MalagenR wrote: »

Glory wrote: »

ESO has always been a simpler game in terms of available mechanics due to a limitation of skill slots, three resource pool system, and the continued efforts to make the game accessible to more people (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on who you are/your argument).

That being said, there is still a skill level required to perform at varying levels within this game like any other game/MMO. Whether this skill gap is larger or smaller compared to other games is mostly subjective and dependent upon various factors (how do you measure skill? is it knowledge of mechanics, or how your opponent will react/how you will react, or dexterity? etc.).

However, it is hilarious to see people compare this game to others and declare summarily that people playing this game would get destroyed by those from other games, citing unfounded evidence such as:

1. game X I played had more serious consequences to death so people were better at the game
2. game Y involved tons of grinding to get best gear, and obviously more time in game == more skill
3. game Z had different mechanics to respond to which were much more difficult

Seriously? Player skill is tied to being "tough" from losing your items? You must no-life to be a top PvPer? Being able to react to a 60 second unbreakable stun or managing 60 skills (when in reality you probably only used 10-20 regularly) is more tactical than being able to know when to dodge a knockback?

I guess this is a nostalgia thread in disguise, but man... Some of us also came from those old games, look back without rose-tinted glasses and see that both types of games had/have players of varying levels of competition.


Also: lol at the random sidetrack that women are ruining gaming. To answer your original question there: no, I don't see how the "influx" of women have changed guild politics. I still see the primary source of drama being egotistical individuals who have disregard for others, just like the days of the good ol' boys guilds.

A hundred percent disagree that a death penalty doesn't result in an increase in skill. Competition with results oriented goals and severe consequences of failure have always been the catalyst to the greatest accomplishments of mankind.

You're basically ignoring evolutionary biology and hierarchies and their impact on human beings.

Second. Most it's most no-lifers that are the best PVP'ers or have you missed that in all your history of gaming?

Third. Reaction time is definitely a measure of skill in player vs. player based video games, regardless of what you think.

Fourth. More difficult game mechanics will increase your keyboard / controller reaction speed and dexterity, which we note earlier is a definitive measurement of player skill, there is a significant correlation between the best PVP'ers also having the best reaction time, and is one of the reasons auto fire controllers are banned from gaming competitions. So yes, experience with more difficult mechanics will make you more skilled.

You honestly come off like you've just never had any skill at a game or been good at a game.

Fifth. Had another experience with guild drama centered around an ego-maniacal male ditching his friends to shower his e-gf with attention due to her severe jealousy. So I guess one thing I wasn't considering is that it isn't just a female problem, it's also men with low self confidence who no-life video games problem. At the same time, you didn't respond at all to my fact that you don't see male streamers taking off their clothes to earn money from video game streamers. THAT IS A FACT, WHETHER YOU WANT TO AVOID IT OR NOT. DEAL WITH IT.

Glory wrote: »

ESO has always been a simpler game in terms of available mechanics due to a limitation of skill slots, three resource pool system, and the continued efforts to make the game accessible to more people (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on who you are/your argument).

That being said, there is still a skill level required to perform at varying levels within this game like any other game/MMO. Whether this skill gap is larger or smaller compared to other games is mostly subjective and dependent upon various factors (how do you measure skill? is it knowledge of mechanics, or how your opponent will react/how you will react, or dexterity? etc.).

However, it is hilarious to see people compare this game to others and declare summarily that people playing this game would get destroyed by those from other games, citing unfounded evidence such as:

1. game X I played had more serious consequences to death so people were better at the game
2. game Y involved tons of grinding to get best gear, and obviously more time in game == more skill
3. game Z had different mechanics to respond to which were much more difficult

Seriously? Player skill is tied to being "tough" from losing your items? You must no-life to be a top PvPer? Being able to react to a 60 second unbreakable stun or managing 60 skills (when in reality you probably only used 10-20 regularly) is more tactical than being able to know when to dodge a knockback?

I guess this is a nostalgia thread in disguise, but man... Some of us also came from those old games, look back without rose-tinted glasses and see that both types of games had/have players of varying levels of competition.


Also: lol at the random sidetrack that women are ruining gaming. To answer your original question there: no, I don't see how the "influx" of women have changed guild politics. I still see the primary source of drama being egotistical individuals who have disregard for others, just like the days of the good ol' boys guilds.

Glory wrote: »

Also: lol at the random sidetrack that women are ruining gaming. To answer your original question there: no, I don't see how the "influx" of women have changed guild politics. I still see the primary source of drama being egotistical individuals who have disregard for others, just like the days of the good ol' boys guilds.

Minno wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

And you know why they can’t react fast enough? Because in MMOs 15 years ago you didn’t have to.

There's also the fact that their hands are 30 years older. Unlike wine, your reflexes don't get better with age.

Thank god my wallet did and I can afford more nifty gadgets to partially compensate for the slower reaction times.

But I’m only 32, so it isn’t too bad for me yet

Haha we are the same age.

This is a 1986 rep thread now.

Best year of the 80's; Aliens/Top Gun came out in theaters, Chernobl exploded, and the first PC virus called "Brain" hit computers.

fred4 wrote: »

To the OP: You had me until the "i.e." part. So insightful, yet so bitter.

Joy_Division wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

Glory wrote: »

ESO has always been a simpler game in terms of available mechanics due to a limitation of skill slots, three resource pool system, and the continued efforts to make the game accessible to more people (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on who you are/your argument).

That being said, there is still a skill level required to perform at varying levels within this game like any other game/MMO. Whether this skill gap is larger or smaller compared to other games is mostly subjective and dependent upon various factors (how do you measure skill? is it knowledge of mechanics, or how your opponent will react/how you will react, or dexterity? etc.).

However, it is hilarious to see people compare this game to others and declare summarily that people playing this game would get destroyed by those from other games, citing unfounded evidence such as:

1. game X I played had more serious consequences to death so people were better at the game
2. game Y involved tons of grinding to get best gear, and obviously more time in game == more skill
3. game Z had different mechanics to respond to which were much more difficult

Seriously? Player skill is tied to being "tough" from losing your items? You must no-life to be a top PvPer? Being able to react to a 60 second unbreakable stun or managing 60 skills (when in reality you probably only used 10-20 regularly) is more tactical than being able to know when to dodge a knockback?

I guess this is a nostalgia thread in disguise, but man... Some of us also came from those old games, look back without rose-tinted glasses and see that both types of games had/have players of varying levels of competition.


Also: lol at the random sidetrack that women are ruining gaming. To answer your original question there: no, I don't see how the "influx" of women have changed guild politics. I still see the primary source of drama being egotistical individuals who have disregard for others, just like the days of the good ol' boys guilds.

A hundred percent disagree that a death penalty doesn't result in an increase in skill. Competition with results oriented goals and severe consequences of failure have always been the catalyst to the greatest accomplishments of mankind.

You're basically ignoring evolutionary biology and hierarchies and their impact on human beings.

Second. Most it's most no-lifers that are the best PVP'ers or have you missed that in all your history of gaming?

Third. Reaction time is definitely a measure of skill in player vs. player based video games, regardless of what you think.

