The Current Destro Pain Train Meta Needs To Die

Drummerx04 · December 2017

ishilb14_ESO wrote: »

Have you ever considered life without ESO?

asneakybanana · December 2017

Anazasi wrote: »

asneakybanana wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

asneakybanana wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

I think i've said this before in a post. No one has even bothered to ask or even think about WHY this set was introduced with its current stats. No one has even thought about the reasons for it. Most simply dismiss it as zerg crutch and never even bothered to look deeper at the overall problem. How can players offer good advice to the developers when they don't even understand the real problems the of this game. If you want to solve issues or offer good ideas you first need to understand all the factors that contribute to the problem. I am absolutely certain somewhere in the ZOS headquarters someone looked at this problem and specifically said this was needed to counter this other issue. ZOS has information that we do not and for us to argue the way we have been over something like this is boarderline insanity. I'm not trying to tell anyone you're crazy or your opinions don't matter, but until you offer concrete data to support a change, which everyone seems to be advocating for, this is all purely circumstantial or an academic discussion. The data necessary to make a change is housed at ZOS and we just don't have access to it. Maybe some smart math guy can create it and prove a point but i can't so it falls back to choices made.

It was introduced to allow the pugs to mindlessly counter organized group ground Ults and increase their survivability. And while this may be true to an extent pugs will never be able to take full advantage of it like an organized group will since they will be kept above 50% health almost always so when it does proc it's almost always needed. Also organized groups run tighter so when it procs there is a higher chance of most their group and especially the ones that need the heal are going to be in range while pugs will be extremely spread out.

On top of these factors that make it better for groups they also implemented it many patches to late since ground based ilts other than negate haven't been widely used since 1.6 and everything that benefits group is pbaoe based such as rememberable, eots and sleet.

I would love to see it as a single target burst hot with a 10-15s cooldown and have the ground effect removal part totally gotten rid of and maybe adding some other benefit such as removing all negative effects on the target when it procs.

Ok, If this thread is about how the current meta needs to die and the current meta is generally characterized by the use of the Destro EoTS how is it you can qualify this statement? We all know that earth gore does not stop this ultimate? I really wanted to read what you were saying here but that first sentence just said nope not going to even entertain this comment. Nope I value your perspectives and i read the rest of the comment.

By introducing this set did ZOS indirectly address the ever widening gap between skilled players and casual players? Is it possible that some groups are simply "too" good? Is this working in the opposite fashion of what ZOS could have been trying to do? If so, is it not possible that the change that needs to happen here is the more skilled groups should simply not allow that set in their groups? So its takes longer to kill the casual zerg groups. But don't we all simply want longer better fights?

The current meta is the fact that organized groups are nearly uncounterable by anything other than an equal or larger size organized group. Notice the thread isn't about the destro ultimate skill but it is about the "trains" that utilize the skill. Destro ult is not the only facet of the current meta, it may be the most obvious but it's the combination of gear(running health minimums as well as certain broken sets, the specialization of players such as speeds and purge, and the skills they use (healing springs and pbaoe damage).

The simple "don't use it" excuse is BS. We already try to make things tougher by running smaller groups which make things fun and makes players optimize their builds as possible but intentionally gimping your build is perhaps more of an insult to the enemy groups than lowering your numbers ever could be. I don't think it would ever result in longer fights, most fights revolve around the engage and use of jltimates and outmaneuvering the enemy. Sure sometimes inside a keep when there is 30+ enemies pushing into you and perma siege on you w/ enemies having free spawn as we've seen from your guild many times it turns into a more continuous fight but in 95% of situations it just results in us wiping a wave, pulling back, wiping another wave with our 2nd set of Ults and rinse and repeat for 15-30 minutes.

See now you went and made it personal.

Wasn't meant as personal was simply trying to use an example that you could best relate to. It's not just you guys, DC and ad both do it quite often since it is very hard to counter no less take a keep against that. The rest of the post I didnt read tho except for the last sentence ( how you pass college classes fyi)

Anazasi · December 2017

asneakybanana wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

asneakybanana wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

asneakybanana wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

I think i've said this before in a post. No one has even bothered to ask or even think about WHY this set was introduced with its current stats. No one has even thought about the reasons for it. Most simply dismiss it as zerg crutch and never even bothered to look deeper at the overall problem. How can players offer good advice to the developers when they don't even understand the real problems the of this game. If you want to solve issues or offer good ideas you first need to understand all the factors that contribute to the problem. I am absolutely certain somewhere in the ZOS headquarters someone looked at this problem and specifically said this was needed to counter this other issue. ZOS has information that we do not and for us to argue the way we have been over something like this is boarderline insanity. I'm not trying to tell anyone you're crazy or your opinions don't matter, but until you offer concrete data to support a change, which everyone seems to be advocating for, this is all purely circumstantial or an academic discussion. The data necessary to make a change is housed at ZOS and we just don't have access to it. Maybe some smart math guy can create it and prove a point but i can't so it falls back to choices made.

