"Proc" sets to be used in PvP

OlumoGarbag · March 2021

Not all "proc" sets are overpowered or do actually proc. Sets like seducer arent the problem.
Since this change is actually community driven, how about implementing a feedback board for every forum user to vote for sets to be used or banned in PVP?

I personally think % ressources sets or proc stat sets like necropotence or fury arent a big issue.
@ZOS_GinaBruno pls give the community some place to vote for and give feedback without biased polls.

Seraphayel · March 2021

I think the decision made by ZOS is pretty final at this point. Gina even said in another statement that they’re working on many things regarding proc sets and even want to introduce different PvP campaigns, which means they made their mind with disabling proc sets until Q3.

Gilvoth · March 2021

we will all give our opinion and a vote on the proc set issue by joining iether a
"no procset campaign"
or a
"pro proc set only campaign"

and i prefer it to be that way anyway, exactly like they did with the faction lock or non faction lock campaigns.

starkerealm · March 2021

OlumoGarbag wrote: »

Not all "proc" sets are overpowered or do actually proc.

I always love this argument. Yes, the community misuses the term, "proc sets," to refer to a small subset. However, the people who assume when the devs say they're "turning off 'proc sets'" and then turn off every set which uses scripting on the back end, only to belt out, "but, Seducers isn't a proc set," never cease to amuse.

And it's always, Suducers, oddly enough. That's always the proc set people flock to defend. Not the proc sets like Silks of the Sun or Ancient Dragonguard. Specifically, Seducers.

If there are proc sets that are overpowered (and, there certainly are), they probably need to be addressed directly.

Urzigurumash · March 2021

Seducer's was specifically mentioned I think is the only reason people keep bringing it up.

We all know they're really using Spell Parasite (jk)

YandereGirlfriend · March 2021

starkerealm wrote: »

OlumoGarbag wrote: »

Not all "proc" sets are overpowered or do actually proc.

I always love this argument. Yes, the community misuses the term, "proc sets," to refer to a small subset. However, the people who assume when the devs say they're "turning off 'proc sets'" and then turn off every set which uses scripting on the back end, only to belt out, "but, Seducers isn't a proc set," never cease to amuse.

And it's always, Suducers, oddly enough. That's always the proc set people flock to defend. Not the proc sets like Silks of the Sun or Ancient Dragonguard. Specifically, Seducers.

If there are proc sets that are overpowered (and, there certainly are), they probably need to be addressed directly.

I think it is because it is an easy example of an obviously benign "proc" set that, nonetheless, was swept up in the overreach of the ban wave.

I personally like to cite War Maiden or New Moon as equally obvious examples of pure stat sets that happen to have the misfortune of containing conditional logic.

Only someone who was being willfully ignorant or who otherwise had an agenda to push would have interpreted the players' calls to reign in the "free damage" proc sets a la Venomous Smite as also calling for the end of stat-based sets containing conditional logic that players have been using without incident or comment for literally years.

Kurat · March 2021

PVPers are never happy. Forum was full of complain threads, new ones created almost daily about proc meta, unkillable tanks etc. Now that proc sets are gone people cry to get them back lmao.
You got what you asked for and also got pve tanks nerfed. Now adapt and enjoy the horse riding simulator.

starkerealm · March 2021

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Only someone who was being willfully ignorant or who otherwise had an agenda to push would have interpreted the players' calls to reign in the "free damage" proc sets a la Venomous Smite as also calling for the end of stat-based sets containing conditional logic that players have been using without incident or comment for literally years.

Or... and bare with me for a second... the developers have a slightly different perspective on how the game works from a systems perspective.

The purpose of the testing was to see if the procedure calls generated by sets were responsible for the cyrodiil performance issues. At that point, leaving a few sets with function calls running, especially a set that has to trigger a procedure call on every ability, especially a set that is already extremely popular, would somewhat defeat the purpose of the experiment.

starkerealm · March 2021

Kurat wrote: »

PVPers are never happy. Forum was full of complain threads, new ones created almost daily about proc meta, unkillable tanks etc. Now that proc sets are gone people cry to get them back lmao.
You got what you asked for and also got pve tanks nerfed. Now adapt and enjoy the horse riding simulator.

To be honest, for most of the game's life, the "PvE was nerfed because of PvP complaints," have been a bit overstated. Yes, sometimes, PvP changes affected PvE, but a lot of the most pronounced PvE nerfs were the result of PvE.

That said, a lot of the changes since Brian took over combat design, have felt like they were done with PvP in mind, and only lip service to ensuring that PvE was technically functional.