Fourth. More difficult game mechanics will increase your keyboard / controller reaction speed and dexterity, which we note earlier is a definitive measurement of player skill, there is a significant correlation between the best PVP'ers also having the best reaction time, and is one of the reasons auto fire controllers are banned from gaming competitions. So yes, experience with more difficult mechanics will make you more skilled.

You honestly come off like you've just never had any skill at a game or been good at a game.

Fifth. Had another experience with guild drama centered around an ego-maniacal male ditching his friends to shower his e-gf with attention due to her severe jealousy. So I guess one thing I wasn't considering is that it isn't just a female problem, it's also men with low self confidence who no-life video games problem. At the same time, you didn't respond at all to my fact that you don't see male streamers taking off their clothes to earn money from video game streamers. THAT IS A FACT, WHETHER YOU WANT TO AVOID IT OR NOT. DEAL WITH IT.

Hmm. Maybe men should start taking off their shirts to get higher Twitch views. Although, according to your philosophy, to be any good at PvP, they'd be no-lifers who don;t have the time to go to the gym, get their RL in order, and probably live in mom's basement, so taking off the shirt or a wider camera view would probably be a bad idea.

Evolutionary biology at work!

Jules wrote: »

special ops

MaximillianDiE wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

mayasunrising wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

I've noticed something that has been a plague on PVP games in the last 15 years that I've been playing them that I think is utterly hysterical, as follows:

Many of the players of today that believe they are great PVP'ers do not actually fight the best opponents in open world PVP. This is common in not just ESO, but in games like WoW, EVE Online, Aion, etc. Essentially, what occurs, is a similar form of what we used to use clans / guilds for back in the day. I'll use a comparison of my 1st experience in a PVP game, with Lineage2 vs. my current experience in MMO's through the lens of ESO.

Lineage 2 - 15 Years ago.

In this game, gear grinding was insane, to have a B grade weapon (weapons scaled to S) you basically had to have been playing for almost 2+ years, at level 55+ grinding out 10% XP in a day required about a 12 hour investment, when you got to level 65+ it was basically 12 hours to make around 5%.

The penalty of death was 2-3% XP, and if you died in PVP and it wasn't a clan war and you were near level cap you were basically losing the last 12 hours of your XP grinding every time you died. Also, if you ganked someone who didn't want to fight, you received Karma which needed to be worked off slaying monsters, your name was red and you had a significant risk of dropping your gear if someone killed you while you had karma. Dropping something like a weapon would set you back at least a year.

This is what guilds were built and predicated on. You wanted to maximize individual gain and minimize losses by surrounding yourself with quality players and working as a team to accomplish very difficult goals. This encouraged teamwork between the best players, setting aside of ego, and created a natural hierarchy in the game in which the best players formed an alliance, managed the castles they won, and made it possible for the people who were playing in the zones they owned the castles of an opportunity to make significant in game currency (very rare) if the alliance managed the seeding process properly.

The best players were also the best PVP'ers. You needed to defend your grinding area's (TOI - Tower of *** I forgot the name) grinding angels was a hotly contested spot, and many times when we were at war with another clan we would fight over the opportunity to grind experience in these area's for hours on end. The best players were constantly fighting the best players for the best grinding spots.

ESO - Current Day

In this game, gear grinding is very easy. Some of the best gear is easily crafted and the stat bonuses from gold jewelry / gear is very minimal, you can be a very competent player in epic purple attire. Grinding XP is so easy that we have over 810 champion point levels. You can play casually and still be very competitive.

The penalty for death is almost totally non-existent. You don't need to repair your gear, the only thing you suffer is a respawn and having to run back to the fight. You will never lose something you worked for.

Guilds are now built and predicated on their ability to do specific things well (Trials) or are primarily social gathering places, with no hierarchy of who the best players are, and very little reason to set aside ego or differences to accomplish a greater goal, because no greater goal actually exists. I should note, this isn't the case for trading guilds, the last bastion of what a real guild should be based on, which many players in the forums want to ruin because they don't like the idea of paying dues. Old players have no incentive to teach new players how to learn how to play, because overall difficulty isn't that hard, finding enough players to do the content is fairly easy, even if you have drama with 90% of your server. Only the highest level achievements in the game now require teamwork.

The best PVE'ers and best PVP'ers are separated for the most part, though more often than not you find that the best PVP'ers are also very good at PVE as they have a serious working knowledge of the class and its limitations/best skills/best stat / gear allocation, etc. But, these so called PVP'ers that we find in ESO, don't actually fight each other, more often than not. Many of them have multiple characters across multiple factions, and rather than put themselves into a guild where they would need to control their ego, they separate into dueling circles or small guilds that don't fight each other in open world, and most have no idea how to play as a team.

They talk on the forums like they want "serious PVP" - they groan for balance - they complain about lack of challenge - yet they purposely limit the challenges to themselves as players (other good players) by boosting their ego ganking scrubs while totally ignoring the players who give them a challenge in Cyro.

i.e.

Majority of people on the forums are fake. I think this reflects our society today as well. Most of the people talking to you are liars today, with no interest in challenging themselves, constantly seeking the easy way out, massaging their ego's, and running from or refusing to challenge themselves due to a fear of having their ego crushed. They have no idea how to take their "L"'s and instead will focus on how a class is op, it was a 1vX, a mob hit them once, etc.

I know this comes off as a "Back in my day" and it's true, games are way more accessible today than they used to be because of a lot of the things mentioned above, and that's a good thing, but I'll say this -

If you think you're good at PvP but all you do is run around Cyro 1vX'ing scrubs and fighting the occasional duel against good players, while your group avoids fighting those good players because they are your "friends" - you're not good. Gone are the days when guilds had purpose, men and women set aside ego's to accomplish complete server domination for their guild, and good players treated each other with respect on virtual battlefields.

Enjoy the rest of your day you tea bagging clowns

- Signed: That guy who makes sure the zerg kills your small group instead of allowing you to wipe them and drinks up your QQ zerg tears.

[Standing Ovation]

Lineage II was freaking awful, but to be honest, it was nothing compared to Ultima Online. These "leet" pvp'ers that spend their time running circles in towers, or ambushing newblets in ESO would have been trash in UO. And if you were one of these dillholes who feels the need to flame players, guilds, or factions constantly, your life would have been a living hell. Grief players were hunted down 24/7 and eventually would wind up running around in nothing but their newbie gear because they had been killed and dry looted so many times. Players like [name removed] would not have been tolerated. It was players policing players. There were repercussions to your actions as a player, and it was freaking brilliant.

Yea, lots of people missed the point but some of you got it. The ones who don't get it I guarantee weren't around until MMO's started to follow WOW format. Pre-WoW games were just extremely difficult.

No they weren’t. Are you kidding me?

Go back and watch gameplay footage from pre-wow MMOs. Everything is slow af. Macroing was allowed / widespread. Botting OK too.

Group strategy and group cohesion were far more important in pre-wow games (and even wow) then in the new age games because back then being a little bit faster with the mouse or clicker didn’t really mean anything. The benefit for marginally better micro play was negligible at best compared to ESO. Macro play (positioning, group strategy, role selection, etc) was therefore far more important.

