exiledtyrant wrote: »

fred4 wrote: »

exiledtyrant wrote: »

I would hypothesize that there is more burst potential within the first few hits of a proc set than a stat based set which than either falls off altogether or equalizes at the 10 second mark.

This is actually a good way of looking at it. Proc sets work great when they outright kill someone. You don't want them so strong that that will happen, especially in the hands of a nightblade ganker. If they don't kill someone, though, then my particular build, at least, hits like a wet noodle. This effect will vary by build. Mine is extreme in that regard.

The game by design is set up to have class imbalance and extremely niche sets to provide and counter metas within the game.

This is something that took me a long time to grasp and accept. I think maybe some people are holding out for much better set / class / build balance than can ever be achieved, especially those who measure their prowess by duelling.

Langeston wrote: »

exiledtyrant wrote: »

To truly prove proc sets are doing more damage than stat based sets you would have to provide a much more rigorous test:

Agree. You would have to do a whole suite of tests.

1. Match the highest stat based set vs the highest proc based set within a 10 second window. Necropotence + Clever alchemist under spell power pot vs Caluurions + Overwhelming with spell power pot.

Partially agree. I think the window should be no bigger than 5 seconds, as that is roughly the size of the window we're looking at with regard to most of the complaints re: proc sets. Class should be controlled (use two templars, wardens, necros, etc.) which would reduce the number of variables by quite a bit. I also think stam toons should probably be used, seeing as most of the stronger proc sets right now appear to be stam, and those are what people seem to be concerned about for the most part.

2. Have both sets under the effect of malacath so their is no critical variance.

I don't necessarily agree. Whether or not Malacath is used should be based on whether or not it will benefit said build. For instance on a Templar or NB using sets that include lines of crit, Malacath may hamstring the build's burst. Any variance should be able to be accounted for by multiple, averaged tests. If Malacath will benefit the proc build (likely) it should definitely be used.

3. Match a fairly net neutral helm set that is not prone to variance and player error that benefits both proc and stat based sets equally. I would suggest slimecrawl as nothing can be more generic and straightforward than 8% damage to everything.

Disagree. I think that the proc build should use whatever proc monster set will be beneficial to it's burst. After all, the purpose of this test is to determine just how extreme proc builds are, no? If you're using Malacath you may not want to use Slimecraw as you'd be wasting 3.9% crit (small yes, but it adds up) instead, something like Grothdarr may be a better option. By the same token, the stat build should use whatever set benefits it's burst the most.

4. Test a PvP rotation over 10 seconds with 1, 2 , and 3 weaved skills and determine total damage done after battle spirit for each.

Disagree for the same reason as #1 re: length of burst window.

5. Test a PvP opening rotation using 1, 2, and 3 weaved skills and determine how much burst happens within the time frame for each after battle spirit.

Partially agree. Timeframe should be 5 seconds (give or take) and the rotation should be whatever the given class would normally use, unless the proc sets require a different action. Since most proc sets now only require damage to be done, the same rotation should be able to be used on both builds in most cases.

I would hypothesize that there is more burst potential within the first few hits of a proc set than a stat based set which than either falls off altogether or equalizes at the 10 second mark. This should be especially true on the 1 ability weave vs the 3 ability weave test as stat based sets get stronger the more damage abilities are used. All this would mean is that proc sets have a niche of being bursty ( better vs lower resistance / health / sustain targets) and stat sets are better at sustained damage ( better vs high resistance / health / sustain targets).

This is what I would assume as well, but as I stated earlier I think sustained damage is largely irrelevant with regard to this topic. Sure there are plenty of high resistance / health / sustain targets in PVP, but they aren't likely the ones worried about all of the incoming proc sets. What people are worried about is lack of counterplay — if you survive for 10 seconds, then there was counterplay.

If the burst itself is considered to high than the burst sets have to be put to the test vs setups that counter burst before even considering a nerf. That means taking the standardized test I mention above and stacking it against sets like Juggernaut, Orgnum's Scales etc.. and seeing if burst resistant setups are being overwhelmed. If procs sets warp the meta in a ways that counter based sets can't do their job that is an argument I can get behind. Even then it would have to prove that time to kill is so out of wack that under normal circumstances use of LOS and team play are circumvented by it.

