Is it time to talk about this new (...old...) negate meta?

CapuchinSeven · August 2016

ManDraKE wrote: »

the perfect antizerg tool, i love it. Spread out and negate won't affect more than a few, stack on crown and get wiped

I think you mean, yet another Magic beat down tool because that's really what it is. It's not going to stop stamina users.

ishilb14_ESO · August 2016

No it is still too soon. But our thoughts and prayers are with those affected by it.

Joy_Division · August 2016

Satiar wrote: »

I don't play much anymore so take it for what it's worth, but the Negate changes were wayyyyyy overtuned.

Up until the very day they buffed it I still ran 3-4 negates in VE raids every night. They were incredibly useful, if massively underused. There was a solid period of time where it was the running joke in TS, because as a raid we pretty much lived inside of Novas, veils and Banners. It was the best counter to the higher damage groups we'd fought since 1.6 like Nexus, Haxus and Rage. We often tried different things at the start of a patch but inevitably came back to ground ultimates. To take it further, we often layered an area in Turn Undead to add additional protection from vampires, so all told we where almost always fighting in anywhere between 30%, 48% or 60+% damage resistance. This was also how we replaced barriers. Literally no guild we ran into regularly used negates against us, for some reason, despite the fact that it always murdered stacked groups and absolutely annihilated ground effects.

I'm still not sure why they buffed negate. It didn't need to do damage like a DKS or Nova. It didn't need to be a complete blackout for all magic skills. It did what it was meant to do perfectly: counter the other main class ultimates, clear an area and provide a solid .5-2 seconds of reprieve from enemy casting. That's a solid ultimate. They buffed it from "useful and needed in every raid" to past 1.5 levels. And 1.5, for those who remember, was stupid in that regard. GvGs were literally who had more negates. I remember fighting vs Deci or NM, etc. and it was just counter negates until you couldn't counter and then you died. I remember just not bothering with raid because Deci was running with 6 sorcs and I had 1, and there was simply no prospect of winning. It was a pure numbers game, and that's how it feels now.

To sum, a negate is compete area denial, total skill blackout, removes all enemy effects and ultimates and can tick for as much damage as a DKS. It's way overtuned. Period. And the worst part is that it was already a functioning ultimate with a good use for any group. It's pretty lol, and I'm quite surprised to see so many decent players saying it's fine. It's better than 1.5 negate and 1.5 negate was OPAF.

I know you and Bulb believed this strongly from IC to TG, but in my estimation more often negates were not the decisive factor in the fights we won and lost.

After the barrier nerf (before sorcs were prized for that ultimate because of their passives and bastion), when we lost a few fights, the answer seemed to be moar meteors rather than negates. This does not deny that Zexus's negate was not an awesome thing or dropping one on a raid stacked on a transitus wasn't a fight winner, just that it was not the "must have" ultimate that was used in every fight.

The negate from IC to TG was something that was never even considered of any use in PvE because it simply didn't do very much. Our guild may have valued those small bonuses and the possibilities negate offered, but that is still just an opinion and doesn't make it a fact. As it is, even in PvP, negate was of questionable value to solo players or perhaps even small groups; as it was it shined most in a very specific scenario: large fights against players who stacked together and coordinated ultimates, and even then ideally in enclosed environments. Also I always thought it was silly someone could simply CC break and ignore an enemy ultimate. I would never voluntarily stay inside an enemy nova, banner, or veil, but Negate, ehh, not a big deal. There were IMHO legit reasons for making this 200 cost ultimate certainly more versatile and arguably more powerful.

Is negate strong? Absolutely. Is it the ultimate I fear most? Yes. Is that a problem? Not in my opinion. In the days on non-dynamic ulimate that we play in and the ridiculous survviability that everybody runs around in cyrodiil, I am fine with a 200 cost ulitmate having a dramatic and potentially decisive effect. There should be one ultimate in the game to punish the stack on crown "strategy," that sort of power is a staple of fantasy RPG games. I'd be more inclined to make the other expensive ultimates in this game that are meh and situational more worthy than nerfing Negate

dashima · August 2016

In 12 man raids, people are already running 6 or more sorcs just for the negates.
Whoever said that negates are an anti-zerg tool is wrong because if an enemy raid with 40 people has more negates than that 12 man, the 12 man will lose.