It’s important in eso too. It’s just that most of the people who played with good group strats 15 years ago in mmo PvP just don’t have good micro in ESO, or they were driven away before they could get to that part of the game. I know I was, initially, although eventually I came back and tried again.

Half my PvP guild thinks I made up the expression “prekite” because it’s a top tier PvP guild and the PvP vets from other MMOs usually aren’t able to “get good”. Instead it’s the young guys with FPS backgrounds who maybe played Skyrim... they’re many of the top PvPers! Then those people have to learn MMO PvP / GvG strats as they go, but there are far fewer mmo vets to teach them than in other MMOs because those mmo vets with the strong strategy backgrounds are getting 3 shot because they can’t react fast enough to push the block button in time (also we’re old lol).

And you know why they can’t react fast enough? Because in MMOs 15 years ago you didn’t have to.

You are kidding right? The real reason there are sod all mmo vets left in ESO is because most left years ago so all you're left with is a bunch of kids who think they're the first to do everything because they have no mmo experience to measure it against.

DAOC had cc that could last up to a minute with 9 second unbreakable stuns and long ranged interrupts and nearsights. Fights often came down to who could get off the first Nearsight/CC/Interrupt which was totally reaction based. I first experienced the term prekiting came from DAOC pvp almost two decades ago now. Warhammer had pulls and kiting a plenty as well as ridiculous stackable burst (Word Of Pain anyone?). Heals had to be targeted and not fire and forget like ESO. CC and interrupts are nothing in ESO compared to those two games alone, and reaction timing was key to pulling those off before your opponent did. Plenty of top pvp guilds came into this game at launch that had history stretching back to DAOC and before who were extremely successful in this game in the first year or so before the lighting patch, lag and broken stuff meant the bulk of the top old school pvp'ers left. The guild I came into this game with all up and left in early 2015. ESO pvp is actually incredibly dumbed down and much more forgiving compared to the games it wholesale copied (DAOC, WAR etc).

MalagenR wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Skill can be measured in many ways, as is evidenced in this thread. In order to have any kind of logical, meaningful conversation, two sides have to agree on the criteria of which they are disagreeing. For instance if we are disagreeing on which fruit is better, apples or oranges, we have to agree that:
1) they are both fruit
2) that the word “better” in this case means “tastier”

If we don’t, we’ll all just keep yelling and nothing will ever be communicated.

Generally speaking, this thread is split into “good” and “bad” players in the title but both of these terms are subjective, assumptive, and make it hard to have a real conversation.

I think it’s much better, in this case, to split people by what their ESO pvp goals are and go from there. This makes sense because the terms “good” and “bad” are highly influenced by whether you think this person is accomplishing whatever goals you think are highest.

So instead we split ourselves amongst “faction success” and “individual or small group success”. The core differences between these groups is that they believe success is different things. One believes success is measured by helping assist the alliance war, helping to take keeps and win objectives for their team. They place a large emphasis on the team, on successful coordination, and they relish in their role in it. They care little for separating themselves from the team or individual mastery but instead on the larger mechanism that is faction. They base most of their measures of success on external factors like leaderboards, campaign wins, and kill death ratios. Think of this as a massive army such as that of the US government.
- The end justifies the means.

The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters.

So, in short, once you realize that you are measuring good and bad by entirely different criteria, you will realize that this thread is ultimately very one sided. This is from the POV of the first kind of person, who does not understand or care to understand the goals, tactics, or successes of the second. Inversely, you will find that the second group of people understands the first very well because they used to be them. Nearly every small scaler you speak with will tell you they used to zerg when they started the game. Similarly to how not every soldier is special ops, but every special ops is a soldier. It is likely that the people you’re passing judgement on used to be exactly where you are, their priorities just changed over time.

So if you had to break this down to TL:DR, we understand you but you do not understand us. So perhaps instead of posting accusatory threads that celebrate your version of success as the only possible pinnacle, recognize that this is an incredibly misinformed POV. You should not attempt to mock, diminish, or pass judgment on a playstyle you cannot understand - or replicate.

This is absolute tom foolery, as I can post a number of videos from other games in which my elite "squad" demolishes other teams while I'm also simultaneously responsible for leading an entire faction.

See Aion - Siel. Malagen. My record speaks for itself.

You're assuming that I prefer large group PVP. No, I'm sorry, you misunderstood me from the very beginning it seems. I'm not arguing about the difference between small scalers and large scalers. I'm laughing at you for assuming that there is a difference.

You think that because you run with a small group or solo that you are "elite or special ops". I would argue that the only reason you put yourself into that bucket is because you're incapable of being both elite, and mature enough to also set aside your "eliteness" to achieve a greater goal.

The fact that you attempted to refer to yourself as special ops, jesus christ, I hope you're on PS4. I would absofuckinglutely love to duel you.

You're exactly the kind of person this thread was directed at. You assume that just because people enjoy large scale *** they can't also enjoy small scale stuff.

Here's what I would say. Most of the large scale guild leaders / group leaders could probably put together a small team that would absolutely RIP you. There is a reason they are able to get so many players to listen to them and the small scale community is known for being toxic.

You're elitist. I'm simply calling you out on it. It's good to know that you admit it yourself.

"The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters. "

^This is elitism disguised as, *** I don't know, whatever it is you need to tell yourself that makes you think you're special or different from any other player. You're not. And you're probably not as good as you're trying to come off as.

MalagenR wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

MaximillianDiE wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

mayasunrising wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

I've noticed something that has been a plague on PVP games in the last 15 years that I've been playing them that I think is utterly hysterical, as follows:

Many of the players of today that believe they are great PVP'ers do not actually fight the best opponents in open world PVP. This is common in not just ESO, but in games like WoW, EVE Online, Aion, etc. Essentially, what occurs, is a similar form of what we used to use clans / guilds for back in the day. I'll use a comparison of my 1st experience in a PVP game, with Lineage2 vs. my current experience in MMO's through the lens of ESO.

Lineage 2 - 15 Years ago.

In this game, gear grinding was insane, to have a B grade weapon (weapons scaled to S) you basically had to have been playing for almost 2+ years, at level 55+ grinding out 10% XP in a day required about a 12 hour investment, when you got to level 65+ it was basically 12 hours to make around 5%.

The penalty of death was 2-3% XP, and if you died in PVP and it wasn't a clan war and you were near level cap you were basically losing the last 12 hours of your XP grinding every time you died. Also, if you ganked someone who didn't want to fight, you received Karma which needed to be worked off slaying monsters, your name was red and you had a significant risk of dropping your gear if someone killed you while you had karma. Dropping something like a weapon would set you back at least a year.

This is what guilds were built and predicated on. You wanted to maximize individual gain and minimize losses by surrounding yourself with quality players and working as a team to accomplish very difficult goals. This encouraged teamwork between the best players, setting aside of ego, and created a natural hierarchy in the game in which the best players formed an alliance, managed the castles they won, and made it possible for the people who were playing in the zones they owned the castles of an opportunity to make significant in game currency (very rare) if the alliance managed the seeding process properly.

