Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
Are there really only a few usable sets?
-
Tasear✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
For me it is exactly the opposite.In PvP it's absolutely true. There are maybe five magic and five stam sets worth running in PvP......
In PvE you can make all kinds of things work.
In PvP I can make builds with so many different sets. It is really versatile.
In PvE open world you can go naked. But if it is vet trials or vet DLC dungeons there are only few sets which work for dps, tanks and healers.
Why do you say there's only a few options for vet dlc dungeons? I am sincere when I say, I honestly don't understand this one but would like to know your point of view.Edited by Tasear on December 29, 2018 2:58PM0 -
Tasear✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Given folks have different gamelay goals and priorities - as well as different play styles - there are tons of good sets to accomodate thtat. The bigger issue is accessibility of sets, which is hamstrung because of dumb mechanics that ‘have to’ exist in MMOs.
How do you feel limited by accessibility of sets?0 -
Bashev✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
For me it is exactly the opposite.In PvP it's absolutely true. There are maybe five magic and five stam sets worth running in PvP......
In PvE you can make all kinds of things work.
In PvP I can make builds with so many different sets. It is really versatile.
In PvE open world you can go naked. But if it is vet trials or vet DLC dungeons there are only few sets which work for dps, tanks and healers.
Why do you say there's only a few options for vet dlc dungeons?
You can do it with many setups but the highest possible dps will be the fastest and easiest way to do it.
While in PvE if the opposite group is busty you can go defense survive the burst and then kill them with sustain. You can burst them first too. Or you can kite them or outheal them, depends on the setups you have.
IDK, it could be that I am way more experience in PvP and that is why I can find interesting builds with not so popular sets. Another thing is that in PvP variables change while in PvE they are fixed and you can find the best way to do it. Then why use anything else?Because I can!0 -
Liofa✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.11 -
Tasear✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
For me it is exactly the opposite.In PvP it's absolutely true. There are maybe five magic and five stam sets worth running in PvP......
In PvE you can make all kinds of things work.
In PvP I can make builds with so many different sets. It is really versatile.
In PvE open world you can go naked. But if it is vet trials or vet DLC dungeons there are only few sets which work for dps, tanks and healers.
Why do you say there's only a few options for vet dlc dungeons?
You can do it with many setups but the highest possible dps will be the fastest and easiest way to do it.
While in PvE if the opposite group is busty you can go defense survive the burst and then kill them with sustain. You can burst them first too. Or you can kite them or outheal them, depends on the setups you have.
IDK, it could be that I am way more experience in PvP and that is why I can find interesting builds with not so popular sets. Another thing is that in PvP variables change while in PvE they are fixed and you can find the best way to do it. Then why use anything else?
I can see your point but I do have my doubts. Some sets are better at stationary fights, some with aoe. There's enough variations in dungeons that I don't see how this one can be true.0 -
hedna123b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »Tasear https://imgur.com/gallery/lrYnNzC
Hmm...as far as I know all the dps sets in the game ARE real. Haven't seen any fake ones as of yet.
Innocent Typo fixed
Now that I understand the question I'd have to agree with @LiofaYes, if you care about not pulling the group down by using something inferior. If not playing with group, use Ashen Grip, who cares ^^
What makes you say so? Most people are disagreeing here.
Its very simple. You can literally use anything to complete content, however when people make the comment that there are only a few usable sets, they imply that only a few sets give you the best dps. This is true
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best. Then again maybe it does come back to a different issue in game as to why DPS burn has become only mechics.
Is this what causes people to feel there is limited diversity?
@ZOS_Finn
HOF is really the only trial with diversity in terms of gear. For others you pretty much use the same gear for every boss. HoF is unique because of each boss having different mechanics.0 -
The_Lex✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Misguided, but I say that with a caveat.
It's all in how we define useful. If by useful, we mean to say "sets that help to provide top min/max DPS," then by that limited view of useful, yes. If by useful, we mean "sets that help give sufficient DPS to competently clear 99% of the content in the game," then the answer is no.
The problem with the broader definition of "useful" is that it takes effort (farming, testing, etc) to figure out the best combination of sets, regardless of our definition of useful. YouTube guides and streamers tend to give information based on the narrower definition of "useful sets." Since it's much easier to copy/paste rather than to theory craft on your own, the majority of sets in the game see little use.
My opinion, anyway.
Edited by The_Lex on December 29, 2018 3:16PM2 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
I suppose that depends on how you define the word "good".
