/5) and is terrible in the hands of most players (power = 1/5), but lethal in the hands of experts (power = 5/5)
As such, there's reason that different players would want to bring any of the three.
Now here's how ESO currently looks, using the same template:- Build A: very easy to use (difficulty = 1/5) and is incredibly strong (power = 5/5)
- Build B: a bit more technical (difficulty = 3/5) which is okay normally (power = 2/5), but players who understand the game do better with it (power = 3/5)
- Build C: really difficult to master (difficulty = 5/5) and is terrible in the hands of most players (power = 1/5), but an expert at the build can push a bit more out of it (power = 4/5)
0 -
Gabriel_H✭✭✭✭✭tomofhyrule wrote: »Now of course a meta will always exist. But pre U46, it was not this bad. Yes, trial teams were primarily Arcanists, but there was always a slot or two for a support DPS like an MKSorc or Z'enDK or Templar beam bot, and even things like a Corpseburster Necro outDPSed the Arcanists.
Pre-U46, Arcanists were by no means the top DPS, but they were by far the most played. A bad player on a meta Arcanist could do reasonable numbers, but a good DK or Temp or Sorc could outperform even a good Arcanist.
This highlights a problem with the "meta". It shows it isn't about the best numbers, but the perception of the spec. That falls on Raid Leaders, who strive for efficiency without considering efficiency involves a person and a lower limit.
You don't need 100% efficiency to clear content - you only need that for score pushing but the balance of the game is around trifectas. Do you clear it quicker? Usually, but not always. That's because the person comes into it. Someone who is speccing "meta" just because their RL tells them to, rather than because they enjoy it, it going to be less engaged - boredom breeds mistakes. That same said person may actually do better numbers and die less if allowed to play the spec and style they want, but that is never a consideration because it must be the "meta".
The "meta" strives for 100% efficiency on paper, but ignores that there are a dozen 99.9% effficent builds, 2 dozen 99.8% etc and those builds may actually be more fun for players, leading to better engagement, lower burnout, and trials actually fillng with competent players now and into the future.1 -
Gabriel_H✭✭✭✭✭The point is that group leads in end-game content need a balanced group comp. And in order to build the group comp, they are going to ask for particular builds, from the set of meta and support-meta dps builds. So you need to have that to be included, and for the group to succeed. A raid lead's job is already hard. Don't make it harder by insisting on bespoke builds in end-game trials.
A Raid Leader's job is infintely easier with a competent player who is engaged and not bored to death on a build/playstyle they dislike.0 -
tomofhyrule✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭tomofhyrule wrote: »Now of course a meta will always exist. But pre U46, it was not this bad. Yes, trial teams were primarily Arcanists, but there was always a slot or two for a support DPS like an MKSorc or Z'enDK or Templar beam bot, and even things like a Corpseburster Necro outDPSed the Arcanists.
Pre-U46, Arcanists were by no means the top DPS, but they were by far the most played. A bad player on a meta Arcanist could do reasonable numbers, but a good DK or Temp or Sorc could outperform even a good Arcanist.
This highlights a problem with the "meta". It shows it isn't about the best numbers, but the perception of the spec. That falls on Raid Leaders, who strive for efficiency without considering efficiency involves a person and a lower limit.
You don't need 100% efficiency to clear content - you only need that for score pushing but the balance of the game is around trifectas. Do you clear it quicker? Usually, but not always. That's because the person comes into it. Someone who is speccing "meta" just because their RL tells them to, rather than because they enjoy it, it going to be less engaged - boredom breeds mistakes. That same said person may actually do better numbers and die less if allowed to play the spec and style they want, but that is never a consideration because it must be the "meta".
The "meta" strives for 100% efficiency on paper, but ignores that there are a dozen 99.9% effficent builds, 2 dozen 99.8% etc and those builds may actually be more fun for players, leading to better engagement, lower burnout, and trials actually fillng with competent players now and into the future.
And therein lies the current problem - yes you could parse higher on non-Arcs pre U46, but Arc was easy so a lot of people went for it. But for those players who liked to play other classes, they could outperform as long as they were good at their class.
Post U46, the easy mode playstyle is the most powerful. The gap between "I don't like playing the meta, but I'm really good at my composition" and "I'm playing meta because it's easy and powerful" is way bigger than it used to be, and is now skewed towards the latter. If a raid lead wants the highest damage, then they want everyone playing meta because even the "but I'm really good at my build" crowd can't stand up to it anymore.
That's the problem. The balance is all out of whack, and players who really like their off-meta build, even if they're really good at it, aren't able to put out comparable numbers.
But this does lead to the other problem you mentioned: if you're forced to build a certain way, the game is less fun. We see that all over the "how do you feel about U46" thread - most of the people who are talking about playing high level are not very happy with Subclassing specifically because they're having less fun because they're being coerced into playing a single playstyle they don't find fun.
I know that's my big problem with how U46 came out. And unfortunately, U47 didn't do a thing to make "play the way you want" any more balanced with the singular meta. Here's hoping that U48 may actually try to balance things a bit so we can actually make the "I'm not playing the flavor of the month build, but my build can compare to it in my hands" argument again.0 -
Recent✭✭✭✭✭Because low damage gets shamed and laughed at. I was in a normal gear farm trial and new peeps were struggling with a boss mechanics in nLC and a cocky player said: " do non of you do any damage lol ?".
I was healing but I wanted to say :"Nope, damage is for noobs". I held back.
I only chase trial gear to make builds that feel strong...i guess I have been brainwashed about at least trying to get close to the meta...sad yea I know.
I actually wrote myself a note and put it on my computer desk says " Have fun, relax." Yea this game can stress me out sometimes. I'm working on changing my mindset. I dont want to playva sub for stress.
0 -
Gabriel_H✭✭✭✭✭tomofhyrule wrote: »If a raid lead wants the highest damage, then they want everyone playing meta because even the "but I'm really good at my build" crowd can't stand up to it anymore.
HIghest damage ... on paper. Not necessarily in content. As I said, boredom breeds mistakes. If a RL is not willing to at least see in content how an off-meta build works then they bad at their job. And there are a lot of RLs who dismiss an off-meta build out of hand.
0