The best players were also the best PVP'ers. You needed to defend your grinding area's (TOI - Tower of *** I forgot the name) grinding angels was a hotly contested spot, and many times when we were at war with another clan we would fight over the opportunity to grind experience in these area's for hours on end. The best players were constantly fighting the best players for the best grinding spots.

ESO - Current Day

In this game, gear grinding is very easy. Some of the best gear is easily crafted and the stat bonuses from gold jewelry / gear is very minimal, you can be a very competent player in epic purple attire. Grinding XP is so easy that we have over 810 champion point levels. You can play casually and still be very competitive.

The penalty for death is almost totally non-existent. You don't need to repair your gear, the only thing you suffer is a respawn and having to run back to the fight. You will never lose something you worked for.

Guilds are now built and predicated on their ability to do specific things well (Trials) or are primarily social gathering places, with no hierarchy of who the best players are, and very little reason to set aside ego or differences to accomplish a greater goal, because no greater goal actually exists. I should note, this isn't the case for trading guilds, the last bastion of what a real guild should be based on, which many players in the forums want to ruin because they don't like the idea of paying dues. Old players have no incentive to teach new players how to learn how to play, because overall difficulty isn't that hard, finding enough players to do the content is fairly easy, even if you have drama with 90% of your server. Only the highest level achievements in the game now require teamwork.

The best PVE'ers and best PVP'ers are separated for the most part, though more often than not you find that the best PVP'ers are also very good at PVE as they have a serious working knowledge of the class and its limitations/best skills/best stat / gear allocation, etc. But, these so called PVP'ers that we find in ESO, don't actually fight each other, more often than not. Many of them have multiple characters across multiple factions, and rather than put themselves into a guild where they would need to control their ego, they separate into dueling circles or small guilds that don't fight each other in open world, and most have no idea how to play as a team.

They talk on the forums like they want "serious PVP" - they groan for balance - they complain about lack of challenge - yet they purposely limit the challenges to themselves as players (other good players) by boosting their ego ganking scrubs while totally ignoring the players who give them a challenge in Cyro.

i.e.

Majority of people on the forums are fake. I think this reflects our society today as well. Most of the people talking to you are liars today, with no interest in challenging themselves, constantly seeking the easy way out, massaging their ego's, and running from or refusing to challenge themselves due to a fear of having their ego crushed. They have no idea how to take their "L"'s and instead will focus on how a class is op, it was a 1vX, a mob hit them once, etc.

I know this comes off as a "Back in my day" and it's true, games are way more accessible today than they used to be because of a lot of the things mentioned above, and that's a good thing, but I'll say this -

If you think you're good at PvP but all you do is run around Cyro 1vX'ing scrubs and fighting the occasional duel against good players, while your group avoids fighting those good players because they are your "friends" - you're not good. Gone are the days when guilds had purpose, men and women set aside ego's to accomplish complete server domination for their guild, and good players treated each other with respect on virtual battlefields.

Enjoy the rest of your day you tea bagging clowns

- Signed: That guy who makes sure the zerg kills your small group instead of allowing you to wipe them and drinks up your QQ zerg tears.

[Standing Ovation]

Lineage II was freaking awful, but to be honest, it was nothing compared to Ultima Online. These "leet" pvp'ers that spend their time running circles in towers, or ambushing newblets in ESO would have been trash in UO. And if you were one of these dillholes who feels the need to flame players, guilds, or factions constantly, your life would have been a living hell. Grief players were hunted down 24/7 and eventually would wind up running around in nothing but their newbie gear because they had been killed and dry looted so many times. Players like [name removed] would not have been tolerated. It was players policing players. There were repercussions to your actions as a player, and it was freaking brilliant.

Yea, lots of people missed the point but some of you got it. The ones who don't get it I guarantee weren't around until MMO's started to follow WOW format. Pre-WoW games were just extremely difficult.

No they weren’t. Are you kidding me?

Go back and watch gameplay footage from pre-wow MMOs. Everything is slow af. Macroing was allowed / widespread. Botting OK too.

Group strategy and group cohesion were far more important in pre-wow games (and even wow) then in the new age games because back then being a little bit faster with the mouse or clicker didn’t really mean anything. The benefit for marginally better micro play was negligible at best compared to ESO. Macro play (positioning, group strategy, role selection, etc) was therefore far more important.

It’s important in eso too. It’s just that most of the people who played with good group strats 15 years ago in mmo PvP just don’t have good micro in ESO, or they were driven away before they could get to that part of the game. I know I was, initially, although eventually I came back and tried again.

Half my PvP guild thinks I made up the expression “prekite” because it’s a top tier PvP guild and the PvP vets from other MMOs usually aren’t able to “get good”. Instead it’s the young guys with FPS backgrounds who maybe played Skyrim... they’re many of the top PvPers! Then those people have to learn MMO PvP / GvG strats as they go, but there are far fewer mmo vets to teach them than in other MMOs because those mmo vets with the strong strategy backgrounds are getting 3 shot because they can’t react fast enough to push the block button in time (also we’re old lol).

And you know why they can’t react fast enough? Because in MMOs 15 years ago you didn’t have to.

You are kidding right? The real reason there are sod all mmo vets left in ESO is because most left years ago so all you're left with is a bunch of kids who think they're the first to do everything because they have no mmo experience to measure it against.

DAOC had cc that could last up to a minute with 9 second unbreakable stuns and long ranged interrupts and nearsights. Fights often came down to who could get off the first Nearsight/CC/Interrupt which was totally reaction based. I first experienced the term prekiting came from DAOC pvp almost two decades ago now. Warhammer had pulls and kiting a plenty as well as ridiculous stackable burst (Word Of Pain anyone?). Heals had to be targeted and not fire and forget like ESO. CC and interrupts are nothing in ESO compared to those two games alone, and reaction timing was key to pulling those off before your opponent did. Plenty of top pvp guilds came into this game at launch that had history stretching back to DAOC and before who were extremely successful in this game in the first year or so before the lighting patch, lag and broken stuff meant the bulk of the top old school pvp'ers left. The guild I came into this game with all up and left in early 2015. ESO pvp is actually incredibly dumbed down and much more forgiving compared to the games it wholesale copied (DAOC, WAR etc).

I spent more time in DAoC than any other MMO and I came to ESO with my DAoC 8 man (although I soon quit and took 3 years off).

If you think character micro in DAoC was tougher than ESO then you’re crazy.

ESO hasn’t seen too many of the advanced strats we’d see in DAoC because in ESO most players can’t get animation cancelling down. Knowing when to recast vigor when to tap block when to roll dodge.. those weren’t things in DAoC.

DAoC was much more focused on group strategy. ESO is similarly focused on group strategy, but has a much higher skill gap to overcome to get to a point where group strategy actually matters.

Blocking, dodging, etc were all RNG. I’d you weren’t a healer you didn’t heal.

C’mon man. You’re looking at DAoC through rose colored glasses. ESO combat is far more complex.

Let me get this straight, the player base hasn't evolved from the old days, but in general the ESO community can't get animation cancelling down?

I mean, doesn't that kind of agree with what I was saying earlier? Like.... this is kind of my point, if you couldn't do these basic and simple things in the games of old, GL finding a legion/clam/group, you'd be ostracized and called a noob. People wouldn't even bother to gank you.