So, yeah, there's a lot of inertia behind this view. You're not wrong, PvPers will always complain about something. If they run out of things to complain about in PvP, they will complain about being, "forced," into PvE for the goodies there.

I think they may have a point this time, but they've been announcing that the sky is falling for so long, it's hard to be sure, and harder still to be sympathetic to their plight.

YandereGirlfriend · March 2021

starkerealm wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Only someone who was being willfully ignorant or who otherwise had an agenda to push would have interpreted the players' calls to reign in the "free damage" proc sets a la Venomous Smite as also calling for the end of stat-based sets containing conditional logic that players have been using without incident or comment for literally years.

Or... and bare with me for a second... the developers have a slightly different perspective on how the game works from a systems perspective.

The purpose of the testing was to see if the procedure calls generated by sets were responsible for the cyrodiil performance issues. At that point, leaving a few sets with function calls running, especially a set that has to trigger a procedure call on every ability, especially a set that is already extremely popular, would somewhat defeat the purpose of the experiment.

I'm very well-aware of how the sets were chosen.

You can go back over my post history to the period before the announcement and I was cautioning people that an expansive reading of "proc" (e.g. anything with conditional logic) would sweep up 90-95% of all the existing sets. And that is ultimately what happened (we have access to <5% of total sets in the game).

And I don't fault the developers for taking that expansive reading of "proc" for the purposes of the performance test.

I do, however, immensely fault them for the half-baked decision to continue with the ban even after it was proven that "proc" sets do not materially contribute to lag in Cyrodiil. At that point the publicly facing parameters of the test were resolved - no evidence of performance improvement and no need to continue with the restrictive rule-set.

Nobody that I know bothered to leave feedback either because nobody was aware that the future of Cyrodiil was actually up for discussion. That was not advertised as a feature of the test - only performance was.

Soulshine · March 2021

What is weird about this (for me) is that there is no mention of proc sets being banned in battlegrounds (or if there was a mention I missed it.) Kind of surprised this wasn't brought up since frankly, I do think the whining about these sets is far more loud from people there than in Cyro, but maybe I am mistaken.

Battlegrounds are one place where "death by proc" is now the norm; it's so over the top noticeable since the area is small and with so few people that I can see why some say it completely undermined the concept of battlegrounds to begin with; they are supposed to be a place where you can go without all the miles long zerg fests of Cyro to go toe-to-toe with other players, not with other player's proc sets.

That said, it seems like for testing how much load they actually generate it would be easier to see from a battleground test since the numbers are more controllable and the data packets coming back more specific to players vs all the equipment, NPCs, etc. wouldn't it?

Roztlin45 · March 2021

I would never say another word if could be refunded all the expansions , dlc and in game gold I used to acquire the sets to use in pvp. Not to mention the days , weeks and months spent farming said gear.
For me it is not an issue of proc or no proc. Zos has took the tires off the car , I still have the car but can't go anywhere for 6 months.
Fixing problems with a hammer I guess they missed and it the customers thumb!

Kalik_Gold · March 2021

Add a Full PVP all CP all sets, all the time Cyro and BGs also, please.

I don’t even use cheese builds. But theorycrafting and using the game to maximum potential is what is awesome about PvP.

starkerealm · March 2021

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Only someone who was being willfully ignorant or who otherwise had an agenda to push would have interpreted the players' calls to reign in the "free damage" proc sets a la Venomous Smite as also calling for the end of stat-based sets containing conditional logic that players have been using without incident or comment for literally years.

Or... and bare with me for a second... the developers have a slightly different perspective on how the game works from a systems perspective.

The purpose of the testing was to see if the procedure calls generated by sets were responsible for the cyrodiil performance issues. At that point, leaving a few sets with function calls running, especially a set that has to trigger a procedure call on every ability, especially a set that is already extremely popular, would somewhat defeat the purpose of the experiment.

I'm very well-aware of how the sets were chosen.

You can go back over my post history to the period before the announcement and I was cautioning people that an expansive reading of "proc" (e.g. anything with conditional logic) would sweep up 90-95% of all the existing sets. And that is ultimately what happened (we have access to <5% of total sets in the game).

And I don't fault the developers for taking that expansive reading of "proc" for the purposes of the performance test.

I do, however, immensely fault them for the half-baked decision to continue with the ban even after it was proven that "proc" sets do not materially contribute to lag in Cyrodiil. At that point the publicly facing parameters of the test were resolved - no evidence of performance improvement and no need to continue with the restrictive rule-set.