It was introduced to allow the pugs to mindlessly counter organized group ground Ults and increase their survivability. And while this may be true to an extent pugs will never be able to take full advantage of it like an organized group will since they will be kept above 50% health almost always so when it does proc it's almost always needed. Also organized groups run tighter so when it procs there is a higher chance of most their group and especially the ones that need the heal are going to be in range while pugs will be extremely spread out.

On top of these factors that make it better for groups they also implemented it many patches to late since ground based ilts other than negate haven't been widely used since 1.6 and everything that benefits group is pbaoe based such as rememberable, eots and sleet.

I would love to see it as a single target burst hot with a 10-15s cooldown and have the ground effect removal part totally gotten rid of and maybe adding some other benefit such as removing all negative effects on the target when it procs.

Ok, If this thread is about how the current meta needs to die and the current meta is generally characterized by the use of the Destro EoTS how is it you can qualify this statement? We all know that earth gore does not stop this ultimate? I really wanted to read what you were saying here but that first sentence just said nope not going to even entertain this comment. Nope I value your perspectives and i read the rest of the comment.

By introducing this set did ZOS indirectly address the ever widening gap between skilled players and casual players? Is it possible that some groups are simply "too" good? Is this working in the opposite fashion of what ZOS could have been trying to do? If so, is it not possible that the change that needs to happen here is the more skilled groups should simply not allow that set in their groups? So its takes longer to kill the casual zerg groups. But don't we all simply want longer better fights?

The current meta is the fact that organized groups are nearly uncounterable by anything other than an equal or larger size organized group. Notice the thread isn't about the destro ultimate skill but it is about the "trains" that utilize the skill. Destro ult is not the only facet of the current meta, it may be the most obvious but it's the combination of gear(running health minimums as well as certain broken sets, the specialization of players such as speeds and purge, and the skills they use (healing springs and pbaoe damage).

The simple "don't use it" excuse is BS. We already try to make things tougher by running smaller groups which make things fun and makes players optimize their builds as possible but intentionally gimping your build is perhaps more of an insult to the enemy groups than lowering your numbers ever could be. I don't think it would ever result in longer fights, most fights revolve around the engage and use of jltimates and outmaneuvering the enemy. Sure sometimes inside a keep when there is 30+ enemies pushing into you and perma siege on you w/ enemies having free spawn as we've seen from your guild many times it turns into a more continuous fight but in 95% of situations it just results in us wiping a wave, pulling back, wiping another wave with our 2nd set of Ults and rinse and repeat for 15-30 minutes.

See now you went and made it personal.

Wasn't meant as personal was simply trying to use an example that you could best relate to. It's not just you guys, DC and ad both do it quite often since it is very hard to counter no less take a keep against that. The rest of the post I didnt read tho except for the last sentence ( how you pass college classes fyi)

I did that a lot in grad school, although in retrospect i feel like i skipped past all the best parts. No worries we're all doing our part to contribute to something i guess.

Agrippa_Invisus · December 2017

I can definitely say my excitement to log in and play each night is waaaaaaay down.

Even talking about all this feels like a waste of time because I feel that there just isn't anyone listening.

The dev communications, even with the couple posts that we've had in the last couple months (which is more than we've had in the past half year) still feel like they are just not focused on this anymore.

PVP's time as a focus of this game has come and gone. We're now a fraction of a fraction of the playerbase, and we get the commensurate amount of attention that deserves.

Rin_Senya · December 2017

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I can definitely say my excitement to log in and play each night is waaaaaaay down.

Even talking about all this feels like a waste of time because I feel that there just isn't anyone listening.

The dev communications, even with the couple posts that we've had in the last couple months (which is more than we've had in the past half year) still feel like they are just not focused on this anymore.

PVP's time as a focus of this game has come and gone. We're now a fraction of a fraction of the playerbase, and we get the commensurate amount of attention that deserves.

I completely understand why people get frustrated and upset about the game etc. But I don't think that anything good can rise or be cultivated out of such kind of attitude tbh ^^ by developing such kind of mood inside the community and society that surrounds you, you feed these depressive thoughts and spread them out to others. No wonder you don't really want to play anymore..and your excitement will be decreasing every day.
ZOS's PVP attention is not the same as at the launch of the game but there are still a lot of good things and fun to be had. I would say you should focus on these aspects more than on only negative parts. If ZOS never listened to anyone (as some people claim) we wouldn't see the nerf of proc sets/rapids/purge/malubeth etc or the buff of negate and many other skills. It's not like nothing changes at all.
Asking for a positive change is one thing, forecasting only doom and gloom is another

Satiar · December 2017

Agrippa is not wrong, though. The game was cast as a rebirth of DAOC, three faction war and all. PvP was heavily promoted.