Instead, most of the "elite small scalers" have decided that rather than teach these noobs who fail at animation cancelling (because there is no incentive for old players to teach new players, nothing to compete over in which you'd need to have a bare minimum of numbers to actually achieve something of value) - that they will curb stomp these noobs and farm them while giving out free passes to their friends.

You're avoiding fights. Crushing noobs. Maybe not you specifically, but most "small scalers" are not fighting their friends who they know are good and will give them a challenge, and instead are potato stomping.

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Skill can be measured in many ways, as is evidenced in this thread. In order to have any kind of logical, meaningful conversation, two sides have to agree on the criteria of which they are disagreeing. For instance if we are disagreeing on which fruit is better, apples or oranges, we have to agree that:
1) they are both fruit
2) that the word “better” in this case means “tastier”

If we don’t, we’ll all just keep yelling and nothing will ever be communicated.

Generally speaking, this thread is split into “good” and “bad” players in the title but both of these terms are subjective, assumptive, and make it hard to have a real conversation.

I think it’s much better, in this case, to split people by what their ESO pvp goals are and go from there. This makes sense because the terms “good” and “bad” are highly influenced by whether you think this person is accomplishing whatever goals you think are highest.

So instead we split ourselves amongst “faction success” and “individual or small group success”. The core differences between these groups is that they believe success is different things. One believes success is measured by helping assist the alliance war, helping to take keeps and win objectives for their team. They place a large emphasis on the team, on successful coordination, and they relish in their role in it. They care little for separating themselves from the team or individual mastery but instead on the larger mechanism that is faction. They base most of their measures of success on external factors like leaderboards, campaign wins, and kill death ratios. Think of this as a massive army such as that of the US government.
- The end justifies the means.

The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters.

So, in short, once you realize that you are measuring good and bad by entirely different criteria, you will realize that this thread is ultimately very one sided. This is from the POV of the first kind of person, who does not understand or care to understand the goals, tactics, or successes of the second. Inversely, you will find that the second group of people understands the first very well because they used to be them. Nearly every small scaler you speak with will tell you they used to zerg when they started the game. Similarly to how not every soldier is special ops, but every special ops is a soldier. It is likely that the people you’re passing judgement on used to be exactly where you are, their priorities just changed over time.

So if you had to break this down to TL:DR, we understand you but you do not understand us. So perhaps instead of posting accusatory threads that celebrate your version of success as the only possible pinnacle, recognize that this is an incredibly misinformed POV. You should not attempt to mock, diminish, or pass judgment on a playstyle you cannot understand - or replicate.

This is absolute tom foolery, as I can post a number of videos from other games in which my elite "squad" demolishes other teams while I'm also simultaneously responsible for leading an entire faction.

See Aion - Siel. Malagen. My record speaks for itself.

You're assuming that I prefer large group PVP. No, I'm sorry, you misunderstood me from the very beginning it seems. I'm not arguing about the difference between small scalers and large scalers. I'm laughing at you for assuming that there is a difference.

You think that because you run with a small group or solo that you are "elite or special ops". I would argue that the only reason you put yourself into that bucket is because you're incapable of being both elite, and mature enough to also set aside your "eliteness" to achieve a greater goal.

The fact that you attempted to refer to yourself as special ops, jesus christ, I hope you're on PS4. I would absofuckinglutely love to duel you.

You're exactly the kind of person this thread was directed at. You assume that just because people enjoy large scale *** they can't also enjoy small scale stuff.

Here's what I would say. Most of the large scale guild leaders / group leaders could probably put together a small team that would absolutely RIP you. There is a reason they are able to get so many players to listen to them and the small scale community is known for being toxic.

You're elitist. I'm simply calling you out on it. It's good to know that you admit it yourself.

"The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters. "

^This is elitism disguised as, *** I don't know, whatever it is you need to tell yourself that makes you think you're special or different from any other player. You're not. And you're probably not as good as you're trying to come off as.

TLDR: None of you are special, but, back in the day, I was special.

Thogard wrote: »

What’s wrong with elitism?

Every PvPer has it. It’s just that their criteria are different. Large zerg guilds look down on small scale groups because the small scalers run away or lose the fight. Small scale looks down on large scale because they need so many people just to win a fight.

I’m absolutely an elitist even though there are plenty of people out there who are better than me.. and any PvPer who claims to be otherwise is either brand new or lying to themselves.

MalagenR wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Skill can be measured in many ways, as is evidenced in this thread. In order to have any kind of logical, meaningful conversation, two sides have to agree on the criteria of which they are disagreeing. For instance if we are disagreeing on which fruit is better, apples or oranges, we have to agree that:
1) they are both fruit
2) that the word “better” in this case means “tastier”

If we don’t, we’ll all just keep yelling and nothing will ever be communicated.

Generally speaking, this thread is split into “good” and “bad” players in the title but both of these terms are subjective, assumptive, and make it hard to have a real conversation.

I think it’s much better, in this case, to split people by what their ESO pvp goals are and go from there. This makes sense because the terms “good” and “bad” are highly influenced by whether you think this person is accomplishing whatever goals you think are highest.

So instead we split ourselves amongst “faction success” and “individual or small group success”. The core differences between these groups is that they believe success is different things. One believes success is measured by helping assist the alliance war, helping to take keeps and win objectives for their team. They place a large emphasis on the team, on successful coordination, and they relish in their role in it. They care little for separating themselves from the team or individual mastery but instead on the larger mechanism that is faction. They base most of their measures of success on external factors like leaderboards, campaign wins, and kill death ratios. Think of this as a massive army such as that of the US government.
- The end justifies the means.

The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters.

So, in short, once you realize that you are measuring good and bad by entirely different criteria, you will realize that this thread is ultimately very one sided. This is from the POV of the first kind of person, who does not understand or care to understand the goals, tactics, or successes of the second. Inversely, you will find that the second group of people understands the first very well because they used to be them. Nearly every small scaler you speak with will tell you they used to zerg when they started the game. Similarly to how not every soldier is special ops, but every special ops is a soldier. It is likely that the people you’re passing judgement on used to be exactly where you are, their priorities just changed over time.

So if you had to break this down to TL:DR, we understand you but you do not understand us. So perhaps instead of posting accusatory threads that celebrate your version of success as the only possible pinnacle, recognize that this is an incredibly misinformed POV. You should not attempt to mock, diminish, or pass judgment on a playstyle you cannot understand - or replicate.

This is absolute tom foolery, as I can post a number of videos from other games in which my elite "squad" demolishes other teams while I'm also simultaneously responsible for leading an entire faction.

See Aion - Siel. Malagen. My record speaks for itself.

You're assuming that I prefer large group PVP. No, I'm sorry, you misunderstood me from the very beginning it seems. I'm not arguing about the difference between small scalers and large scalers. I'm laughing at you for assuming that there is a difference.

You think that because you run with a small group or solo that you are "elite or special ops". I would argue that the only reason you put yourself into that bucket is because you're incapable of being both elite, and mature enough to also set aside your "eliteness" to achieve a greater goal.

The fact that you attempted to refer to yourself as special ops, jesus christ, I hope you're on PS4. I would absofuckinglutely love to duel you.