Disagree. If the burst is too high, the burst is to high. Whether or not defensive proc sets can survive offensive proc set burst is irrelevant — if the defensive proc sets are altogether stronger than the offensive proc sets and are not overwhelmed, it doesn't change the fact that the burst from proc sets was found to be unacceptably high. Also, I feel like this is telling people that if they want to survive the impending proc set free-for-all they'll just have to use defensive proc sets, and that is not an acceptable solution IMO.

Dueling is not going to provide this kind of data. The game by design is set up to have class imbalance and extremely niche sets to provide and counter metas within the game. These imbalances are put in place to encourage group play and place safety valves on one setup vs another. You can't balance that kind of system in a 1 v1 environment.

Partially agree. I don't think that 1v1 scenarios should be the only form of test used, but they definitely are relevant to the conversation. Unless you never find yourself in 1v1 scenarios.

(This are just my initial thoughts. I haven't considered them too much, and could definitely be persuaded to change my mind given good enough counterpoints.)

1. I would argue two points for stretching out the burst window to 10 seconds. The 10 seconds is presumably the window of time Caluurions is balanced around damage wise and therefore should show it maximum potential vs another 5 piece bonus. After you establish the maximum potential of the set you can walk it back as many seconds as you want to determine where each set hits its peak in performance within that 10 second window. Secondly neither of us can say for a fact what the average burst window is in PvP. Only ZoS has that info. I feel its much better to work off a spectrum of total possible damage than try to assert what may or may not be the case, at least where possible.

As far as classes and stamina goes etc I think that's all fine and good, but would take a long time. I would say the first test should be whatever the highest capable magicka burst class is (since Caluurions and proc sets shaped around it are being targetted) put up against each class in a light / heavy / medium setup that has a burst counter and one that does not. If the highest potential class build shows no signs of being unbalanced any class below it should be theoretically balanced performance wise.

2. Firstly Malacath will almost always be the best increase in damage outside of very niche setups that can overcome the large devaluation of critical strike and damage impenetrable gives. I would argue none of those setups are open enough that you could test them across every class or consistent enough to provide a proper test. Also variance across averages could take a long time. I would rather just lean on the one item that eliminates variance and provides more damage in almost every scenario impenetrable is a consideration.

3. Monster helms are pretty well balanced against each other. Yes the critical chance is wasted but it such a small piece of equation that I feel sacrificing it is not going to skew results in a way that matters. An 8% bonus however is net neutral, has no variance, and should give about as much damage as a monster set of any other type on average. If you try to ascertain what helm is best for who its going to vary widely from class to class and setup to setup for what I see as little gain.

4. The rotation is needed to establish the damage spectrum I mentioned in my first point. I am making an assertion that most people use at least 3 damage based abilities in an attempt to burst them. We scale it up from 1 ability to 3 just to supply more data on what damage potential would look like from 1 - 3 in a burst window. Much like the actual burst window I don't have the data ZoS would have to determine the real average of abilities used or within what time frame. I can only assume that under normal circumstances a competent player will not die consistently from someone spamming one or two abilities on them.


5. You can disagree with the solution of defensive set countering offensive sets, but then you are trying to argue against how class balance and itemization was designed from its very foundation. A lot of the niche sets were not designed to sit in a cupboard collecting dust while everyone one used the one true set ( whatever that may be for whatever meta your in) for eternity. They were designed to place safety valves on different types of gameplay. These hard counters instigate organic meta change that not only make the devs jobs easier ( they don't have to to jump at every slight shift in meta if they've provided counters), but it also keep the meta from being stale. I'll try to illustrate my point with a real life example:

Way back in the dinosaur era of ESO PvP there was a burst meta where direct damage was king and a lot of it. Some people got it into there head that instead complaining about snipe and nightblade ganks etc... they would try different sets to try and counter being blown off the planet by all the incoming damage. One of the solution was a set called Whitestrake's Retribution( some people might not even know what this is anymore so I'll link it: https://eso-sets.com/set/whitestrakes-retribution).

