Eliran wrote: »

You cant play without meta.

exeeter702 wrote: »

josiahva wrote: »

Nerhesi wrote: »

Non-Meta is fine, unless you really are defining end-game as vet trials and pvp.

In the case, meta or die. This game does a great job of letting you play the way you want for 90% of PvE - but PvE super-end game, you need to be meta.

As for PvP... there is not counter meta. You need to be able to sustained DPS, burst DPS, CC, Tank, heal, and sustain. If you can't do that, you will crumple against someone who can. This a problem with the game that is unfortunately supported by a loud minority and streamers/cc - it currently preventing the game from actually being competitive in PvP because the group I mentioned doesn't want "PvP to change from what it has been for 6+ years".

You wont get counter meta/off meta viability until the game devs are comfortable with rock-paper-scissors (ish) and role based approaches. Until then, everyone is a super dps with high burst potential, good cc and great mitigation.

This is simply not true...or at the very least its misleading. You can complete all PvE content in the game with whatever off-meta build you feel like running(assuming you can find a group that accepts off-meta builds). What you CAN'T do with an off meta build is get a spot with a leaderboard pushing trials group...it just won't happen(or rarely enough that its not even worth mentioning).

As far as PvP goes...there really isn't a set meta there...people are always trying different and odd combos, some with more success than others, and the feeling I get from PvP is that they really don't care as much there...except maybe a few guilds trying to optimize a certain type of group.

There is another aspect that people do not mention in discussion like this at all. Playstyle. Alcast or whatever streamer you prefer may have a build that he is able to do the most possible DPS with....but just because he is able to do that with that given build does not mean you are able to....for the way you play some other combination may yield more DPS or better survivability, etc. Sure, there are plenty of people out there who are robots and perfect at hitting the exact right rotation. never letting their buffs down, etc, but most people are just not that good and so what works best for Alcast may simply not work best for someone with less skill or a different playstyle. Maybe a player moves out of AoE slower than someone else(maybe they just arent good at movement, seen my share of people like that) and because of that they die more often....instead of an extra 1k magicka and a dead DPS doing zero damage, that particular player may instead benefit from an alternative set that adds an extra 1k health keeping them alive and doing less-than-ideal DPS....less-than-ideal and alive is better than ideal and dead.

There is no equality in this game...some people are better at some things, its just the way it is. One size fits all in theory...but reality may be something different.

Sorry but no, when talking about meta builds and true end game benchmarks, there is no grey area. If someone's "playstyle" results in them being able to hit 60k dps and another's "playstyle" means they are only able to do 30k, the later player is not taken, full stop. The illusion of certian unqiue build / playstyle combinations creates diverse yet competetive dps results is just that, an illusion. Knowing fight mechanics is a static skill that every player in an ens game pve environment needs to know, aside from that, a dps rotation is just that, and there is very little room for flexibility in playstyle as that doesnt even mean anything whether it was 2 bars full of dots with no spammable or lightning heavies back to back, the players that are going to want to generate the most dps possible are simply going to take the route necessary. And aside from practicing an air tight rotation, I'm sorry, but there is not really that much depth to allow "playstyles" to even have a meaningfull impact.

The benchmark is set based on numbers and performance. Just because player a can and player b cannot does not change this in any way, it simply means that until player b "can", they are unqualified for the content in question when using meta performance as the backdrop.

And there is 100 percent a meta in pvp, to suggest otherwise seems very disingenuous. People experiment more and DO have flexibility moreso than pve but that doesnt mean meta builds wont *** on non meta builds 90 percent of the time. I cyrodil, you are afforded to luxory of playing a weaker non meta build by shear law of player count making the burden of performance from a single individual non existant. Unfortunately you have some players who actually convince themselves their niche flavor build "works" because they are running around in a crowd and never ACTUALLY have to outplay an opponent.

I realize this sounds incredibly elitist but when you discuss end game meta and what is the most optimal approach, you dont get to use "varying player skill" as a rebuttal. The players that desire the absolute max take the necessary time to become capable of it. It's the same concept in why you dont balance around the bottom end and you dont gauge tier lists on varying player skill, you set the benchmark and gauge everything accordingly.