You're exactly the kind of person this thread was directed at. You assume that just because people enjoy large scale *** they can't also enjoy small scale stuff.

Here's what I would say. Most of the large scale guild leaders / group leaders could probably put together a small team that would absolutely RIP you. There is a reason they are able to get so many players to listen to them and the small scale community is known for being toxic.

You're elitist. I'm simply calling you out on it. It's good to know that you admit it yourself.

"The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters. "

^This is elitism disguised as, *** I don't know, whatever it is you need to tell yourself that makes you think you're special or different from any other player. You're not. And you're probably not as good as you're trying to come off as.

TLDR: None of you are special, but, back in the day, I was special.

No, none of us are special, you're either good or you're not. It's pretty *** easy to be objective of who is good and who is not, and it's really easy to tell from how they act in game.

People who avoid fights against difficult players because "friends". Yep, them ain't good players bud.

Thogard wrote: »

What’s wrong with elitism?

Every PvPer has it. It’s just that their criteria are different. Large zerg guilds look down on small scale groups because the small scalers run away or lose the fight. Small scale looks down on large scale because they need so many people just to win a fight.

I’m absolutely an elitist even though there are plenty of people out there who are better than me.. and any PvPer who claims to be otherwise is either brand new or lying to themselves.

Ah... I love having people expose themselves. There's nothing wrong with it, I just like how everyone who is a small scaler and feels they are elite came here to white knight against me, and yet somehow throughout the thread subtly admitted I was right from the beginning. They are elitists, it's perfectly fine to be elitist, I just think it's funny when they try to pretend they aren't, or when they try to pretend they are but then avoid fights.

If you're ducking small scale groups that give you a challenge to farm noobs you're not elite. You're trash.

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Skill can be measured in many ways, as is evidenced in this thread. In order to have any kind of logical, meaningful conversation, two sides have to agree on the criteria of which they are disagreeing. For instance if we are disagreeing on which fruit is better, apples or oranges, we have to agree that:
1) they are both fruit
2) that the word “better” in this case means “tastier”

If we don’t, we’ll all just keep yelling and nothing will ever be communicated.

Generally speaking, this thread is split into “good” and “bad” players in the title but both of these terms are subjective, assumptive, and make it hard to have a real conversation.

I think it’s much better, in this case, to split people by what their ESO pvp goals are and go from there. This makes sense because the terms “good” and “bad” are highly influenced by whether you think this person is accomplishing whatever goals you think are highest.

So instead we split ourselves amongst “faction success” and “individual or small group success”. The core differences between these groups is that they believe success is different things. One believes success is measured by helping assist the alliance war, helping to take keeps and win objectives for their team. They place a large emphasis on the team, on successful coordination, and they relish in their role in it. They care little for separating themselves from the team or individual mastery but instead on the larger mechanism that is faction. They base most of their measures of success on external factors like leaderboards, campaign wins, and kill death ratios. Think of this as a massive army such as that of the US government.
- The end justifies the means.

The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters.

So, in short, once you realize that you are measuring good and bad by entirely different criteria, you will realize that this thread is ultimately very one sided. This is from the POV of the first kind of person, who does not understand or care to understand the goals, tactics, or successes of the second. Inversely, you will find that the second group of people understands the first very well because they used to be them. Nearly every small scaler you speak with will tell you they used to zerg when they started the game. Similarly to how not every soldier is special ops, but every special ops is a soldier. It is likely that the people you’re passing judgement on used to be exactly where you are, their priorities just changed over time.

So if you had to break this down to TL:DR, we understand you but you do not understand us. So perhaps instead of posting accusatory threads that celebrate your version of success as the only possible pinnacle, recognize that this is an incredibly misinformed POV. You should not attempt to mock, diminish, or pass judgment on a playstyle you cannot understand - or replicate.

This is absolute tom foolery, as I can post a number of videos from other games in which my elite "squad" demolishes other teams while I'm also simultaneously responsible for leading an entire faction.

See Aion - Siel. Malagen. My record speaks for itself.

You're assuming that I prefer large group PVP. No, I'm sorry, you misunderstood me from the very beginning it seems. I'm not arguing about the difference between small scalers and large scalers. I'm laughing at you for assuming that there is a difference.

You think that because you run with a small group or solo that you are "elite or special ops". I would argue that the only reason you put yourself into that bucket is because you're incapable of being both elite, and mature enough to also set aside your "eliteness" to achieve a greater goal.

The fact that you attempted to refer to yourself as special ops, jesus christ, I hope you're on PS4. I would absofuckinglutely love to duel you.

You're exactly the kind of person this thread was directed at. You assume that just because people enjoy large scale *** they can't also enjoy small scale stuff.

Here's what I would say. Most of the large scale guild leaders / group leaders could probably put together a small team that would absolutely RIP you. There is a reason they are able to get so many players to listen to them and the small scale community is known for being toxic.

You're elitist. I'm simply calling you out on it. It's good to know that you admit it yourself.

"The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters. "

^This is elitism disguised as, *** I don't know, whatever it is you need to tell yourself that makes you think you're special or different from any other player. You're not. And you're probably not as good as you're trying to come off as.

TLDR: None of you are special, but, back in the day, I was special.

No, none of us are special, you're either good or you're not. It's pretty *** easy to be objective of who is good and who is not, and it's really easy to tell from how they act in game.

People who avoid fights against difficult players because "friends". Yep, them ain't good players bud.

Thogard wrote: »

What’s wrong with elitism?

Every PvPer has it. It’s just that their criteria are different. Large zerg guilds look down on small scale groups because the small scalers run away or lose the fight. Small scale looks down on large scale because they need so many people just to win a fight.

I’m absolutely an elitist even though there are plenty of people out there who are better than me.. and any PvPer who claims to be otherwise is either brand new or lying to themselves.

Ah... I love having people expose themselves. There's nothing wrong with it, I just like how everyone who is a small scaler and feels they are elite came here to white knight against me, and yet somehow throughout the thread subtly admitted I was right from the beginning. They are elitists, it's perfectly fine to be elitist, I just think it's funny when they try to pretend they aren't, or when they try to pretend they are but then avoid fights.

If you're ducking small scale groups that give you a challenge to farm noobs you're not elite. You're trash.

TLDR: I was not special when I was good at Aion. I am the white knight of the factions.

MalagenR wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Skill can be measured in many ways, as is evidenced in this thread. In order to have any kind of logical, meaningful conversation, two sides have to agree on the criteria of which they are disagreeing. For instance if we are disagreeing on which fruit is better, apples or oranges, we have to agree that:
1) they are both fruit
2) that the word “better” in this case means “tastier”

If we don’t, we’ll all just keep yelling and nothing will ever be communicated.

Generally speaking, this thread is split into “good” and “bad” players in the title but both of these terms are subjective, assumptive, and make it hard to have a real conversation.

I think it’s much better, in this case, to split people by what their ESO pvp goals are and go from there. This makes sense because the terms “good” and “bad” are highly influenced by whether you think this person is accomplishing whatever goals you think are highest.