If the set gets the job done - is more fun to use for the person - and offers advantages in other areas of importance I would say the set is good enough and certainly practical.
Edited by Jeremy on December 29, 2018 3:24PM0 -
Tasear✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
It's this kind of ingorance what makes wrobel injore you. How about you actually think about the question for once instead of arguing in my threads.
The question is asking about the scope of the subject there are only a few usable sets. It's to discuss the actual problem not enforce just one belief.
This kinda of attitude doesn't solve Problems but create them.
"What I say is the meta"
Edited by Tasear on December 29, 2018 3:23PM2 -
The_Lex✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Misguided, but I say that with a caveat.
It's all in how we define useful. If by useful, we mean to say "sets that help to provide top min/max DPS," then by that limited view of useful, yes. If by useful, we mean "sets that help give sufficient DPS to competently clear 99% of the content in the game," then the answer is no.
The problem with the broader definition of "useful" is that it takes effort (farming, testing, etc) to figure out the best combination of sets, regardless of our definition of useful. YouTube guides and streamers tend to give information based on the narrower definition of "useful sets." Since it's much easier to copy/paste rather than to theory craft on your own, the majority of sets in the game see little use.
My opinion, anyway.
Most players are chasing the meta for top tier dps, so they chase those sets. Unfortunately, only a small number possess the skills required to crank out that level of DPS, nor have the time or inclination to become skilled. For them, the meta sets might not be their best option and "non meta" sets might help them more. You see this in PvP. Most who come to ESO for PvP want to be competitive. But it takes lots of skill and practice. ZOS knew this and started doubling down on the proc sets to raise the skills floor. The problem is that when the skilled PvPers start using the proc sets, the skill floor is raised. Competitive PvP and PvE takes skill and practice, not just sets.Edited by The_Lex on December 29, 2018 3:25PM3 -
hedna123b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
I suppose that depends on how you define the word "good".
If the set gets the job done - is more fun to use for the person - and offers advantages in other areas of importance I would say the set is good enough and certainly practical.
He gave you the exact definition and gave the exact explanation detailing how things work.0 -
Tasear✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Misguided, but I say that with a caveat.
It's all in how we define useful. If by useful, we mean to say "sets that help to provide top min/max DPS," then by that limited view of useful, yes. If by useful, we mean "sets that help give sufficient DPS to competently clear 99% of the content in the game," then the answer is no.
The problem with the broader definition of "useful" is that it takes effort (farming, testing, etc) to figure out the best combination of sets, regardless of our definition of useful. YouTube guides and streamers tend to give information based on the narrower definition of "useful sets." Since it's much easier to copy/paste rather than to theory craft on your own, the majority of sets in the game see little use.
My opinion, anyway.
Most players are chasing the meta for top tier dps, so they chase those sets. Unfortunately, only a smaller number possess the skills required to crank out that level of DPS, not have the time or inclination to become skilled. For them, the meta sets might not be their best option and "non meta" sets might help them more. You see this in PvP. Most who come to ESO for PvP want to be competitive. But it takes lots of soil and practice. ZOS knew this and started doubling down on the proc sets to raise the skills floor. The problem is that when the skilled PvPers start using the proc sets, the skill floor is raised. Competitive PvP and PvE takes skill and practice, not just sets.
This is a beautiful statement. It brings up part of issue when people say there only a few usable sets in game. Some sets might work better on different people when competing. Numbers don't factor in experience, playstyles, or even ambitions. Also some of these meta sets only work in certain situations. Not everything is a static fight.1 -
Bowser✭✭✭✭✭Well how do you define usable? The double Soul Trap damage from Oblivion's Foe is usable, right? How usable is Alkosh if you're solo?1 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
I suppose that depends on how you define the word "good".
If the set gets the job done - is more fun to use for the person - and offers advantages in other areas of importance I would say the set is good enough and certainly practical.
He gave you the exact definition and gave the exact explanation detailing how things work.
Sort of.
He (or she) basically said there were two ways to play - one way that was "good" and the other way that was just for fun.
I was trying to counter that somewhat by saying you can be both good and have fun at the same time. You do not need to do the most amount of damage possible to be "good". The "META" exists only in the player's mind because so long as a strategy is successful then it is just as good as the supposed "meta" strategy is.
The object is to win the fight. It's not to win the fight as fast as humanly possible. That's an invented goal that's actually not part of the actual game itself.Edited by Jeremy on December 29, 2018 3:37PM5 -
hedna123b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
I suppose that depends on how you define the word "good".