Then, of course, the game launched.

Agrippa_Invisus · December 2017

Satiar wrote: »

Agrippa is not wrong, though. The game was cast as a rebirth of DAOC, three faction war and all. PvP was heavily promoted.

Then, of course, the game launched.

The hints of DAoC that are still here are the only reason I keep sticking around.

Should Camelot Unchained ever actually launch, or maybe even Crowfall, my account is very likely to be set inactive.

But to elaborate on my 'fraction of a fraction'.

Even on a night where Vivec is 3 faction locked during prime time (which is a smaller and smaller window of time lately), then that's 360 total players PVPing. All the other servers are typically 1 bar aside from Kyne which is 2 bars for each faction on average. That's 180 players for Kyne and maybe 50 for the rest. Add another 50 in queue for Vivec and you have 640 concurrent players that are engaged in AvAvA pvp for Cyodiil in one form or another for the PC NA megaserver.

Double that number to include the Euro totals. 1280 players concurrent.

Steam shows 13,378 players concurrent as of this very moment I write this for ESO. Then there are going to be the non-steam users (I don't have my account set up through steam, I run it off the good ol' ESO launcher). I have no way to guesstimate that number, but let's give them another 5,000 concurrent for that.

So out of the 18-20K concurrent players they have, less than 10% are engaged in Cyrodiil or waiting to get into Cyrodiil at any time. And that number's being generous if there are lot more players that are logging in w/o being seen by Steam than I guesstimated.

We are a fraction of the community. And we're being treated like it.

Drakkdjinn · December 2017

Satiar wrote: »

Agrippa is not wrong, though. The game was cast as a rebirth of DAOC, three faction war and all. PvP was heavily promoted.

Then, of course, the game launched.

Funny how that transpired - especially considering the success of DAOC and its longevity. I read a retro gaming review on DAOC recently; it has a community keeping it alive. Wanna guess what that community focuses on? PvP. People still log in for PvP.

ZoS is clueless.

Vilestride · December 2017

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Agrippa is not wrong, though. The game was cast as a rebirth of DAOC, three faction war and all. PvP was heavily promoted.

Then, of course, the game launched.

The hints of DAoC that are still here are the only reason I keep sticking around.

Should Camelot Unchained ever actually launch, or maybe even Crowfall, my account is very likely to be set inactive.

But to elaborate on my 'fraction of a fraction'.

Even on a night where Vivec is 3 faction locked during prime time (which is a smaller and smaller window of time lately), then that's 360 total players PVPing. All the other servers are typically 1 bar aside from Kyne which is 2 bars for each faction on average. That's 180 players for Kyne and maybe 50 for the rest. Add another 50 in queue for Vivec and you have 640 concurrent players that are engaged in AvAvA pvp for Cyodiil in one form or another for the PC NA megaserver.

Double that number to include the Euro totals. 1280 players concurrent.

Steam shows 13,378 players concurrent as of this very moment I write this for ESO. Then there are going to be the non-steam users (I don't have my account set up through steam, I run it off the good ol' ESO launcher). I have no way to guesstimate that number, but let's give them another 5,000 concurrent for that.

So out of the 18-20K concurrent players they have, less than 10% are engaged in Cyrodiil or waiting to get into Cyrodiil at any time. And that number's being generous if there are lot more players that are logging in w/o being seen by Steam than I guesstimated.

We are a fraction of the community. And we're being treated like it.

I'm a minority? ***. I better log out and play something else then.

Xsorus · December 2017

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

Vilestride · December 2017

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

Xsorus · December 2017

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

jimijac0me · December 2017

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

Well while we reminise, I remember a time in ESO when you ran 24 or multiple groups NOT because you couldn’t play good and needed to stack numbers but because our guilds and PvP in general had that many players keen to PvP and have some fun with freinds.

Guild and faction pride is nothing anymore in ESO like it once was, that’s what I miss the most tbh

I think Drac nailed it in their podcast, the requirement to run specific classes, skills and gear just wasn’t there before. If you were a magic class, you always slotted purge, and rapids if stam. Now because of the changes, only hitting group members and losing rapids when you heal etc, groups need dedicated high regen support roles and as has been mentioned many times, it’s tough to get players to WANT to play group builds when the playstyle has been frowned upon and destroyed by the poplar 1vX streamers and your labelled a zerg in a 16 man group like you’re scum. This is taking away the desire for new players to want team play, instead wanting to be the yolo hero like their favourite streamer or youtuber.

Not dissing small group or solo btw, numbers have dwindled enough that for a lot of players it is the only option - myself and my guild included. We are lucky to get 8 on our guild nights now and we just poke around having fun and doing or best with gear and toons we have.