So instead we split ourselves amongst “faction success” and “individual or small group success”. The core differences between these groups is that they believe success is different things. One believes success is measured by helping assist the alliance war, helping to take keeps and win objectives for their team. They place a large emphasis on the team, on successful coordination, and they relish in their role in it. They care little for separating themselves from the team or individual mastery but instead on the larger mechanism that is faction. They base most of their measures of success on external factors like leaderboards, campaign wins, and kill death ratios. Think of this as a massive army such as that of the US government.
- The end justifies the means.

The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters.

So, in short, once you realize that you are measuring good and bad by entirely different criteria, you will realize that this thread is ultimately very one sided. This is from the POV of the first kind of person, who does not understand or care to understand the goals, tactics, or successes of the second. Inversely, you will find that the second group of people understands the first very well because they used to be them. Nearly every small scaler you speak with will tell you they used to zerg when they started the game. Similarly to how not every soldier is special ops, but every special ops is a soldier. It is likely that the people you’re passing judgement on used to be exactly where you are, their priorities just changed over time.

So if you had to break this down to TL:DR, we understand you but you do not understand us. So perhaps instead of posting accusatory threads that celebrate your version of success as the only possible pinnacle, recognize that this is an incredibly misinformed POV. You should not attempt to mock, diminish, or pass judgment on a playstyle you cannot understand - or replicate.

This is absolute tom foolery, as I can post a number of videos from other games in which my elite "squad" demolishes other teams while I'm also simultaneously responsible for leading an entire faction.

See Aion - Siel. Malagen. My record speaks for itself.

You're assuming that I prefer large group PVP. No, I'm sorry, you misunderstood me from the very beginning it seems. I'm not arguing about the difference between small scalers and large scalers. I'm laughing at you for assuming that there is a difference.

You think that because you run with a small group or solo that you are "elite or special ops". I would argue that the only reason you put yourself into that bucket is because you're incapable of being both elite, and mature enough to also set aside your "eliteness" to achieve a greater goal.

The fact that you attempted to refer to yourself as special ops, jesus christ, I hope you're on PS4. I would absofuckinglutely love to duel you.

You're exactly the kind of person this thread was directed at. You assume that just because people enjoy large scale *** they can't also enjoy small scale stuff.

Here's what I would say. Most of the large scale guild leaders / group leaders could probably put together a small team that would absolutely RIP you. There is a reason they are able to get so many players to listen to them and the small scale community is known for being toxic.

You're elitist. I'm simply calling you out on it. It's good to know that you admit it yourself.

"The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters. "

^This is elitism disguised as, *** I don't know, whatever it is you need to tell yourself that makes you think you're special or different from any other player. You're not. And you're probably not as good as you're trying to come off as.

TLDR: None of you are special, but, back in the day, I was special.

No, none of us are special, you're either good or you're not. It's pretty *** easy to be objective of who is good and who is not, and it's really easy to tell from how they act in game.

People who avoid fights against difficult players because "friends". Yep, them ain't good players bud.

Thogard wrote: »

What’s wrong with elitism?

Every PvPer has it. It’s just that their criteria are different. Large zerg guilds look down on small scale groups because the small scalers run away or lose the fight. Small scale looks down on large scale because they need so many people just to win a fight.

I’m absolutely an elitist even though there are plenty of people out there who are better than me.. and any PvPer who claims to be otherwise is either brand new or lying to themselves.

Ah... I love having people expose themselves. There's nothing wrong with it, I just like how everyone who is a small scaler and feels they are elite came here to white knight against me, and yet somehow throughout the thread subtly admitted I was right from the beginning. They are elitists, it's perfectly fine to be elitist, I just think it's funny when they try to pretend they aren't, or when they try to pretend they are but then avoid fights.

If you're ducking small scale groups that give you a challenge to farm noobs you're not elite. You're trash.

TLDR: I was not special when I was good at Aion. I am the white knight of the factions.

This one doesn't make sense Tbois. Try again.

MalagenR wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Skill can be measured in many ways, as is evidenced in this thread. In order to have any kind of logical, meaningful conversation, two sides have to agree on the criteria of which they are disagreeing. For instance if we are disagreeing on which fruit is better, apples or oranges, we have to agree that:
1) they are both fruit
2) that the word “better” in this case means “tastier”

If we don’t, we’ll all just keep yelling and nothing will ever be communicated.

Generally speaking, this thread is split into “good” and “bad” players in the title but both of these terms are subjective, assumptive, and make it hard to have a real conversation.

I think it’s much better, in this case, to split people by what their ESO pvp goals are and go from there. This makes sense because the terms “good” and “bad” are highly influenced by whether you think this person is accomplishing whatever goals you think are highest.

So instead we split ourselves amongst “faction success” and “individual or small group success”. The core differences between these groups is that they believe success is different things. One believes success is measured by helping assist the alliance war, helping to take keeps and win objectives for their team. They place a large emphasis on the team, on successful coordination, and they relish in their role in it. They care little for separating themselves from the team or individual mastery but instead on the larger mechanism that is faction. They base most of their measures of success on external factors like leaderboards, campaign wins, and kill death ratios. Think of this as a massive army such as that of the US government.
- The end justifies the means.

The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters.

So, in short, once you realize that you are measuring good and bad by entirely different criteria, you will realize that this thread is ultimately very one sided. This is from the POV of the first kind of person, who does not understand or care to understand the goals, tactics, or successes of the second. Inversely, you will find that the second group of people understands the first very well because they used to be them. Nearly every small scaler you speak with will tell you they used to zerg when they started the game. Similarly to how not every soldier is special ops, but every special ops is a soldier. It is likely that the people you’re passing judgement on used to be exactly where you are, their priorities just changed over time.

So if you had to break this down to TL:DR, we understand you but you do not understand us. So perhaps instead of posting accusatory threads that celebrate your version of success as the only possible pinnacle, recognize that this is an incredibly misinformed POV. You should not attempt to mock, diminish, or pass judgment on a playstyle you cannot understand - or replicate.

This is absolute tom foolery, as I can post a number of videos from other games in which my elite "squad" demolishes other teams while I'm also simultaneously responsible for leading an entire faction.

See Aion - Siel. Malagen. My record speaks for itself.

You're assuming that I prefer large group PVP. No, I'm sorry, you misunderstood me from the very beginning it seems. I'm not arguing about the difference between small scalers and large scalers. I'm laughing at you for assuming that there is a difference.

You think that because you run with a small group or solo that you are "elite or special ops". I would argue that the only reason you put yourself into that bucket is because you're incapable of being both elite, and mature enough to also set aside your "eliteness" to achieve a greater goal.

The fact that you attempted to refer to yourself as special ops, jesus christ, I hope you're on PS4. I would absofuckinglutely love to duel you.

You're exactly the kind of person this thread was directed at. You assume that just because people enjoy large scale *** they can't also enjoy small scale stuff.

Here's what I would say. Most of the large scale guild leaders / group leaders could probably put together a small team that would absolutely RIP you. There is a reason they are able to get so many players to listen to them and the small scale community is known for being toxic.

You're elitist. I'm simply calling you out on it. It's good to know that you admit it yourself.