Certain large groups who have a large sorc ratio will even place down 4-5 negates a time. Idk what a good solution would be, because negate is the only reason many sorcs have a place in group play, but the "whoever has more negates wins" meta doesn't feel like skilled gameplay to me.

Glory · August 2016

dashima wrote: »

In 12 man raids, people are already running 6 or more sorcs just for the negates.
Whoever said that negates are an anti-zerg tool is wrong because if an enemy raid with 40 people has more negates than that 12 man, the 12 man will lose.

Certain large groups who have a large sorc ratio will even place down 4-5 negates a time. Idk what a good solution would be, because negate is the only reason many sorcs have a place in group play, but the "whoever has more negates wins" meta doesn't feel like skilled gameplay to me.

It's just like how proxy det was an anti-zerg tool: it was helpful in fighting zergs, but it also empowered zergs to a whole new level.

The-Baconator · August 2016

Joy_Division wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

I don't play much anymore so take it for what it's worth, but the Negate changes were wayyyyyy overtuned.

Up until the very day they buffed it I still ran 3-4 negates in VE raids every night. They were incredibly useful, if massively underused. There was a solid period of time where it was the running joke in TS, because as a raid we pretty much lived inside of Novas, veils and Banners. It was the best counter to the higher damage groups we'd fought since 1.6 like Nexus, Haxus and Rage. We often tried different things at the start of a patch but inevitably came back to ground ultimates. To take it further, we often layered an area in Turn Undead to add additional protection from vampires, so all told we where almost always fighting in anywhere between 30%, 48% or 60+% damage resistance. This was also how we replaced barriers. Literally no guild we ran into regularly used negates against us, for some reason, despite the fact that it always murdered stacked groups and absolutely annihilated ground effects.

I'm still not sure why they buffed negate. It didn't need to do damage like a DKS or Nova. It didn't need to be a complete blackout for all magic skills. It did what it was meant to do perfectly: counter the other main class ultimates, clear an area and provide a solid .5-2 seconds of reprieve from enemy casting. That's a solid ultimate. They buffed it from "useful and needed in every raid" to past 1.5 levels. And 1.5, for those who remember, was stupid in that regard. GvGs were literally who had more negates. I remember fighting vs Deci or NM, etc. and it was just counter negates until you couldn't counter and then you died. I remember just not bothering with raid because Deci was running with 6 sorcs and I had 1, and there was simply no prospect of winning. It was a pure numbers game, and that's how it feels now.

To sum, a negate is compete area denial, total skill blackout, removes all enemy effects and ultimates and can tick for as much damage as a DKS. It's way overtuned. Period. And the worst part is that it was already a functioning ultimate with a good use for any group. It's pretty lol, and I'm quite surprised to see so many decent players saying it's fine. It's better than 1.5 negate and 1.5 negate was OPAF.

I know you and Bulb believed this strongly from IC to TG, but in my estimation more often negates were not the decisive factor in the fights we won and lost.

After the barrier nerf (before sorcs were prized for that ultimate because of their passives and bastion), when we lost a few fights, the answer seemed to be moar meteors rather than negates. This does not deny that Zexus's negate was not an awesome thing or dropping one on a raid stacked on a transitus wasn't a fight winner, just that it was not the "must have" ultimate that was used in every fight.

The negate from IC to TG was something that was never even considered of any use in PvE because it simply didn't do very much. Our guild may have valued those small bonuses and the possibilities negate offered, but that is still just an opinion and doesn't make it a fact. As it is, even in PvP, negate was of questionable value to solo players or perhaps even small groups; as it was it shined most in a very specific scenario: large fights against players who stacked together and coordinated ultimates, and even then ideally in enclosed environments. Also I always thought it was silly someone could simply CC break and ignore an enemy ultimate. I would never voluntarily stay inside an enemy nova, banner, or veil, but Negate, ehh, not a big deal. There were IMHO legit reasons for making this 200 cost ultimate certainly more versatile and arguably more powerful.