It’s pretty daunting for everyone to level magblades from 0 - a fully developed character if your play time is limited. Our strategy for dealing with destro trains is to start our own fight somewhere else. That works well for a while till you get rolled but we always fully expect that to happen, in fact strategically that’s usually our goal. To bring enemy groups and zerg away from home keeps for as long we can hold out and to challenge ourselves as players.

We are also Oceanic so that presents its own challenges during US prime time!

Vilestride · December 2017

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

I'd say in most games if you're an organized group you play exactly the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format.

But this isn't most games. And I don't imagine we want more of the same.

I don't mean to be argumentative I just want us to not get caught up on the negative and try to be as constructive as we can.

Xsorus · December 2017

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

I'd say most games if you're an organized group you play exactly the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format.

But this isn't most games. And I don't imagine we want more of the same.

I don't mean to be argumentative I just want us to not get caught up on the negative and try to be as constructive as we can.

I'm sorry; did you really just try and say you run the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format?

A. You're running a organized zerg group fighting 90% of the time Pugs with less numbers then you who aren't running multiple earthgores/rapids/purges ect ect..

B. There isn't remotely anything competitive about running a 24man zergball in this game and bombing pug zergs...Its the least amount of skill required.

in DAOC we ran 8.....Because other groups ran 8....and the pugs ran anything past that....We bombed the hell out of pugs that surpassed us greatly in numbers..and the one constant in all of that...was we just had 8 people...We didn't decide because all the Pugs out there ran 40man zergs we'd stack 40 people just so we had an easy time.

Hell do you know how much *** you got if you ran 9 in that game? There were actual Alb groups who ran Minstrels outside their group for the speed (with the ring) and they would get absolutely dogged for it.

This games PvP is and will continue to be a pale comparison to DAOC till they come along and stop rewarding things like Zergballs...

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · December 2017

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

I'd say most games if you're an organized group you play exactly the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format.

But this isn't most games. And I don't imagine we want more of the same.

I don't mean to be argumentative I just want us to not get caught up on the negative and try to be as constructive as we can.

I'm sorry; did you really just try and say you run the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format?

A. You're running a organized zerg group fighting 90% of the time Pugs with less numbers then you who aren't running multiple earthgores/rapids/purges ect ect..

B. There isn't remotely anything competitive about running a 24man zergball in this game and bombing pug zergs...Its the least amount of skill required.

in DAOC we ran 8.....Because other groups ran 8....and the pugs ran anything past that....We bombed the hell out of pugs that surpassed us greatly in numbers..and the one constant in all of that...was we just had 8 people...We didn't decide because all the Pugs out there ran 40man zergs we'd stack 40 people just so we had an easy time.

Hell do you know how much *** you got if you ran 9 in that game? There were actual Alb groups who ran Minstrels outside their group for the speed (with the ring) and they would get absolutely dogged for it.

This games PvP is and will continue to be a pale comparison to DAOC till they come along and stop rewarding things like Zergballs...

Oh my god not 9 people instead of 8. The Horror.

Group size in ESO is 4. Raid size is 24. Whatever you pick to run between them its all good.
What matters more is where you choose to play.

For example 4 ppl inside a 50m pug zerg is 54 people not just "4".

Its all about perspective. Groups getting together, breaking off from the main force to push different objectives and fight with other groups there whilst the frontlines are met with pug forces and occasional group for support if you get pushed back was how pvp used to be and was much more enjoyable.

If i'm in a group of 12-16 and we're fighting 40 pugs its still a challenge as if you are a 4 man and you fight 10-14 pugs.

You honestly don't think you're fighting organised groups when 1vXing I guess

Lexxypwns · December 2017

BGs lit tho.

Joy_Division · December 2017

8 or 24 it doesn't matter much because ZoS's servers can't handle what they advertised.

When the Lighting patch came out and performance pretty much permanently went to crap, I think it was at this point the bean counters recognized it would cost too much money and resources to keep PvP viable, even though up until that point there were many PvP players. So ESO went to it's current business model of content oriented DLCs and throwing in the occasional OP sets in them to ensure the current playerbase continues to spend money on the game.

ZoS has made PvE way way way way better than it was at Launch. Group trading for dungeons/trials, attaching loot to a specific zone, multi-faction questing, an actual end-game, cleaned up all those quest bugs, portals in dungeons, et al., all of these things have address huge issues at Launch. It just goes to show that Zos is capable of improving their game, but has no chosen to invest much into PvP. Except Battlegrounds. That was our huge carrot and unfortunately, it is not what many people have hoped for and has done nothing to improve Cyordiil.

waitwhat · December 2017

@Joy_Division
Agreed, and I feel that Battlegrounds was really more a carrot to the small-scale and/or 1-v-X crowd.