"The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters. "

^This is elitism disguised as, *** I don't know, whatever it is you need to tell yourself that makes you think you're special or different from any other player. You're not. And you're probably not as good as you're trying to come off as.

TLDR: None of you are special, but, back in the day, I was special.

No, none of us are special, you're either good or you're not. It's pretty *** easy to be objective of who is good and who is not, and it's really easy to tell from how they act in game.

People who avoid fights against difficult players because "friends". Yep, them ain't good players bud.

Thogard wrote: »

What’s wrong with elitism?

Every PvPer has it. It’s just that their criteria are different. Large zerg guilds look down on small scale groups because the small scalers run away or lose the fight. Small scale looks down on large scale because they need so many people just to win a fight.

I’m absolutely an elitist even though there are plenty of people out there who are better than me.. and any PvPer who claims to be otherwise is either brand new or lying to themselves.

Ah... I love having people expose themselves. There's nothing wrong with it, I just like how everyone who is a small scaler and feels they are elite came here to white knight against me, and yet somehow throughout the thread subtly admitted I was right from the beginning. They are elitists, it's perfectly fine to be elitist, I just think it's funny when they try to pretend they aren't, or when they try to pretend they are but then avoid fights.

If you're ducking small scale groups that give you a challenge to farm noobs you're not elite. You're trash.

TLDR: I was not special when I was good at Aion. I am the white knight of the factions.

This one doesn't make sense Tbois. Try again.

TLDR: huh?

Your trolling isn't making sense. You're just typing TLDR: (whatever I want to say) and pretending like it applies. I expect better from you.

Do you need me to be more clear?

MalagenR wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

MalagenR wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Skill can be measured in many ways, as is evidenced in this thread. In order to have any kind of logical, meaningful conversation, two sides have to agree on the criteria of which they are disagreeing. For instance if we are disagreeing on which fruit is better, apples or oranges, we have to agree that:
1) they are both fruit
2) that the word “better” in this case means “tastier”

If we don’t, we’ll all just keep yelling and nothing will ever be communicated.

Generally speaking, this thread is split into “good” and “bad” players in the title but both of these terms are subjective, assumptive, and make it hard to have a real conversation.

I think it’s much better, in this case, to split people by what their ESO pvp goals are and go from there. This makes sense because the terms “good” and “bad” are highly influenced by whether you think this person is accomplishing whatever goals you think are highest.

So instead we split ourselves amongst “faction success” and “individual or small group success”. The core differences between these groups is that they believe success is different things. One believes success is measured by helping assist the alliance war, helping to take keeps and win objectives for their team. They place a large emphasis on the team, on successful coordination, and they relish in their role in it. They care little for separating themselves from the team or individual mastery but instead on the larger mechanism that is faction. They base most of their measures of success on external factors like leaderboards, campaign wins, and kill death ratios. Think of this as a massive army such as that of the US government.
- The end justifies the means.

The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters.

So, in short, once you realize that you are measuring good and bad by entirely different criteria, you will realize that this thread is ultimately very one sided. This is from the POV of the first kind of person, who does not understand or care to understand the goals, tactics, or successes of the second. Inversely, you will find that the second group of people understands the first very well because they used to be them. Nearly every small scaler you speak with will tell you they used to zerg when they started the game. Similarly to how not every soldier is special ops, but every special ops is a soldier. It is likely that the people you’re passing judgement on used to be exactly where you are, their priorities just changed over time.

So if you had to break this down to TL:DR, we understand you but you do not understand us. So perhaps instead of posting accusatory threads that celebrate your version of success as the only possible pinnacle, recognize that this is an incredibly misinformed POV. You should not attempt to mock, diminish, or pass judgment on a playstyle you cannot understand - or replicate.

This is absolute tom foolery, as I can post a number of videos from other games in which my elite "squad" demolishes other teams while I'm also simultaneously responsible for leading an entire faction.

See Aion - Siel. Malagen. My record speaks for itself.

You're assuming that I prefer large group PVP. No, I'm sorry, you misunderstood me from the very beginning it seems. I'm not arguing about the difference between small scalers and large scalers. I'm laughing at you for assuming that there is a difference.

You think that because you run with a small group or solo that you are "elite or special ops". I would argue that the only reason you put yourself into that bucket is because you're incapable of being both elite, and mature enough to also set aside your "eliteness" to achieve a greater goal.

The fact that you attempted to refer to yourself as special ops, jesus christ, I hope you're on PS4. I would absofuckinglutely love to duel you.

You're exactly the kind of person this thread was directed at. You assume that just because people enjoy large scale *** they can't also enjoy small scale stuff.

Here's what I would say. Most of the large scale guild leaders / group leaders could probably put together a small team that would absolutely RIP you. There is a reason they are able to get so many players to listen to them and the small scale community is known for being toxic.

You're elitist. I'm simply calling you out on it. It's good to know that you admit it yourself.

"The other believes that nothing I just mentioned really matters at all. They believe that the game is truly mastered and success is truly reached when you push yourself and your small group to perform against overwhelming odds. They believe that you succeed when you increase your reaction time, hand/eye coordination, decision making skills, recoverability, uptime of important buffs, and offensive capability. They enjoy finding the perfect ying/yang of offense/defense and analyzing and dismantling their opponent by being a few steps ahead and capitalizing on his weaknesses. They focus on optimizing themselves and their squad, and base most of their measures of success on internal factors such as “did I make the right decision in X situation” and “how can I better enhance Y.” Think of this as an elite tactical special ops group.
- The process matters. "

^This is elitism disguised as, *** I don't know, whatever it is you need to tell yourself that makes you think you're special or different from any other player. You're not. And you're probably not as good as you're trying to come off as.

TLDR: None of you are special, but, back in the day, I was special.

No, none of us are special, you're either good or you're not. It's pretty *** easy to be objective of who is good and who is not, and it's really easy to tell from how they act in game.

People who avoid fights against difficult players because "friends". Yep, them ain't good players bud.

Thogard wrote: »

What’s wrong with elitism?

Every PvPer has it. It’s just that their criteria are different. Large zerg guilds look down on small scale groups because the small scalers run away or lose the fight. Small scale looks down on large scale because they need so many people just to win a fight.

I’m absolutely an elitist even though there are plenty of people out there who are better than me.. and any PvPer who claims to be otherwise is either brand new or lying to themselves.

Ah... I love having people expose themselves. There's nothing wrong with it, I just like how everyone who is a small scaler and feels they are elite came here to white knight against me, and yet somehow throughout the thread subtly admitted I was right from the beginning. They are elitists, it's perfectly fine to be elitist, I just think it's funny when they try to pretend they aren't, or when they try to pretend they are but then avoid fights.

If you're ducking small scale groups that give you a challenge to farm noobs you're not elite. You're trash.

TLDR: I was not special when I was good at Aion. I am the white knight of the factions.

This one doesn't make sense Tbois. Try again.

TLDR: huh?

Your trolling isn't making sense. You're just typing TLDR: (whatever I want to say) and pretending like it applies. I expect better from you.

Do you need me to be more clear?

No, just less long winded.

Weird, long winded doesn't apply, most of the text on the page can be read in under 30 seconds. You must love Twitter.