"Proc" sets to be used in PvP

AhSeLYaG · March 2021

hands0medevil wrote: »

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.

+++1

hands0medevil · March 2021

ccfeeling wrote: »

The best and fair solution .

Everyone run the same build .

No more choices , only one build in Cyrodiil .

one cyrodiil, one build, isn't it beautiful

sounds like amazing DLC name.

starkerealm · March 2021

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

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

They just did when they extended the duration.

They didn't give us the numbers, they almost never do that. We don't even know what the population cap in Cyrodiil is. However, for them to decide to extend the proc set lockout, certainly suggests that they're happy with something about the results.

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

My subject experience checking the Ravenwatch population levels...

Is irrelevant. You can have legitimate reservations about the lack of transparency, but, ultimately, they have far better knowledge about the overall state of the game than you do. You cannot give me an accurate number of how many people queued into a campaign during the event. You can't even make a reasonable guess. All you can do is offer a krill sample and say, "there wasn't a queue at this specific moment." But, that doesn't provide any long term, meaningful data.

Extending the test is proof. If this was hurting the PvP community's numbers in any meaningful way, it would have been terminated.

I'm entirely willing to believe that the "hardcore" PvPers who are throwing a tantrum may have, in fact, left PvP, only to be replaced by at least as many, if not more, players who were driven from the format by month after month of Crimson Wolf builds.

Master_Fluff · March 2021

One build to farm them all
In the land of No-Procs
Where the zerg-balls lie

Seems interesting...

Zer0_CooL · March 2021

Is there an article about the topic? And are procs disabled for IC aswell?

oscarovegren · March 2021

They will probably add stat/buff sets to no proc campaigns. The reason why it takes time is the coding which determine which sets are allowed and which isn´t allowed. I hope we will see BSW, daedric trickery, clever alch, balorgh, bloodspawn, war maiden, master destro, arkasis and so on soon in no-proc cyro

WaywardArgonian · March 2021

On the topic of population increase, I did not experience this at all, but I have only one server to go by (PC-EU). However, I'd like to know if ZOS's perceived population increase was relative to just regular Cyrodiil, or also relative to previous tests. Double AP shouldn't be ignored as a factor that draws players in, and I'm curious to see how this will affect the population going forward.

Another thing I wonder is how they are going to communicate this to new players, because I doubt that disabling the gear they earned from DLCs in the primary PVP zone is going to be felt intuitively. That's actually my biggest question. Even if the majority of current players are in favor of no-proc Cyro (and that's a big if), how will it affect the long-term health of Cyrodiil PVP when it comes to a steady supply of new players? Will the increased accessibility even out the fact that most of their gear won't work for no particular reason? We'll see, I guess.

zaria · March 2021

Juhasow 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.

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

It was however the devs talked about making it the default all over if they went for it.
Now I'm very surprised they extend no proc sets half a year. I say I enjoyed it but the limit feel very low and was pretty much an quick test.

Juhasow · March 2021

zaria wrote: »

Juhasow 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.

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

It was however the devs talked about making it the default all over if they went for it.
Now I'm very surprised they extend no proc sets half a year. I say I enjoyed it but the limit feel very low and was pretty much an quick test.

Can You provide any source of devs saying something like that. Because every official comment they've made was talking that it'll be change strictly for Cyrodill and the goal was to improve PvP performance. It looks more like someone twisted their words or spread rumor based on some conspiracy theory rather then devs really said anything about expanding that change to PvE. And people sure like to twist devs words and add additional context to them.

Both here

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/539136/update-on-cyrodiil-performance-upcoming-aoe-tests/p1

and here

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/544305/details-for-aoe-testing-in-cyrodiil

nothing is being said that results of those tests would affect PvE. ZoS made it clear it was tested specifically for improving Cyrodill performance. In PvE performanmce is simply not being diminished by people spamming AoE abilities so it would make completly no sense to implement that to PvE. Sounds really like false gossip to me.

YandereGirlfriend · March 2021

starkerealm wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

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

They just did when they extended the duration.