It took the massive population drops related to long-loading screens for them to do something, and even then that wasn't entirely a PvP issue.

The bottom line for now seems to be, as it seems to have been, that PvP'ers will continue to PvP within a much larger margin of poor performance, whereas trials HM content is much more dependent on performance to achieve a worthwhile outcome (i.e. a vet complete, a hm complete, a score run can all be completely nuked by one loading screen depending on the fight/trial). This is unfortunate, but it will take population drops for something to be done, and it may have to be a fundamental rework of overworld Cyrodiil, with new objectives, objective point revamping, and reward changes.

Vilestride · December 2017

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

I'd say IN most games if you're an organized group you play exactly the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format.

But this isn't most games. And I don't imagine we want more of the same.

I don't mean to be argumentative I just want us to not get caught up on the negative and try to be as constructive as we can.

I'm sorry; did you really just try and say you run the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format?

A. You're running a organized zerg group fighting 90% of the time Pugs with less numbers then you who aren't running multiple earthgores/rapids/purges ect ect..

Wow, you did a good job of interpreting that one didn't you mate.

Agrippa_Invisus · December 2017

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

I'd say IN most games if you're an organized group you play exactly the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format.

But this isn't most games. And I don't imagine we want more of the same.

I don't mean to be argumentative I just want us to not get caught up on the negative and try to be as constructive as we can.

I'm sorry; did you really just try and say you run the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format?

A. You're running a organized zerg group fighting 90% of the time Pugs with less numbers then you who aren't running multiple earthgores/rapids/purges ect ect..

Wow, you did a good job of interpreting that one didn't you mate.

Yeah. I was about to say ... doesn't Drac specialize in embarrassing half a faction (or more) at a time?

Vilestride · December 2017

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

I'd say IN most games if you're an organized group you play exactly the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format.

But this isn't most games. And I don't imagine we want more of the same.

I don't mean to be argumentative I just want us to not get caught up on the negative and try to be as constructive as we can.

I'm sorry; did you really just try and say you run the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format?

A. You're running a organized zerg group fighting 90% of the time Pugs with less numbers then you who aren't running multiple earthgores/rapids/purges ect ect..

Wow, you did a good job of interpreting that one didn't you mate.

Yeah. I was about to say ... doesn't Drac specialize in embarrassing half a faction (or more) at a time?

To be honest I wasn't talking about ESO at all, let alone referencing my guild. What I actually intended by the statement was to suggest that perhaps any MMO, including DAoC, is not the best example or idol for when talking about competitive PVP. Because more typically any competitive PVP is done in a structured and controlled format. Where two opposing teams compete against one another with equal numbers, nothing more, nothing less. This isn't naturally achievable in an open world environment like ESO. in a truly competitive environment, there wouldn't be pugs, or 40 man stacks.

In that regard, DAoC is hardly the gold standard of competitive gaming...

This was my primary point. My second being that this isn't, and shouldn't be, DAoC. I usually find the best remedy for getting frustrated when my apples don't taste like oranges is to just go eat oranges instead.

Ghostbane · December 2017

Valencer · December 2017

jimijac0me wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

Well while we reminise, I remember a time in ESO when you ran 24 or multiple groups NOT because you couldn’t play good and needed to stack numbers but because our guilds and PvP in general had that many players keen to PvP and have some fun with freinds.

Guild and faction pride is nothing anymore in ESO like it once was, that’s what I miss the most tbh

I think Drac nailed it in their podcast, the requirement to run specific classes, skills and gear just wasn’t there before. If you were a magic class, you always slotted purge, and rapids if stam. Now because of the changes, only hitting group members and losing rapids when you heal etc, groups need dedicated high regen support roles and as has been mentioned many times, it’s tough to get players to WANT to play group builds when the playstyle has been frowned upon and destroyed by the poplar 1vX streamers and your labelled a zerg in a 16 man group like you’re scum. This is taking away the desire for new players to want team play, instead wanting to be the yolo hero like their favourite streamer or youtuber.

Not dissing small group or solo btw, numbers have dwindled enough that for a lot of players it is the only option - myself and my guild included. We are lucky to get 8 on our guild nights now and we just poke around having fun and doing or best with gear and toons we have.

It’s pretty daunting for everyone to level magblades from 0 - a fully developed character if your play time is limited. Our strategy for dealing with destro trains is to start our own fight somewhere else. That works well for a while till you get rolled but we always fully expect that to happen, in fact strategically that’s usually our goal. To bring enemy groups and zerg away from home keeps for as long we can hold out and to challenge ourselves as players.

We are also Oceanic so that presents its own challenges during US prime time!

You're trying to make it sound like noone wants to do PvP raid play anymore because of some kind of stigma associated with it.