If the set gets the job done - is more fun to use for the person - and offers advantages in other areas of importance I would say the set is good enough and certainly practical.
He gave you the exact definition and gave the exact explanation detailing how things work.
Sort of.
He (or she) basically said there were two ways to play - one way that was "good" and the other way that was just for fun.
I was trying to counter that somewhat by saying you can be both good and have fun at the same time. You do not need to do the most amount of damage possible to be "good". The "META" exists only in the player's mind because so long as a strategy is successful then it is just as good as the supposed "meta" strategy is.
Reread the message you quoted. He clearly states "max performance"0 -
Tasear✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Well how do you define usable? The double Soul Trap damage from Oblivion's Foe is usable, right? How usable is Alkosh if you're solo?
Honesty this question is to bring awareness to such a statement. Instead of saying most sets are garbage it would be better to say you would like to see a set that "helps your playstyle". It's my belief instead of fighting we should respect each other. >..> it's been my theme lately. Not ever set is designed for certain ascepts of gameplay.
example
I want sets that help me debuff adds as well as alkoash
I want sets where I can ice dps
I want a set that actually works with overload (personal one)
I want more sets that give major courage
0 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
I suppose that depends on how you define the word "good".
If the set gets the job done - is more fun to use for the person - and offers advantages in other areas of importance I would say the set is good enough and certainly practical.
He gave you the exact definition and gave the exact explanation detailing how things work.
Sort of.
He (or she) basically said there were two ways to play - one way that was "good" and the other way that was just for fun.
I was trying to counter that somewhat by saying you can be both good and have fun at the same time. You do not need to do the most amount of damage possible to be "good". The "META" exists only in the player's mind because so long as a strategy is successful then it is just as good as the supposed "meta" strategy is.
Reread the message you quoted. He clearly states "max performance"
He also said this:
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do.
That's the part of his quote I was taking issue with.
0 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
It's this kind of ingorance what makes wrobel injore you. How about you actually think about the question for once instead of arguing in my threads.
The question is asking about the scope of the subject there are only a few usable sets. It's to discuss the actions promblem not enforce just one believe.
This kinda of attitude doesn't solve Problems but create them.
"What I say is the meta"
Huh? I'm a little confused.
There is a "Best In Slot". That comes from the theory crafting, number crunching, and what's mathematically best for the most number of fights. And it changes with every update, hence why its sometimes also called "Flavor of the Month".
Sloads, on release, was BIS for PVP because it was the most damage for the least effort.
Spell Power Cure was BIS for healer group content until Olorime because it was the best source of healer buffs for groups.
I remember when Burning Spellweave was BIS and then overnight it wasnt when ZOS slightly nerfed it. Or when everyone expected Mother's Sorrow to be the best with Horns of the Reach thanks to PTS testing.
There will always be some sets that are "better" mathematically for different roles and for min-maxed groups.
However, the existence of a BIS or a meta that is mathematically/practically superior for end-game min-maxed groups doesnt necessarily mean that other sets are useless.
Other sets might be useless for a min-maxed trials group that follows the FOTM meta with BIS gear. Or a PVPer trying to follow the meta of their opponents.
However, the vast majority of non-FOTM/BIS/Meta set ups can complete most of the content, assuming its a sensible build with a decent DPS rotation. Therefore, not useless for the vast majority of players who don't run with completely min-maxing groups.1 -
Tasear✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
I suppose that depends on how you define the word "good".
If the set gets the job done - is more fun to use for the person - and offers advantages in other areas of importance I would say the set is good enough and certainly practical.
He gave you the exact definition and gave the exact explanation detailing how things work.
Sort of.
He (or she) basically said there were two ways to play - one way that was "good" and the other way that was just for fun.
I was trying to counter that somewhat by saying you can be both good and have fun at the same time. You do not need to do the most amount of damage possible to be "good". The "META" exists only in the player's mind because so long as a strategy is successful then it is just as good as the supposed "meta" strategy is.
The object is to win the fight. It's not to win the fight as fast as humanly possible. That's an invented goal that's actually not part of the actual game itself.
^ not edging on but agreeing. The way liofa speaks is poor for a class representative. This toon of there's a good way or bad way to do it is not good for community. The game is too diverse for that to be true.5 -
Tasear✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
It's this kind of ingorance what makes wrobel injore you. How about you actually think about the question for once instead of arguing in my threads.
The question is asking about the scope of the subject there are only a few usable sets. It's to discuss the actions promblem not enforce just one believe.