They didn't give us the numbers, they almost never do that. We don't even know what the population cap in Cyrodiil is. However, for them to decide to extend the proc set lockout, certainly suggests that they're happy with something about the results.

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

My subject experience checking the Ravenwatch population levels...

Is irrelevant. You can have legitimate reservations about the lack of transparency, but, ultimately, they have far better knowledge about the overall state of the game than you do. You cannot give me an accurate number of how many people queued into a campaign during the event. You can't even make a reasonable guess. All you can do is offer a krill sample and say, "there wasn't a queue at this specific moment." But, that doesn't provide any long term, meaningful data.

Extending the test is proof. If this was hurting the PvP community's numbers in any meaningful way, it would have been terminated.

I'm entirely willing to believe that the "hardcore" PvPers who are throwing a tantrum may have, in fact, left PvP, only to be replaced by at least as many, if not more, players who were driven from the format by month after month of Crimson Wolf builds.

My experience is subjective, that's why I cited it as such. It is, however, the only data that I have access to. And that could easily be solved or placed into better context with some actual metrics from ZOS themselves. Not releasing data is their choice - other developers do it and it does not seem to harm them but ZOS actively chooses not to. I wonder why that is? Remember when they promised better communication with the players - yeah, we all do and nothing ever came of it.

But using the blatant "appeal to authority" fallacy to try to retrofit a justification for this move belies a losing argument. I have no more reason to believe the narrative of "Non-Proc PvP is so much more popular!" than I would to believe "There is no war in Ba Sing Se." ZOS has any number of plausible motivations that might have led to this decision, it being genuinely popular is only one of them.

And, of course, it must forever be remembered that this was not an honest feedback process. It was pitched to the players as solely a performance test and not, as I have said before, not as a referendum on the future of Cyrodiil. Had players actually been aware that such cataclysmic changes were even up for discussion, the process would have played out entirely differently. This was, at its essence, an election where only one side showed up (...because the other had no idea that there was even an election going on). Layer on top of this the Double AP event and you have so much noise introduced to this "test" that it is impossible to determine the actual signal.

starkerealm · March 2021

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

I have no more reason to believe the narrative of "Non-Proc PvP is so much more popular!" than...

Then you have no argument, just a tantrum based solely on the idea that Brian wants to watch you cry on the forums. It's absurd.

If you accept the idea that Proc sets do not contribute to Cyrodiil lag, then there is no performance reason to keep them turned off.

If you do not accept the idea that this has proven to be a very popular ruleset, then there is no non-performance reason to keep them in place.

If you do not accept the idea that they're still turned off.. then what? That it's all some elaborate conspiracy?

That they're pretending things are better to intentionally kill off the PvP community?

I mean, really, if we assume that this is a deliberate act, to what end?

PvPers are already announcing they're not interested in any of the new content this year because the proc set rules mean none of the new sets are meaningful for them. That's lost money up front. The extension has caused some to depart the community in grand displays. Again, that's lost revenue.

Which brings us back to, why?

If you're going to do something, especially as part of a game with somewhere around 1m active daily users, "for the lulz" doesn't really cut it.

So, why?

They've given us an explanation. If that's not true, then what are the alternatives? Malice? Incompetence?

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

And, of course, it must forever be remembered that this was not an honest feedback process.

This is, ironically, the most honest feedback process possible. When this was originally proposed, a lot of people expressed immediate, and genuine, excitement for the ruleset. Even people who understood just how restricted it was going to be.

When you solicit feedback, you have the opportunity to shape the narrative. However, when you have people going, "no, this is something I want," without prompting. Especially when the expectation was (probably) the same grumbling that has accompanied previous tests. Yeah, that's some pretty honest feedback.

Unless of course you're planning to spin up some other conspiracy theory here. That a community which can barely form a consensus on whether it's rude to clean out a chest before moving on, or whether it's appropriate to simply queue as a healer, when you're clearly a DPS ("because nobody needs a healer") somehow unified their voices to mess with the PvPers.

ZOS_ConnorG · March 2021

Greetings all,

There is a bit of back and forth going on in this thread as well as there being other version of this thread, because of this we have closed the thread. If you wish to continue the discussion you may do so here.