It's really simple - raid play isn't fun anymore because ZOS has been butchering core PvP mechanics over the years. Most of the people I used to raid with don't do it anymore because it simply isn't fun anymore. Everything from destro ulti to 30k+ health specs to earthgore just screams "boring".

Not to mention there is 0 flexibility in builds anymore. Youre a templar/warden healer, a support mag sorc or a bombblade. Possibly a stamina sorc/warden for rapids spam. There is nothing else. So if you like killing people you better enjoy playing a 30k+ health bombblade and relying on multiple stacked destro ultis to kill anything worth noting.

Anazasi · December 2017

Joy_Division wrote: »

8 or 24 it doesn't matter much because ZoS's servers can't handle what they advertised.

When the Lighting patch came out and performance pretty much permanently went to crap, I think it was at this point the bean counters recognized it would cost too much money and resources to keep PvP viable, even though up until that point there were many PvP players. So ESO went to it's current business model of content oriented DLCs and throwing in the occasional OP sets in them to ensure the current playerbase continues to spend money on the game.

ZoS has made PvE way way way way better than it was at Launch. Group trading for dungeons/trials, attaching loot to a specific zone, multi-faction questing, an actual end-game, cleaned up all those quest bugs, portals in dungeons, et al., all of these things have address huge issues at Launch. It just goes to show that Zos is capable of improving their game, but has no chosen to invest much into PvP. Except Battlegrounds. That was our huge carrot and unfortunately, it is not what many people have hoped for and has done nothing to improve Cyordiil.

You are totally right. But even with PVE the once great trial guilds are now gone. The PVE endgame content peaks when new content arrives and bottoms out a week or 2 after the content has been consumed, the new sets farmed, and the players go back to where ever they came from. The steady player base, returns to PVP each time as we all understand that dynamic play, evolving skills and group progression is truly the real end game content. While ZOS focuses on PVE because they need to feed the financial machine with new content they just simply ignore pvp because they have forgotten what actually sustains games in the long run. What I would like to know from ZOS is: "has battlegrounds performed as you expected?" "Have you reached the level of participation as you expected in relation to the development cost you have expended?" And is the overall community supporting it the way you anticipated? Personally, if zos would have devoted those resources to fixing Cryodiil instead of providing content for an extremely small number of players, we all might be talking about something totally different today.

Drummerx04 · December 2017

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I can definitely say my excitement to log in and play each night is waaaaaaay down.

Even talking about all this feels like a waste of time because I feel that there just isn't anyone listening.

The dev communications, even with the couple posts that we've had in the last couple months (which is more than we've had in the past half year) still feel like they are just not focused on this anymore.

PVP's time as a focus of this game has come and gone. We're now a fraction of a fraction of the playerbase, and we get the commensurate amount of attention that deserves.

Valencer wrote: »

jimijac0me wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

Well while we reminise, I remember a time in ESO when you ran 24 or multiple groups NOT because you couldn’t play good and needed to stack numbers but because our guilds and PvP in general had that many players keen to PvP and have some fun with freinds.

Guild and faction pride is nothing anymore in ESO like it once was, that’s what I miss the most tbh

I think Drac nailed it in their podcast, the requirement to run specific classes, skills and gear just wasn’t there before. If you were a magic class, you always slotted purge, and rapids if stam. Now because of the changes, only hitting group members and losing rapids when you heal etc, groups need dedicated high regen support roles and as has been mentioned many times, it’s tough to get players to WANT to play group builds when the playstyle has been frowned upon and destroyed by the poplar 1vX streamers and your labelled a zerg in a 16 man group like you’re scum. This is taking away the desire for new players to want team play, instead wanting to be the yolo hero like their favourite streamer or youtuber.

Not dissing small group or solo btw, numbers have dwindled enough that for a lot of players it is the only option - myself and my guild included. We are lucky to get 8 on our guild nights now and we just poke around having fun and doing or best with gear and toons we have.

It’s pretty daunting for everyone to level magblades from 0 - a fully developed character if your play time is limited. Our strategy for dealing with destro trains is to start our own fight somewhere else. That works well for a while till you get rolled but we always fully expect that to happen, in fact strategically that’s usually our goal. To bring enemy groups and zerg away from home keeps for as long we can hold out and to challenge ourselves as players.

We are also Oceanic so that presents its own challenges during US prime time!

You're trying to make it sound like noone wants to do PvP raid play anymore because of some kind of stigma associated with it.

It's really simple - raid play isn't fun anymore because ZOS has been butchering core PvP mechanics over the years. Most of the people I used to raid with don't do it anymore because it simply isn't fun anymore. Everything from destro ulti to 30k+ health specs to earthgore just screams "boring".