Whitestrake may not look like much now but back in the day it was a force. It kept you alive, made the burst setup up actually have to have a back up plan, and PvP for the most part could happen. To counter sets like Whitestrake the meta shifted from burst to more sustained damage. Admittedly Whitestrake in particular did its job a bit to well even after the meta shift and had to be nerfed, but the point still stands.

This is how the game has operated pretty much since beta. I feel its a good system. You should be able to be weak against some things and strong against others and those factors should be determined by what you wear and what class you play. If a setup overwhelms its counters I could see there being a problem, however if its the other way around I couldn't agree to a nerf.

6. If 1 v1 scenarios determined by any appreciable margin the outcome of what constitutes winning in a game entirely built around group PvP I would concede the point however, I have held the stance that it does not for years and have yet to be convinced otherwise.

FrankonPC wrote: »

MincVinyl wrote: »

You are thinking too far into it even then. just run a 50-60khp tank which is easy since this game makes it so easy with cp to build tankiness over damage. Then all your damage comes from a 20-21k proc every 10sec. Malacath+caluurions+ light attacking.....literally light attacking. No special combo/buff rotation....just light attacking. Then all you need is tank and sustain.

If i can still kill people by bash spamming on my normal 1vX toon, i guarantee a 20k proc paired with dots/delayed damage will still do fine with malacath there to make up for no damage sets. It will probably feel like a damage build noncritting with the no damage stats+malacath.

I tried to do this, but I was told I was a dueling spec and that doesn't mean much in open world, even though literally any sort of 40k max health stat spec could not kill someone, or dent their health bar with light attacks.

Ajaks wrote: »

FrankonPC wrote: »

"Nearly bullied in to duels." I would LOVE to see you back this up with any sort of evidence. I offered to settle a dispute through an actual test, with no ego involved on a class I almost never play.
...

If YOU want to strive for objectivity, back up this outlandish claim with literally anything that may support it.

I can prove it but this is beyond the issue of the discussion, isn't it?

FrankonPC wrote: »

I'm streaming on Friday. Bring your stat based dueling build, i'll bring my light attacks.

Edit: I want to be clear with this. I just want to show how overtuned procs currently are on the pts. If you think I'm wrong, this is a perfect time to prove it. No animosity or anything, just a disagreement in where procs currently are.

Mayrael wrote: »

@FrankonPC Isthereno1else you have been called out.

I think you may have something to say in that matter

technohic wrote: »

@FrankonPC When is your stream on PTS? I want to see if there are any takers

JayKwellen wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

@FrankonPC When is your stream on PTS? I want to see if there are any takers

@technohic His twitch stream is Isth3reno1else. Unfortunately you'll probably be disappointed, as I can pretty much guarantee none of the procopalypse defenders will show up.

mairwen85 wrote: »

Did anyone pick up the gauntlet?

Now @sabresandiego_ESO went in those duels even if he specifically said that dueling does not prove much in his eyes as PVP can't be narrowed down to a 1 v 1 open field fight. And while I agree with you that he came out of the situation with stronger claim that he otherwise would have, he was definitely challenged to prove his point in practice by a lot of you guys. That being said "nearly bullied" does not mean "bullied" and I already thanked you both for providing us with this experiment. But for some of the participants in this discussion to accuse him after the fight:
1- that he hasn't put any argument on the table;
or
2- that playing with his main class is an unfair advantage;
seems completely nonsensical to me.

On the issue at hand. I personally like proc sets and how viable they are in the current meta. Their damage is within the right margin but I don't think that multiple direct damage procs should be allowed to fire within the same attack. It seems too much to counter as I can think of combos that will melt people if they don't dodge them. Dots however can be purged and after the proc even a good player will have some troubles to sustain offensive pressure or heal himself. Perhaps a condition where multiple DD procs can't be toggled from 1 attack but multiple DOTS (or 1 DD and DOTS) are allowed to should be considered by the devs. Data will tell.

Your HP proc build was definitely interesting because of the ability to toggle those multiple procs in the same time, while having lots of health and preserving your resources to defend yourself. That being said, if you sacrifice the 5 piece bonuses you should be able to be competitive with the procs that you acquire from it even if you commit to light attacks. As @sabresandiego_ESO said however, using offensive abilities would hurt you "because they would be inefficient and run you out of resources, and you'd have nothing left for defense".