Believe me, I know the struggle, once upon a time I was healing vet craglorn trials on a NB during an era where non templar healing was not even in the consciousness of player thought. I am all for off meta builds and have championed them since day 0. But it is what it is.

exeeter702 wrote: »

amm7sb14_ESO wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

josiahva wrote: »

Nerhesi wrote: »

Non-Meta is fine, unless you really are defining end-game as vet trials and pvp.

In the case, meta or die. This game does a great job of letting you play the way you want for 90% of PvE - but PvE super-end game, you need to be meta.

As for PvP... there is not counter meta. You need to be able to sustained DPS, burst DPS, CC, Tank, heal, and sustain. If you can't do that, you will crumple against someone who can. This a problem with the game that is unfortunately supported by a loud minority and streamers/cc - it currently preventing the game from actually being competitive in PvP because the group I mentioned doesn't want "PvP to change from what it has been for 6+ years".

You wont get counter meta/off meta viability until the game devs are comfortable with rock-paper-scissors (ish) and role based approaches. Until then, everyone is a super dps with high burst potential, good cc and great mitigation.

This is simply not true...or at the very least its misleading. You can complete all PvE content in the game with whatever off-meta build you feel like running(assuming you can find a group that accepts off-meta builds). What you CAN'T do with an off meta build is get a spot with a leaderboard pushing trials group...it just won't happen(or rarely enough that its not even worth mentioning).

As far as PvP goes...there really isn't a set meta there...people are always trying different and odd combos, some with more success than others, and the feeling I get from PvP is that they really don't care as much there...except maybe a few guilds trying to optimize a certain type of group.

There is another aspect that people do not mention in discussion like this at all. Playstyle. Alcast or whatever streamer you prefer may have a build that he is able to do the most possible DPS with....but just because he is able to do that with that given build does not mean you are able to....for the way you play some other combination may yield more DPS or better survivability, etc. Sure, there are plenty of people out there who are robots and perfect at hitting the exact right rotation. never letting their buffs down, etc, but most people are just not that good and so what works best for Alcast may simply not work best for someone with less skill or a different playstyle. Maybe a player moves out of AoE slower than someone else(maybe they just arent good at movement, seen my share of people like that) and because of that they die more often....instead of an extra 1k magicka and a dead DPS doing zero damage, that particular player may instead benefit from an alternative set that adds an extra 1k health keeping them alive and doing less-than-ideal DPS....less-than-ideal and alive is better than ideal and dead.

There is no equality in this game...some people are better at some things, its just the way it is. One size fits all in theory...but reality may be something different.

Sorry but no, when talking about meta builds and true end game benchmarks, there is no grey area. If someone's "playstyle" results in them being able to hit 60k dps and another's "playstyle" means they are only able to do 30k, the later player is not taken, full stop. The illusion of certian unqiue build / playstyle combinations creates diverse yet competetive dps results is just that, an illusion. Knowing fight mechanics is a static skill that every player in an ens game pve environment needs to know, aside from that, a dps rotation is just that, and there is very little room for flexibility in playstyle as that doesnt even mean anything whether it was 2 bars full of dots with no spammable or lightning heavies back to back, the players that are going to want to generate the most dps possible are simply going to take the route necessary. And aside from practicing an air tight rotation, I'm sorry, but there is not really that much depth to allow "playstyles" to even have a meaningfull impact.

The benchmark is set based on numbers and performance. Just because player a can and player b cannot does not change this in any way, it simply means that until player b "can", they are unqualified for the content in question when using meta performance as the backdrop.

And there is 100 percent a meta in pvp, to suggest otherwise seems very disingenuous. People experiment more and DO have flexibility moreso than pve but that doesnt mean meta builds wont *** on non meta builds 90 percent of the time. I cyrodil, you are afforded to luxory of playing a weaker non meta build by shear law of player count making the burden of performance from a single individual non existant. Unfortunately you have some players who actually convince themselves their niche flavor build "works" because they are running around in a crowd and never ACTUALLY have to outplay an opponent.

I realize this sounds incredibly elitist but when you discuss end game meta and what is the most optimal approach, you dont get to use "varying player skill" as a rebuttal. The players that desire the absolute max take the necessary time to become capable of it. It's the same concept in why you dont balance around the bottom end and you dont gauge tier lists on varying player skill, you set the benchmark and gauge everything accordingly.