Nobody that I know bothered to leave feedback either because nobody was aware that the future of Cyrodiil was actually up for discussion. That was not advertised as a feature of the test - only performance was.

In that context, their decision to keep this ruleset in place has been bolstered by two things: (They've stated that) they're seeing in increase in the PvP population, and they've seen a lot of enthusiasm for the ruleset from feedback.

I get that this bothers a lot of players, but there are a lot of people who are (apparently) really enjoying this stripped down format.

Also, I did check your post history for a moment (before posting the previous response), but didn't dig through it extensively, simply because digging through forum history quickly becomes tedious.

zaria · March 2021

starkerealm wrote: »

Kurat wrote: »

PVPers are never happy. Forum was full of complain threads, new ones created almost daily about proc meta, unkillable tanks etc. Now that proc sets are gone people cry to get them back lmao.
You got what you asked for and also got pve tanks nerfed. Now adapt and enjoy the horse riding simulator.

To be honest, for most of the game's life, the "PvE was nerfed because of PvP complaints," have been a bit overstated. Yes, sometimes, PvP changes affected PvE, but a lot of the most pronounced PvE nerfs were the result of PvE.

That said, a lot of the changes since Brian took over combat design, have felt like they were done with PvP in mind, and only lip service to ensuring that PvE was technically functional.

So, yeah, there's a lot of inertia behind this view. You're not wrong, PvPers will always complain about something. If they run out of things to complain about in PvP, they will complain about being, "forced," into PvE for the goodies there.

I think they may have a point this time, but they've been announcing that the sky is falling for so long, it's hard to be sure, and harder still to be sympathetic to their plight.

We had the +6 week AoE cool-down testing they was pretty enthusiastic about and talked about pushing live.
That would been for PvE too even if it would hurt all from raid groups to new players doing public dungeons and in practice disable templars. The idea was very unpopular for obvious reasons and they was probably told from higher up it was not an option as it would significantly reduce the player base and revenue.

And yes the old PvP nerf all who kill me request is an classic.

Lord_Eomer · March 2021

No more proc sets = better pvp

Juhasow · March 2021

zaria wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Kurat wrote: »

PVPers are never happy. Forum was full of complain threads, new ones created almost daily about proc meta, unkillable tanks etc. Now that proc sets are gone people cry to get them back lmao.
You got what you asked for and also got pve tanks nerfed. Now adapt and enjoy the horse riding simulator.

To be honest, for most of the game's life, the "PvE was nerfed because of PvP complaints," have been a bit overstated. Yes, sometimes, PvP changes affected PvE, but a lot of the most pronounced PvE nerfs were the result of PvE.

That said, a lot of the changes since Brian took over combat design, have felt like they were done with PvP in mind, and only lip service to ensuring that PvE was technically functional.

So, yeah, there's a lot of inertia behind this view. You're not wrong, PvPers will always complain about something. If they run out of things to complain about in PvP, they will complain about being, "forced," into PvE for the goodies there.

I think they may have a point this time, but they've been announcing that the sky is falling for so long, it's hard to be sure, and harder still to be sympathetic to their plight.

We had the +6 week AoE cool-down testing they was pretty enthusiastic about and talked about pushing live.
That would been for PvE too even if it would hurt all from raid groups to new players doing public dungeons and in practice disable templars. The idea was very unpopular for obvious reasons and they was probably told from higher up it was not an option as it would significantly reduce the player base and revenue.

And yes the old PvP nerf all who kill me request is an classic.

AoE cooldowns and group behaviours testing were strictly reserved for Cyrodill. Same goes for results of said tests.

jle30303 · March 2021

I don't care whether something is or isn't defined as a proc set, but *if the only place you can get it is Cyrodiil or Imperial City, it should damn well work in Cyrodiil and Imperial City*. Always.

regime211 · March 2021

starkerealm wrote: »

OlumoGarbag wrote: »

Not all "proc" sets are overpowered or do actually proc.

I always love this argument. Yes, the community misuses the term, "proc sets," to refer to a small subset. However, the people who assume when the devs say they're "turning off 'proc sets'" and then turn off every set which uses scripting on the back end, only to belt out, "but, Seducers isn't a proc set," never cease to amuse.

And it's always, Suducers, oddly enough. That's always the proc set people flock to defend. Not the proc sets like Silks of the Sun or Ancient Dragonguard. Specifically, Seducers.