Not to mention there is 0 flexibility in builds anymore. Youre a templar/warden healer, a support mag sorc or a bombblade. Possibly a stamina sorc/warden for rapids spam. There is nothing else. So if you like killing people you better enjoy playing a 30k+ health bombblade and relying on multiple stacked destro ultis to kill anything worth noting.

It's not quite that bad. You don't need to run 30k+ health or a crapload of earthgore. VE was pretty resistant to the high health trend, we had some unoptimized builds in group, and still managed to be the most overall effective guild on PC/NA vivec DC primetime.

What I'd argue a good group does need is 4-6 powerful dedicated NB destro bombers, and 3 negate sorcs (stam or mag), and about 1 decent healer per 4 players. If the remaining mag and stam players distribute the responsibility of rapids and purging, then you can avoid the hyper focused support roles. You'll be softer than a tank raid for sure, but ultimately you can still be a force to be reckoned with.

Gear wise, as long as the gear makes sense for your build, you are pretty much fine.

Xsorus · December 2017

Vilestride wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

I'd say IN most games if you're an organized group you play exactly the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format.

But this isn't most games. And I don't imagine we want more of the same.

I don't mean to be argumentative I just want us to not get caught up on the negative and try to be as constructive as we can.

I'm sorry; did you really just try and say you run the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format?

A. You're running a organized zerg group fighting 90% of the time Pugs with less numbers then you who aren't running multiple earthgores/rapids/purges ect ect..

Wow, you did a good job of interpreting that one didn't you mate.

Yeah. I was about to say ... doesn't Drac specialize in embarrassing half a faction (or more) at a time?

To be honest I wasn't talking about ESO at all, let alone referencing my guild. What I actually intended by the statement was to suggest that perhaps any MMO, including DAoC, is not the best example or idol for when talking about competitive PVP. Because more typically any competitive PVP is done in a structured and controlled format. Where two opposing teams compete against one another with equal numbers, nothing more, nothing less. This isn't naturally achievable in an open world environment like ESO. in a truly competitive environment, there wouldn't be pugs, or 40 man stacks.

In that regard, DAoC is hardly the gold standard of competitive gaming...

This was my primary point. My second being that this isn't, and shouldn't be, DAoC. I usually find the best remedy for getting frustrated when my apples don't taste like oranges is to just go eat oranges instead.

DAOC had 8v8.... It was very very competitive... and it was in a world pvp environment. Yes you had Adds...But that was what made it fun a lot of the times.

Basically half the time the terrain is where the two groups met and fight. In fact I had more competitive Fights in DAOC then I've had in every single MMO since then in terms of actual Group vs Group or Guild vs Guild fights.

hell you can go to youtube right now and search for DAOC 8v8, and get scores and scores of videos right now because its because of how that game worked.

You go do that with ESO, and what are you going to put in? ESO XvX? That's ESO's main problem...You can't have competitive PvP in a game where the people running range from 4 to 24 people..

Xsorus · December 2017

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

I'd say most games if you're an organized group you play exactly the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format.

But this isn't most games. And I don't imagine we want more of the same.

I don't mean to be argumentative I just want us to not get caught up on the negative and try to be as constructive as we can.

I'm sorry; did you really just try and say you run the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format?

A. You're running a organized zerg group fighting 90% of the time Pugs with less numbers then you who aren't running multiple earthgores/rapids/purges ect ect..

B. There isn't remotely anything competitive about running a 24man zergball in this game and bombing pug zergs...Its the least amount of skill required.

in DAOC we ran 8.....Because other groups ran 8....and the pugs ran anything past that....We bombed the hell out of pugs that surpassed us greatly in numbers..and the one constant in all of that...was we just had 8 people...We didn't decide because all the Pugs out there ran 40man zergs we'd stack 40 people just so we had an easy time.

Hell do you know how much *** you got if you ran 9 in that game? There were actual Alb groups who ran Minstrels outside their group for the speed (with the ring) and they would get absolutely dogged for it.

This games PvP is and will continue to be a pale comparison to DAOC till they come along and stop rewarding things like Zergballs...

Oh my god not 9 people instead of 8. The Horror.

Group size in ESO is 4. Raid size is 24. Whatever you pick to run between them its all good.
What matters more is where you choose to play.

For example 4 ppl inside a 50m pug zerg is 54 people not just "4".

Its all about perspective. Groups getting together, breaking off from the main force to push different objectives and fight with other groups there whilst the frontlines are met with pug forces and occasional group for support if you get pushed back was how pvp used to be and was much more enjoyable.

If i'm in a group of 12-16 and we're fighting 40 pugs its still a challenge as if you are a 4 man and you fight 10-14 pugs.

You honestly don't think you're fighting organised groups when 1vXing I guess

i'm sorry most of the groups running 12-16-24 Aren't attacking 40 man pugs...You might fight them every now and again but most of the time you're pulling off killing Less numbers then all of those....