Is negate strong? Absolutely. Is it the ultimate I fear most? Yes. Is that a problem? Not in my opinion. In the days on non-dynamic ulimate that we play in and the ridiculous survviability that everybody runs around in cyrodiil, I am fine with a 200 cost ulitmate having a dramatic and potentially decisive effect. There should be one ultimate in the game to punish the stack on crown "strategy," that sort of power is a staple of fantasy RPG games. I'd be more inclined to make the other expensive ultimates in this game that are meh and situational more worthy than nerfing Negate

Just because negate was only incredibly useful in a handful of scenarios--scenarios which the vast majority of pvpers would never be exposed to--and worthless in most others doesn't justify what they've done to the ultimate. As someone who first got involved in real guildplay post IC I have never seen something so strong that stacking so many of one spec\class was almost mandatory if you wanted to fight other decent groups\pug zergs. There were always certain specs that were more effective at any given task but you could reasonably sub something else in and still get the job done if your group was good enough. Now when people want to jump in group if they're on their stamplar\magicka dk\etc its always met with "we only have 2 negates you need to get on your stam sorc." I realize you could make the case that the same could be said for magicka templars when your group is short on heals but even as a sorc I could\can slot springs and respec CP and make it work fairly well in most situations. It would not be optimal but it would be workable. With negate there is no second option, stacking sorcs is the only option.

Also in my mind when people are purposely trying to stack a specific ult in their group to the point that plenty of groups now run 1 negate for every 2 people--even if it means running stam sorc as your only stam class and magicka sorc DDs (buff impulse\destro staff pls)--said ultimate might be a bit OP.

Erondil · August 2016

ebethke_ESO wrote: »

dashima wrote: »

In 12 man raids, people are already running 6 or more sorcs just for the negates.
Whoever said that negates are an anti-zerg tool is wrong because if an enemy raid with 40 people has more negates than that 12 man, the 12 man will lose.

Certain large groups who have a large sorc ratio will even place down 4-5 negates a time. Idk what a good solution would be, because negate is the only reason many sorcs have a place in group play, but the "whoever has more negates wins" meta doesn't feel like skilled gameplay to me.

It's just like how proxy det was an anti-zerg tool: it was helpful in fighting zergs, but it also empowered zergs to a whole new level.

I dont know who is the zerg for you in a 12vs40, but proxy has always favorised the 12 man group. And the 4 man group in 4vs12.

Hashtag_ · August 2016

Erondil wrote: »

ebethke_ESO wrote: »

dashima wrote: »

In 12 man raids, people are already running 6 or more sorcs just for the negates.
Whoever said that negates are an anti-zerg tool is wrong because if an enemy raid with 40 people has more negates than that 12 man, the 12 man will lose.

Certain large groups who have a large sorc ratio will even place down 4-5 negates a time. Idk what a good solution would be, because negate is the only reason many sorcs have a place in group play, but the "whoever has more negates wins" meta doesn't feel like skilled gameplay to me.

It's just like how proxy det was an anti-zerg tool: it was helpful in fighting zergs, but it also empowered zergs to a whole new level.

I dont know who is the zerg for you in a 12vs40, but proxy has always favorised the 12 man group. And the 4 man group in 4vs12.

It really hasn't. Because it came down to who had more proxy det/VD than the other and with the AOE caps in place the bigger group took less damage than the smaller group.

Bashev · August 2016

Rylana wrote: »

One negate on back flag
One negate on steps between flags
One negate on transitus
One negate on scroll pedestal

What do you get?

One keep flipped, with almost no way to stop it.

This. Negate is ok if it is only 1. When a ball group attack with 4-5 negates at once you cannot run away from them to use your own negate to counter it. These 12 seconds are enough for your enemies to kill the majority of the players they are fighting.
Another big issue is that you never know is it your alliance negate or it is enemy. There is no visual feedback.

JaJaLuka · August 2016

Bashev wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

One negate on back flag
One negate on steps between flags
One negate on transitus
One negate on scroll pedestal

What do you get?

One keep flipped, with almost no way to stop it.

This. Negate is ok if it is only 1. When a ball group attack with 4-5 negates at once you cannot run away from them to use your own negate to counter it. These 12 seconds are enough for your enemies to kill the majority of the players they are fighting.
Another big issue is that you never know is it your alliance negate or it is enemy. There is no visual feedback.

Then push out of the keep and kill them before they get to the inner keep. There are tons of ways to fight in both defence and offence; if their strategy is to get to the inner so they can drop their negate then fight them outside of the tiny inner keep where there is less of a bottle neck. I'm sure there is many more strategies that can be used, it's up to you to figure them out. Negate is fine, it's always going to be hard to kill larger groups because they have more of EVERYTHING, not just negate.