This kinda of attitude doesn't solve Problems but create them.
"What I say is the meta"
Huh? I'm a little confused.
There is a "Best In Slot". That comes from the theory crafting, number crunching, and what's mathematically best for the most number of fights. And it changes with every update, hence why its sometimes also called "Flavor of the Month".
Sloads, on release, was BIS for PVP because it was the most damage for the least effort.
Spell Power Cure was BIS for healer group content until Olorime because it was the best source of healer buffs for groups.
I remember when Burning Spellweave was BIS and then overnight it wasnt when ZOS slightly nerfed it. Or when everyone expected Mother's Sorrow to be the best with Horns of the Reach thanks to PTS testing.
There will always be some sets that are "better" mathematically for different roles and for min-maxed groups.
However, the existence of a BIS or a meta that is mathematically/practically superior for end-game min-maxed groups doesnt necessarily mean that other sets are useless.
Other sets might be useless for a min-maxed trials group that follows the FOTM meta with BIS gear. Or a PVPer trying to follow the meta of their opponents.
However, the vast majority of non-FOTM/BIS/Meta set ups can complete most of the content, assuming its a sensible build with a decent DPS rotation. Therefore, not useless for the vast majority of players who don't run with completely min-maxing groups.
Nah I deserve to be flag... I was simply fighting with liofa, because of their attitude. But I did try to bring of a point in the best in slot isn't exactly how people are painting it to be. There are some sets that meta and do well but they don't do the best in every situation. You can still push numbers but swaping out a monster helm of different gear set for some fights in game. Not everything is a test dummy fight is my point. That is why I claim that statement is ridiculous . I am not saying there isn't a meta but it isn't a limited as some would make it out to be.
Note: This is different yet related to topic of the thread. I was originally just curious on people simply felt on the matter. Is there diversity or is it limited in game. Such was the original intent but I do admit I got heated a bit when I shouldn't of.Edited by Tasear on December 29, 2018 3:45PM0 -
hedna123b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
I suppose that depends on how you define the word "good".
If the set gets the job done - is more fun to use for the person - and offers advantages in other areas of importance I would say the set is good enough and certainly practical.
He gave you the exact definition and gave the exact explanation detailing how things work.
Sort of.
He (or she) basically said there were two ways to play - one way that was "good" and the other way that was just for fun.
I was trying to counter that somewhat by saying you can be both good and have fun at the same time. You do not need to do the most amount of damage possible to be "good". The "META" exists only in the player's mind because so long as a strategy is successful then it is just as good as the supposed "meta" strategy is.
Reread the message you quoted. He clearly states "max performance"
He also said this:
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do.
That's the part of his quote I was taking issue with.
Good for max performance0 -
Royaji✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Always comes to the same problem. Do not try to change other's mind and other's definition of fun.
There are thousands of actual players who do not care about "meta gear". They do not come to the forums to complain though. They just log in, do some dailies, a world boss, run a normal dungeon and happily log out.
On the other side of the spectrum there are players who value perfomance and efficency above all. There is no such thing as "fun sets" for them. Being the best and getting the fastest and cleanest runs is the actual fun part for them. The set either works for that or it doesn't. I personally share this sentiment, I do not understand how a set can be "fun", it's all just visual baubles. The numbers matter - it is either effective or not. There is hard math under every "Best in Slot". And one part of meta is to make every fight as close to optimal parse as possible.
If you do not want to have others dictate what you use, chronically hate meta and have to be different or just want to run some "fun sets" do not join people from second group. Get some people from the first group and have your fun your way. Or some people from the vast middle inbetween the two. Sometimes even the most hardcore "elitist" wants to lay back and have a mindless pledge run without too much thinking. It is really that simple.4 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I often hear people say there are only a few good sets? Do you agree this to be true or misguided perception?
There are a handful of sets that are truly unusable, or just bad.
There are a lot of sets that are conditional, or niche. They work well in a very specific situation, usually ones that the player can engineer, but outside of that their performance falters.
There are a few sets that are general purpose. They will always deliver reasonable value for their slots. They may not be active constantly, but they'll work in a wide variety of builds.
When someone says there are only a few "good sets," they're frequently talking about conditional or niche sets that have been engineered to be as useful as possible.1 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
I suppose that depends on how you define the word "good".
If the set gets the job done - is more fun to use for the person - and offers advantages in other areas of importance I would say the set is good enough and certainly practical.