12 People I can somewhat understand in this game, Simply cause of Trials...But when you go past that you're basically relying on Numbers at that point to get most of your kills.

Xsorus · December 2017

Joy_Division wrote: »

8 or 24 it doesn't matter much because ZoS's servers can't handle what they advertised.

When the Lighting patch came out and performance pretty much permanently went to crap, I think it was at this point the bean counters recognized it would cost too much money and resources to keep PvP viable, even though up until that point there were many PvP players. So ESO went to it's current business model of content oriented DLCs and throwing in the occasional OP sets in them to ensure the current playerbase continues to spend money on the game.

ZoS has made PvE way way way way better than it was at Launch. Group trading for dungeons/trials, attaching loot to a specific zone, multi-faction questing, an actual end-game, cleaned up all those quest bugs, portals in dungeons, et al., all of these things have address huge issues at Launch. It just goes to show that Zos is capable of improving their game, but has no chosen to invest much into PvP. Except Battlegrounds. That was our huge carrot and unfortunately, it is not what many people have hoped for and has done nothing to improve Cyordiil.

I'm not going to blame the Lighting patch for todays PvP...Performance why my FPS is amazing...Ping wise I'm actually not running very high in most PvP fights.

HOWEVER

Something has happened to PvP in the past patch or so...and I can't be the only one to notice it....Does it feel like *** just isn't connecting? Like You do attacks and they're not going through?

Its not high ping either...

ShadowProc · December 2017

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Well ESO took all the things that made DAOC great and then decided to copy in a bunch of bad ideas from *** games like GW2.

The players of the game didn’t help either; when you have a lot of people trying to convince everyone that 24 people is one group in pvp you’re not going to have a good pvp game.

I mean, I agree that the execution was poor between balance and straight up server performance. What we got was not what was promised But fundamentally I don't see why we could not have had this. I fail to see why the principal of a 24 man grouping system in huge war like battles is inherently 'bad'.

We don't want DAoC v2. We want an elderscrolls online that works.

Large group battles is what many of us signed up for. I know I did. If I wanted smallscale tactical competitive play I would have just kept playing CS And LoL. As from time to time when I want this I do.

You had 200 man + zergs in DAOC

Know what ya didn’t have?

24 man zerg balls calling them self a group.

Use to... in games if you were in an organized group you generally ran less then the actual zergs and pubs you were fighting against. Then bad games came along with terrible guilds that decided instead of playing better in an organized group they’d just keep stacking numbers.

I'd say IN most games if you're an organized group you play exactly the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format.

But this isn't most games. And I don't imagine we want more of the same.

I don't mean to be argumentative I just want us to not get caught up on the negative and try to be as constructive as we can.

I'm sorry; did you really just try and say you run the same numbers as your enemies in a competitive format?

A. You're running a organized zerg group fighting 90% of the time Pugs with less numbers then you who aren't running multiple earthgores/rapids/purges ect ect..

Wow, you did a good job of interpreting that one didn't you mate.

Yeah. I was about to say ... doesn't Drac specialize in embarrassing half a faction (or more) at a time?

To be honest I wasn't talking about ESO at all, let alone referencing my guild. What I actually intended by the statement was to suggest that perhaps any MMO, including DAoC, is not the best example or idol for when talking about competitive PVP. Because more typically any competitive PVP is done in a structured and controlled format. Where two opposing teams compete against one another with equal numbers, nothing more, nothing less. This isn't naturally achievable in an open world environment like ESO. in a truly competitive environment, there wouldn't be pugs, or 40 man stacks.

In that regard, DAoC is hardly the gold standard of competitive gaming...

This was my primary point. My second being that this isn't, and shouldn't be, DAoC. I usually find the best remedy for getting frustrated when my apples don't taste like oranges is to just go eat oranges instead.

DAOC had 8v8.... It was very very competitive... and it was in a world pvp environment. Yes you had Adds...But that was what made it fun a lot of the times.

Basically half the time the terrain is where the two groups met and fight. In fact I had more competitive Fights in DAOC then I've had in every single MMO since then in terms of actual Group vs Group or Guild vs Guild fights.

hell you can go to youtube right now and search for DAOC 8v8, and get scores and scores of videos right now because its because of how that game worked.

You go do that with ESO, and what are you going to put in? ESO XvX? That's ESO's main problem...You can't have competitive PvP in a game where the people running range from 4 to 24 people..

With the amount of times you have referenced DAOC in the last 3 years, why did you leave? Go back if it is so much better. lol

I do agree with you on the fact that taking on 40 pugs now with 16 is not skillful. Earthgore and destro bombs made it easy mode. It use to be real difficult to take on 3 times your number of pugs and win. Now, not so much.