Bashev · August 2016

JaJaLuka wrote: »

Bashev wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

One negate on back flag
One negate on steps between flags
One negate on transitus
One negate on scroll pedestal

What do you get?

One keep flipped, with almost no way to stop it.

This. Negate is ok if it is only 1. When a ball group attack with 4-5 negates at once you cannot run away from them to use your own negate to counter it. These 12 seconds are enough for your enemies to kill the majority of the players they are fighting.
Another big issue is that you never know is it your alliance negate or it is enemy. There is no visual feedback.

Then push out of the keep and kill them before they get to the inner keep. There are tons of ways to fight in both defence and offence; if their strategy is to get to the inner so they can drop their negate then fight them outside of the tiny inner keep where there is less of a bottle neck. I'm sure there is many more strategies that can be used, it's up to you to figure them out. Negate is fine, it's always going to be hard to kill larger groups because they have more of EVERYTHING, not just negate.

It is not only the flag issue. It happens everywhere. The group who drops first negate win. 5 negates with 8m radius do you know how much ground cover?

And as I said negate is not so OP, just all the other ground ultimates are weak.

CapuchinSeven · August 2016

Bashev wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

One negate on back flag
One negate on steps between flags
One negate on transitus
One negate on scroll pedestal

What do you get?

One keep flipped, with almost no way to stop it.

This. Negate is ok if it is only 1. When a ball group attack with 4-5 negates at once you cannot run away from them to use your own negate to counter it. These 12 seconds are enough for your enemies to kill the majority of the players they are fighting.
Another big issue is that you never know is it your alliance negate or it is enemy. There is no visual feedback.

Yeah this is true, and often the case with some other stuff as well, little visual feedback from the game as to if something has come from an enemy or a friendly.

And also yes, while any ability used in a team with coordinated teamwork will be more powerful than just random spamming Negate takes this to the very very very razors edge of being so stupidly powerful when coordinated than you almost feel like you're being grifed. There is no counter to coordinated use of it, other than "make sure you're the first one using it".

Lucius_Aelius · August 2016

I think it does seem a bit OP, and I don't think they should have changed it, it was fine how it was. Not a huge problem, but every little problem with balance adds up, and it should be changed back in my opinion.

Leandor · August 2016

I always thought that negate cancels all ground effects that are completely engulfed in its area of effect. Positioning a negate perfectly in line with an enemy negate will negate the negate. If it's slightly out of line, both will be active and spamnado wins.

Not correct?

Erondil · August 2016

Hashtag_ wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

ebethke_ESO wrote: »

dashima wrote: »

In 12 man raids, people are already running 6 or more sorcs just for the negates.
Whoever said that negates are an anti-zerg tool is wrong because if an enemy raid with 40 people has more negates than that 12 man, the 12 man will lose.

Certain large groups who have a large sorc ratio will even place down 4-5 negates a time. Idk what a good solution would be, because negate is the only reason many sorcs have a place in group play, but the "whoever has more negates wins" meta doesn't feel like skilled gameplay to me.

It's just like how proxy det was an anti-zerg tool: it was helpful in fighting zergs, but it also empowered zergs to a whole new level.

I dont know who is the zerg for you in a 12vs40, but proxy has always favorised the 12 man group. And the 4 man group in 4vs12.

It really hasn't. Because it came down to who had more proxy det/VD than the other and with the AOE caps in place the bigger group took less damage than the smaller group.

Eh, in the smaller group if you got dead people the whole group is likely to wipe, vicious or not,since you each member is important. Vicious was extremely helping smaller groups. Sure thing the big group will use deto, but imagine if deto didnt exist, how the 12 man group would ever burst the big one? Only ultimates? Not ever gonna be enough. Ofc the big group has more deto, but if deto wasnt there they would still have way more damage aoe anyways except the small group doesnt have burst, and deto is easier to counter than instant aoe. All you need to do is get yours blow up first or make them have a bad push, then youre safe to burst them down with your own. 8 deto blowing up at the same time at the same place gonna kill as many as 16 detos. The small group had to play better ofc, but has way more chances to kill the big one with deto than without.

Glory · August 2016

Erondil wrote: »

Hashtag_ wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

ebethke_ESO wrote: »

dashima wrote: »

In 12 man raids, people are already running 6 or more sorcs just for the negates.
Whoever said that negates are an anti-zerg tool is wrong because if an enemy raid with 40 people has more negates than that 12 man, the 12 man will lose.