He gave you the exact definition and gave the exact explanation detailing how things work.
Sort of.
He (or she) basically said there were two ways to play - one way that was "good" and the other way that was just for fun.
I was trying to counter that somewhat by saying you can be both good and have fun at the same time. You do not need to do the most amount of damage possible to be "good". The "META" exists only in the player's mind because so long as a strategy is successful then it is just as good as the supposed "meta" strategy is.
Reread the message you quoted. He clearly states "max performance"
He also said this:
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do.
That's the part of his quote I was taking issue with.
Good for max performance
Perhaps that's what he meant. But in the piece I highlighted, he suggested the none "META" sets weren't even "practical" - which at the very least implies they aren't useful or good.
My point was so long as a set gets the job done: meaning that it it allows the player to perform at a level capable of winning the fight - then it's fine. Any standards beyond that are just part of the player's imagination - and that's where "elitism" often comes into play. This is when players expect others to live up to their own personal standards rather the ones set by the game itself.Edited by Jeremy on December 29, 2018 4:09PM1 -
Zathras✭✭✭✭✭I often hear people say there are only a few good sets? Do you agree this to be true or misguided perception?
It's misguided.
Unfortunately, public perception weighs heavily on the more popular build theorists. In laboratory situations (test dummy) numbers are produced using gear and rotations, and the highest parse wins. Because, big numbers, right?
What people aren't taking into account, is that, for the most part, the difference between "best" and even 5th place isn't that wide of a margin. Also, you don't need to parse the highest possible numbers to clear content. At all.
So, a small cluster of people are presenting information that a much larger group of players are soaking up as gospel:
1. Having the highest parse possible is the only way to go. If you can't get near it, or achieve it, you. are. not. good. enough. See? look at the leaderboards. I'm better than you.
2. The gear and rotation they use are seen as the best and only way to reach that tier of achievement. While this is ~true~ it still doesn't mean anything they don't use is useless. It just means that you might parse a couple hundred damage less. But, since this is all about the perception of Big Numbers Are Better, what they use gets the golden stamp of approval, and the rest goes in the garbage.
There is also the matter of personal skill. A great set of gear doesn't mean you are going to pump out Big Numbers if you can't get a decent rotation down, and/or spend hours and hours and hours in front of a test dummy, in an artificial environment, trying to get the highest numbers possible. But, again, you don't need the highest possible numbers to clear content.
Now, there are certainly a lot of people out there who are aware of this reality. For the most part, they are smart enough, and skilled enough, to apply whatever gear they want while still using effective builds, and be very successful in whatever content they take on. Which, really, should be the whole point of the game: to play how you want and do what you want.
Perception vs reality.
For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen. - Douglas Adams
It is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious. The cry 'I could have thought of that' is a very popular and misleading one, for the fact is that they didn't, and a very significant and revealing fact it is too. - Douglas Adams2 -
Liofa✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
It's this kind of ingorance what makes wrobel injore you. How about you actually think about the question for once instead of arguing in my threads.
The question is asking about the scope of the subject there are only a few usable sets. It's to discuss the actual problem not enforce just one belief.
This kinda of attitude doesn't solve Problems but create them.
"What I say is the meta"
I simply said that there are few sets usable if you care about group performance. If not, everything is available. I post my comment and said nothing to other people who said the opposite. By aggressively pushing down comments that explain why what I said is true and not making any actual counter arguments to them, it makes you the one that is enforcing an idea instead of absorbing different views. You asked to everyone, I answered. This is not a yes/no question. It differs according to the player and group which comes down to what I said on my first and second comment. By letting your personal feelings get in the way, you narrow your own view while reading my comments. This leads to you writing things that has no truth in it such as "What I say is the meta" instead of a civil one. Meta is not defined by anyone. It's defined by math and practice which makes this next quote hilarious.
Nah I deserve to be flag... I was simply fighting with liofa, because of their attitude. But I did try to bring of a point in the best in slot isn't exactly how people are painting it to be. There are some sets that meta and do well but they don't do the best in every situation. You can still push numbers but swaping out a monster helm of different gear set for some fights in game. Not everything is a test dummy fight is my point. That is why I claim that statement is ridiculous . I am not saying there isn't a meta but it isn't a limited as some would make it out to be.
Note: This is different yet related to topic of the thread. I was originally just curious on people simply felt on the matter. Is there diversity or is it limited in game. Such was the original intent but I do admit I got heated a bit when I shouldn't of.