If there are proc sets that are overpowered (and, there certainly are), they probably need to be addressed directly.

i Don't understand how you guys keep saying "Seducer" isn't a proc set, if the Dev's themselves are stating it is a proc set, well it is a proc set, people got what they wished for this is what happens when people complain too much. I said this already before the test began, people are going to realize what is exactly considered a proc set, and now when 90% of the sets are disabled now it's a problem. i dont even feel bad for the community at this point, it's their fault!

starkerealm · March 2021

zaria wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Kurat wrote: »

PVPers are never happy. Forum was full of complain threads, new ones created almost daily about proc meta, unkillable tanks etc. Now that proc sets are gone people cry to get them back lmao.
You got what you asked for and also got pve tanks nerfed. Now adapt and enjoy the horse riding simulator.

To be honest, for most of the game's life, the "PvE was nerfed because of PvP complaints," have been a bit overstated. Yes, sometimes, PvP changes affected PvE, but a lot of the most pronounced PvE nerfs were the result of PvE.

That said, a lot of the changes since Brian took over combat design, have felt like they were done with PvP in mind, and only lip service to ensuring that PvE was technically functional.

So, yeah, there's a lot of inertia behind this view. You're not wrong, PvPers will always complain about something. If they run out of things to complain about in PvP, they will complain about being, "forced," into PvE for the goodies there.

I think they may have a point this time, but they've been announcing that the sky is falling for so long, it's hard to be sure, and harder still to be sympathetic to their plight.

We had the +6 week AoE cool-down testing they was pretty enthusiastic about and talked about pushing live.
That would been for PvE too even if it would hurt all from raid groups to new players doing public dungeons and in practice disable templars. The idea was very unpopular for obvious reasons and they was probably told from higher up it was not an option as it would significantly reduce the player base and revenue.

And yes the old PvP nerf all who kill me request is an classic.

That's what you're misunderstanding here.

The AoE cap was enormously unpopular. Same as the cast time shields.

The proc set disable has been quite popular. Divisive as well, but there are a lot of players who enjoy this ruleset. That's the difference.

YandereGirlfriend · March 2021

starkerealm wrote: »

zaria wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Kurat wrote: »

PVPers are never happy. Forum was full of complain threads, new ones created almost daily about proc meta, unkillable tanks etc. Now that proc sets are gone people cry to get them back lmao.
You got what you asked for and also got pve tanks nerfed. Now adapt and enjoy the horse riding simulator.

To be honest, for most of the game's life, the "PvE was nerfed because of PvP complaints," have been a bit overstated. Yes, sometimes, PvP changes affected PvE, but a lot of the most pronounced PvE nerfs were the result of PvE.

That said, a lot of the changes since Brian took over combat design, have felt like they were done with PvP in mind, and only lip service to ensuring that PvE was technically functional.

So, yeah, there's a lot of inertia behind this view. You're not wrong, PvPers will always complain about something. If they run out of things to complain about in PvP, they will complain about being, "forced," into PvE for the goodies there.

I think they may have a point this time, but they've been announcing that the sky is falling for so long, it's hard to be sure, and harder still to be sympathetic to their plight.

We had the +6 week AoE cool-down testing they was pretty enthusiastic about and talked about pushing live.
That would been for PvE too even if it would hurt all from raid groups to new players doing public dungeons and in practice disable templars. The idea was very unpopular for obvious reasons and they was probably told from higher up it was not an option as it would significantly reduce the player base and revenue.

And yes the old PvP nerf all who kill me request is an classic.

That's what you're misunderstanding here.

The AoE cap was enormously unpopular. Same as the cast time shields.

The proc set disable has been quite popular. Divisive as well, but there are a lot of players who enjoy this ruleset. That's the difference.

If they could actually release some metrics to prove this I might take it more seriously.

My subject experience checking the Ravenwatch population levels over the last 2/3 of the test did not convey anything out of the ordinary, however. And when I checked yesterday, during a Saturday night in prime time, there was no queue at all.

They have been acting as a black box and asking us to take their word for it and... I'm just not going to. Nothing about this (or really any of their actions over the last ~year or so) has been transparent and they've frankly burned through my willingness to simply take their word for it.

Furthermore, the point cannot be emphasized enough that this was framed as a performance test and not as a referendum on the future of Cyrodiil. As such, nobody who favored the status quo bothered to submit feedback since they all assumed that, unless significant performance increases were found, things would revert back to the way that they had always been. If this had been framed truthfully from the beginning, I highly doubt that the outcome would have been so decisive that it would have made this outcome possible.

Aleinzzs · March 2021

Soulshine wrote: »

What is weird about this (for me) is that there is no mention of proc sets being banned in battlegrounds (or if there was a mention I missed it.) Kind of surprised this wasn't brought up since frankly, I do think the whining about these sets is far more loud from people there than in Cyro, but maybe I am mistaken.