Certain large groups who have a large sorc ratio will even place down 4-5 negates a time. Idk what a good solution would be, because negate is the only reason many sorcs have a place in group play, but the "whoever has more negates wins" meta doesn't feel like skilled gameplay to me.

It's just like how proxy det was an anti-zerg tool: it was helpful in fighting zergs, but it also empowered zergs to a whole new level.

I dont know who is the zerg for you in a 12vs40, but proxy has always favorised the 12 man group. And the 4 man group in 4vs12.

It really hasn't. Because it came down to who had more proxy det/VD than the other and with the AOE caps in place the bigger group took less damage than the smaller group.

Eh, in the smaller group if you got dead people the whole group is likely to wipe, vicious or not,since you each member is important. Vicious was extremely helping smaller groups. Sure thing the big group will use deto, but imagine if deto didnt exist, how the 12 man group would ever burst the big one? Only ultimates? Not ever gonna be enough. Ofc the big group has more deto, but if deto wasnt there they would still have way more damage aoe anyways except the small group doesnt have burst, and deto is easier to counter than instant aoe. All you need to do is get yours blow up first or make them have a bad push, then youre safe to burst them down with your own. 8 deto blowing up at the same time at the same place gonna kill as many as 16 detos. The small group had to play better ofc, but has way more chances to kill the big one with deto than without.

Let me take you back, to a time where there was no proximity detonation, and ultimate was granted in a fashion that favored outnumbered fighters...

Yeah, I don't know. Without dynamic ultimate (which helped smaller groups more-so), there really hasn't been anything in the game that discourages the zerg mentality. Even with proxy det - if 10 people hit a proxy for 10k each against an enemy team of 20 that hit a proxy for 6k, that still ends up being more damage for the big guys (this isn't even accounting for AoE caps).

Manoekin · August 2016

ebethke_ESO wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Hashtag_ wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

ebethke_ESO wrote: »

dashima wrote: »

In 12 man raids, people are already running 6 or more sorcs just for the negates.
Whoever said that negates are an anti-zerg tool is wrong because if an enemy raid with 40 people has more negates than that 12 man, the 12 man will lose.

Certain large groups who have a large sorc ratio will even place down 4-5 negates a time. Idk what a good solution would be, because negate is the only reason many sorcs have a place in group play, but the "whoever has more negates wins" meta doesn't feel like skilled gameplay to me.

It's just like how proxy det was an anti-zerg tool: it was helpful in fighting zergs, but it also empowered zergs to a whole new level.

I dont know who is the zerg for you in a 12vs40, but proxy has always favorised the 12 man group. And the 4 man group in 4vs12.

It really hasn't. Because it came down to who had more proxy det/VD than the other and with the AOE caps in place the bigger group took less damage than the smaller group.

Eh, in the smaller group if you got dead people the whole group is likely to wipe, vicious or not,since you each member is important. Vicious was extremely helping smaller groups. Sure thing the big group will use deto, but imagine if deto didnt exist, how the 12 man group would ever burst the big one? Only ultimates? Not ever gonna be enough. Ofc the big group has more deto, but if deto wasnt there they would still have way more damage aoe anyways except the small group doesnt have burst, and deto is easier to counter than instant aoe. All you need to do is get yours blow up first or make them have a bad push, then youre safe to burst them down with your own. 8 deto blowing up at the same time at the same place gonna kill as many as 16 detos. The small group had to play better ofc, but has way more chances to kill the big one with deto than without.

Let me take you back, to a time where there was no proximity detonation, and ultimate was granted in a fashion that favored outnumbered fighters...

Yeah, I don't know. Without dynamic ultimate (which helped smaller groups more-so), there really hasn't been anything in the game that discourages the zerg mentality. Even with proxy det - if 10 people hit a proxy for 10k each against an enemy team of 20 that hit a proxy for 6k, that still ends up being more damage for the big guys (this isn't even accounting for AoE caps).

They can have more dets, but it will still come out to who gets the better bomb. If you kill half their group before their dets go off then it's even, and det is so easy to mitigate the damage from so you shouldn't be in immediate danger if that's all you're talking about. I've done it several times just going in for a bomb and back out immediately over and over until finally the larger group is wiped.