Meta is not defined by what is best on a dummy. StamSorc was best on a dummy during Murkmire PTS tests yet we don't see any StamSorcs in score pushing groups. Meta differs according to the fight, class and group. Siroria for example is absolute best when it comes to dummy but maybe 50% of the fights, it's actually used. It goes on and on like this for different situations. If you think meta is decided by dummy tests, we have nothing else to talk or "fight" about.
Royaji made my point very clear and I want to quote it since you obviously will not even consider thinking about my comment before replying to it.Always comes to the same problem. Do not try to change other's mind and other's definition of fun.
There are thousands of actual players who do not care about "meta gear". They do not come to the forums to complain though. They just log in, do some dailies, a world boss, run a normal dungeon and happily log out.
On the other side of the spectrum there are players who value perfomance and efficency above all. There is no such thing as "fun sets" for them. Being the best and getting the fastest and cleanest runs is the actual fun part for them. The set either works for that or it doesn't. I personally share this sentiment, I do not understand how a set can be "fun", it's all just visual baubles. The numbers matter - it is either effective or not. There is hard math under every "Best in Slot". And one part of meta is to make every fight as close to optimal parse as possible.
If you do not want to have others dictate what you use, chronically hate meta and have to be different or just want to run some "fun sets" do not join people from second group. Get some people from the first group and have your fun your way. Or some people from the vast middle inbetween the two. Sometimes even the most hardcore "elitist" wants to lay back and have a mindless pledge run without too much thinking. It is really that simple.9 -
hedna123b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
I suppose that depends on how you define the word "good".
If the set gets the job done - is more fun to use for the person - and offers advantages in other areas of importance I would say the set is good enough and certainly practical.
He gave you the exact definition and gave the exact explanation detailing how things work.
Sort of.
He (or she) basically said there were two ways to play - one way that was "good" and the other way that was just for fun.
I was trying to counter that somewhat by saying you can be both good and have fun at the same time. You do not need to do the most amount of damage possible to be "good". The "META" exists only in the player's mind because so long as a strategy is successful then it is just as good as the supposed "meta" strategy is.
Reread the message you quoted. He clearly states "max performance"
He also said this:
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do.
That's the part of his quote I was taking issue with.
Good for max performance
Perhaps that's what he meant. But in the piece I highlighted, he suggested the none "META" sets weren't even "practical" - which at the very least implies they aren't useful or good.
My point was so long as a set gets the job done: meaning that it it allows the player to perform at a level capable of winning the fight - then it's fine. Any standards beyond that are just part of the player's imagination - and that's where "elitism" often comes into play. This is when players expect others to live up to their own personal standards rather the ones set by the game itself.
And in that case i can slot Julianos on a altmer stam sorc and pass any trial dps checks currently in the game. You mention "My point was so long as a set gets the job done: meaning that it it allows the player to perform at a level capable of winning the fight". But literally any set in the game will do that. No trial boss currently has any meaningful dps checks, so your argument doesnt really make sense to me. You can use any set to complete content, the argument being made is that only a few sets can be considered good (as in best).0 -
oXI_Viper_IXo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »
This made me laugh, not gonna lie ^^
On a serious note, there are only few sets (for each role) that are actually good; mathematically and practically. This will always be the case, whatever devs do. If you rate the best sets 10/10, others fall behind. Some are 9, some are 1 out of 10. If a player cares about the group and its performance, they should go for the 10/10 sets. It's basic logic and a part of being a teamplayer. That's why I said on my first post that if you care about the group, there are only few sets to choose from. If not, do whatever you want.
There are many groups out there who don't care about max performance, including one of my own groups. We have Argonian DPS players, MagSorcs, Stam DDs in Cloudrest/Asylum etc. because we don't care. It's for fun. On the other hand, I am also in groups where raid leaders tell people what to use or swap characters even. Guess what, they follow word by word because they care about reaching the max performance in that group.
That's not how it works though. Not all these meta sets work on each fight the best.
That's exactly how it works. That's why they are called meta sets. META = Most Effective Tactic Available.
It's this kind of ingorance what makes wrobel injore you. How about you actually think about the question for once instead of arguing in my threads.
The question is asking about the scope of the subject there are only a few usable sets. It's to discuss the actual problem not enforce just one belief.
This kinda of attitude doesn't solve Problems but create them.
"What I say is the meta"
I'm beginning to see why you're a former class rep if you get triggered so easily. Literally nothing Liofa said was incorrect or trying to "force a belief."8
This discussion has been closed.