Believe me, I know the struggle, once upon a time I was healing vet craglorn trials on a NB during an era where non templar healing was not even in the consciousness of player thought. I am all for off meta builds and have championed them since day 0. But it is what it is.

Again, this stuff only applies to leaderboard pushing. If you are shooting for leaderboards, titles, achievements, no death runs, speed runs, etc. then yes, the meta applies, and there is no grey area.

If you are just shooting for completions, and you and your group / guild are not shooting for leaderboards, and all that stuff, and the "most efficient optimization" is not the key consideration, then off-meta can absolutely get you through all content in the game, including vet DLC dungeons and vet trials.

Leaderboards, achievements, titles, etc. are not content. They are the rewards for superior performance of said content, but they are not the content themselves.

Therefore, off-meta can succeed in any *content* the game has to offer, but off-meta will not get you the same *rewards* of said content, and for someone who is wholly as anti-meta as I am, I feel like that is totally fair and appropriate. For those who aspire for those leaderboards, titles, achievements, etc. and choose to study the deepest of ins and outs to achieve the most optimal performance that is possible, they should have those extra rewards.

For people like me and those I play with who don't aspire for that, we can still go through and clear any content with intentional builds and an understanding and knowledge of the mechanics. I shouldn't get the same rewards and achievements when I am not performing to the same level.

As I've said many times in this thread, the entire problem with this conversation comes down to people applying leaderboard standards across the board to *all* end game content participation, but not all people are shooting for the leaderboard pushing experience, and so such advice and feedback is inapplicable.

The "meta or bust" advice applies to leaderboard pushing and max level achievement. It does *not* apply to mere participation and completion of content. What josiah said is 100% accurate, and I cannot "agree" react to it enough.

Listen to what is being said though. You arent wrong in that certain vet trials in hm or even not hm, can be cleared with fully off meta builds sure. Keeping in mind that at this point in the game most dont consider craglorn vet trials as end game but that is a grey area I suppose.

The answer to the OP remains true as it was on the first page.... how is it for off meta builds? Possible but more difficult. Now depending on who you ask, is that added level of difficulty worth it? Where do you draw the line? Your hodor level boys surely can do off meta builds for a clear without caring about scoreboards, but what about the less experienced group that is tackling a relevant hm vet trial for the first time with the desire to simply clear it? That group WILL struggle with the growing pains of learning an encounter rest assured. Do you think they are going to want to add to that challenge by running a more flavorful niche group / build makeup? Maybe? The majority wont. At some point there is a skill check that exists where groups are afforded the option to push non meta builds in true end game environments but most of the time it's those same groups that end up establishing the damn meta in the first place lol.

I want to make it clear that I personally believe the extreme end of the meta is not quite as extreme as many assume and for many years before around TG release of this game, I know for a FACT functioning and effective class / role makeups that were unacklowdged simply due to what leaderboard groups were running, and it created a stigma for what was excepted by word of mouth. Those times are long gone though.

Meta is a term for a reason, it simply refers to what is most effective as determined by those that have put in the work and gained the experience to confirm it as much. It's not some arbitrary benchmark that is set in place by developers that players are encouraged to try and break or go against, it is simply a matter of fact in a given current environment of said game.

Being "anti meta" is an absolute logical fallacy in that no matter what happens something will become the best strategy until it no longer is the case. Intentionally going out of your way to avoid that for the sake of personal fun is entirely your call, but do not treat a games meta as some kind of cancer that needs to be cured or avoided at all cost.

Kalik_Gold wrote: »

I PvE - Pug and Guild Trials (normal) and Vet DLC on my DDs. Imperial MagDK and Imperial StamSorc. I don't think Imperial is meta for either of those positions.

My PvE tank is also Imperial and the Healer is Breton... but they fall within some meta guidelines.

======

In PvP any stam not Orc/Woodelf is non-meta and I run Redguards.... *shrugs*

Karmanorway wrote: »

volkeswagon wrote: »

I don't even know what meta means. I assume it's best in slot. Heard it used but never explained.

Meta = An excuse to not l2p, or be creative.
Also heard some rumors it might be some kind of elitist weapon to prevent newer players to join in and accomplish certain things ingame... might be wrong though🤔