Battlegrounds are one place where "death by proc" is now the norm; it's so over the top noticeable since the area is small and with so few people that I can see why some say it completely undermined the concept of battlegrounds to begin with; they are supposed to be a place where you can go without all the miles long zerg fests of Cyro to go toe-to-toe with other players, not with other player's proc sets.

That said, it seems like for testing how much load they actually generate it would be easier to see from a battleground test since the numbers are more controllable and the data packets coming back more specific to players vs all the equipment, NPCs, etc. wouldn't it?

This is what i honestly dont understand, procs are truly cancerous in bg's. Yet for some reason people act like it's cyro thats the issue. Proc sets in cyro are fine, when it isn't laggy. The problem is, when cyro lags out, and you get hit by 4 proc set ticks and 5 other swings, then your death report just shows something like "hunters venom" or "flame blossom".

If the overall lag in cyro wasn't so terrible people could probably have dealt with proc sets with much fewer issues.

Taking proc sets into bg's though, is just funny, i took a warden in there, he doesn't die. and because of no cp, everyone else can die due to just proc sets. if anything they're truly a problem in non cp content like battlegrounds.

tomofhyrule · March 2021

I think the issue is that these pseudo-proc sets like Seducer were programmed as procs - as in "if cast = ability, cost = cost - 10%" or whatever. The problem is that without any procs, that also precludes those.

I'm sure that

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

At that point, we will have implemented some new code so we can have more flexibility to campaign rulesets as it applies to proc sets.

means that they'll be rewriting the code for these pseudo-proc sets to be actually not proc sets, and then there will be more than 19 sets for the 'no-proc' campaigns. We know the functionality is there from enchants like the glyphs of reduce spell cost, so I bet they just need to rewrite those pseudo-proc sets into non-procs.

Luckylancer · March 2021

OlumoGarbag wrote: »

I personally think % ressources sets or proc stat sets like necropotence or fury arent a big issue.
@ZOS_GinaBruno pls give the community some place to vote for and give feedback without biased polls.

Furry is a proc set. Period.

Non-proc sets:
1. Have to be permanent effect
2. If not permanent, it should meant to be permanent by design (necropotence, bone pirate etc.)

When a set have active time and down time, players become tankier. "Enemy have clever alchemist? I need to survive that 20 second with 600 bonus damage rather than a permanent 300 damage from crafted set. But I will use a set like furry so my survival is rewarded with bonus damage." This needs to go.

AhSeLYaG · March 2021

İ only play magblade in pvp , either as a bomber or a ganker; if they removr vicious death or caluurion and leave the class as weak as its compared to almost every other class. Bb eso

Artorias24 · March 2021

I would love to see every proc set disabled in pvp that directly deal damage or heal, forever. That would make PvP so much better.

Incursion · March 2021

The whole idea of a no proc set cyrodiil is pointless. If the proc sets are over tuned which they are lower the damage or put a longer cool down to where you need to be more careful on when to use them and not every 4 seconds. To take out the games most defining positive which is its build diversity is really a poor choice. I dont know maybe I have played this game too long but I found building a setup that was out of the current meta to be the most fun part of this game.

SshadowSscale · March 2021

Incursion wrote: »

The whole idea of a no proc set cyrodiil is pointless. If the proc sets are over tuned which they are lower the damage or put a longer cool down to where you need to be more careful on when to use them and not every 4 seconds. To take out the games most defining positive which is its build diversity is really a poor choice. I dont know maybe I have played this game too long but I found building a setup that was out of the current meta to be the most fun part of this game.

Problem is as soon as you ask for a nerf to procs or a counter the proc lovers flock to the thread telling you that it's not op and that you should leave the procs alone.... I would not mind if procs could get balanced but we are not allowed to nerf them so I don't mind if they get deleted instead then....

ccfeeling · March 2021

The best and fair solution .

Everyone run the same build .

No more choices , only one build in Cyrodiil .

Incursion · March 2021

I mean you are right there is no solution that will please everyone but I have to believe limiting cyrodiil to 13 sets is really not the way to handle it. Changing malacath band to only effect skills and not proc sets is a very easy fix they could have done. I honestly dislike all damage proc sets as it in a lot of ways covers up mistakes players can make.

hands0medevil · March 2021

Funny how people are now mad and surprised that almost all sets in game are "procs". Next time carefully think what are you wishing for. Now, enjoy your 7 years old game with 10 sets working in core PVP mode.