Maintenance for the week of January 5:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 5
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 5
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
Dark Convergence and ball groups / solution
VvwvenomwvV
✭✭✭✭
I understand that Dark Convergence ( along with other sets ) were put into the game to deter ball groups from forming.
People complain that sets are OP, which will cause them to eventually get nerfed. Ball groups still run the show. Then to make things worse, ball groups will all start using the same sets designed to stop them.
I have a simple solution: Add to Battle Spirit a diminishing return on sets if in the same group with people running the same exact sets within the same area.
This would deter groups from abusing it / forming ball groups with it.
This might also prevent future nerfs on sets.
People complain that sets are OP, which will cause them to eventually get nerfed. Ball groups still run the show. Then to make things worse, ball groups will all start using the same sets designed to stop them.
I have a simple solution: Add to Battle Spirit a diminishing return on sets if in the same group with people running the same exact sets within the same area.
This would deter groups from abusing it / forming ball groups with it.
This might also prevent future nerfs on sets.
1
-
NoodleESO✭✭✭✭✭I like your idea, but why not grey out the set and cancel the effects if anyone in the group is running the same set.
Otherwise there is nothing stopping people from backbaring DC and keeping the full effect of the set when they're on their front bar.
your idea also promotes build diversity and that's always a good thing.0 -
Yasha✭✭✭✭✭The best solution is to just take dark convergence out of pvp, it is completely OP and the most riduculous thing that has been inflicted onn the player base to date.6 -
jedtb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭VvwvenomwvV wrote: »I understand that Dark Convergence ( along with other sets ) were put into the game to deter ball groups from forming.
People complain that sets are OP, which will cause them to eventually get nerfed. Ball groups still run the show. Then to make things worse, ball groups will all start using the same sets designed to stop them.
I have a simple solution: Add to Battle Spirit a diminishing return on sets if in the same group with people running the same exact sets within the same area.
This would deter groups from abusing it / forming ball groups with it.
This might also prevent future nerfs on sets.
look at the pts patch notes0 -
NoodleESO✭✭✭✭✭The best solution is to just take dark convergence out of pvp, it is completely OP and the most riduculous thing that has been inflicted onn the player base to date.
Ye but if we go with OP's idea the number of toxic sets will be limited by the number of groups. Therefore ""ball groups"" will only have one source of the set while unorganized solo players will have multiple.
this is what should have been done since earthgore to even the odds and not rebalance a whole game because of 2 sets every 3 months.0 -
Yasha✭✭✭✭✭The best solution is to just take dark convergence out of pvp, it is completely OP and the most riduculous thing that has been inflicted onn the player base to date.
Ye but if we go with OP's idea the number of toxic sets will be limited by the number of groups. Therefore ""ball groups"" will only have one source of the set while unorganized solo players will have multiple.
this is what should have been done since earthgore to even the odds and not rebalance a whole game because of 2 sets every 3 months.
Just imagine that DC proc was a character skill, maybe that will put things into perspective.0 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭VvwvenomwvV wrote: »I understand that Dark Convergence ( along with other sets ) were put into the game to deter ball groups from forming.
People complain that sets are OP, which will cause them to eventually get nerfed. Ball groups still run the show. Then to make things worse, ball groups will all start using the same sets designed to stop them.
I have a simple solution: Add to Battle Spirit a diminishing return on sets if in the same group with people running the same exact sets within the same area.
This would deter groups from abusing it / forming ball groups with it.
This might also prevent future nerfs on sets.
The problem with this is it would add 12 additional checks for each group member for the server to constantly do. It would also make the server calculate the scaling reduced damage per individual and would have to take into account a distancing check.0 -
AuraStorm43✭✭✭✭✭You can’t completely solve the “ball group” problem, there will always be organized groups lol2
-
joseayalac✭✭✭✭✭
✭I mean, why wouldn't organized groups run the show? They're more and they're organized and playing with synergy, they're obviously going to win.1 -
kargen27✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭There is a bit of a misconception here. Ball groups are not necessarily members of the same group. There are often a lot of tag alongs. And we all know the work around. Get into Discord don't group and still run the ball if you are an organized ball group.
An organized guild in Discord isn't going to care if they are one group of twelve or three groups of four. A PUG group would suffer where an organized group would not.and then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."1 -
VvwvenomwvV✭✭✭✭I would also like to add that if my idea was implemented it would help solve the PvE vs PvP debate for good!
Here's why: Battle Spirt only affects PvP. This way if a set is being abused in PvP and gets a nerf, it won't affect the PvE side of it. Too often this is the case.
Attaching sets to Battle Spirit to prevent ball groups from abusing it also helps with not having to nerf everything because of abusers, and it separates PvE from PvP.
Yes, I understand that it would require "checks" but it should require checks. By using these checks, it could limit, and or give diminishing returns on the number of procs of the same thing within certain area. This would balance out and solve a lot of the problems we all have.0
