Do you really need proc effects and PvE skills in PvP?

Amottica · March 25

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

You could say the same thing for PvE. Does PvE really need all these flashy sets that degrade performance?. We should´ve a "vengeance" PvE test to see if performance would improve there as well.

I dont think PvE people are complaining.

The sets were created for novelty, to sell DLC, and to use in trials and dungoens.

This is not a PVE problem. Your arguement is, "If we can't have nice things, then you shouldn't be able to have nice things."

and we can easily say the same about PvP since the overwhelming number of Cyrodiil players chose a campaign that allowed procs when there was a choice.

Procs are here to stay. Players already voted and Zenimax heard that loud and clear and the response in this thread making that reality even clearer for Zenimax that it eliminating procs from a campaign was a poor choice to start with.

ImmortalCX · March 25

Amottica wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

You could say the same thing for PvE. Does PvE really need all these flashy sets that degrade performance?. We should´ve a "vengeance" PvE test to see if performance would improve there as well.

I dont think PvE people are complaining.

The sets were created for novelty, to sell DLC, and to use in trials and dungoens.

This is not a PVE problem. Your arguement is, "If we can't have nice things, then you shouldn't be able to have nice things."

and we can easily say the same about PvP since the overwhelming number of Cyrodiil players chose a campaign that allowed procs when there was a choice.

Procs are here to stay. Players already voted and Zenimax heard that loud and clear and the response in this thread making that reality even clearer for Zenimax that it eliminating procs from a campaign was a poor choice to start with.

The people who want the system to continue working as is are nervous. Here and on the reddit, they are all screaming to counterbalance all the positive posts about the test. You are acting as if it has been settled, like you are privy to the design team meetings at ZOS.

Its inevitable. Something is going to change.

xylena_lazarow · March 25

Counterpoint: what's so interesting about stat sets? You pick the biggest or most dense numbers, maybe with regard to a class synergy. Done. Repeat every time something is released with slightly bigger numbers. Like yeah I'm totally running to buy the new DLC because it has Hunding's Revenge: now with 400 wep dmg instead of 300.

kargen27 · March 25

ImmortalCX wrote: »

SwimsWithMemes wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Vengence campaign has shown player base that by removing sets and skills with procs that lag isn't much of a problem. This was a smart move. Does PvP really need these things anyway?
The solution is in sight. And I expect this is where they are going with it:

1) Remove any proc effects from sets in PvP. PvE sets will work, except that many will be underwhelming when they lose their proc. Chose your sets accordingly. Also, provide mythic PVP sets that have a very useful 5-piece effect for PvP, so that players have something to work towards.

2) Provide specific PvP skills that are tested and balanced for PvP. Call them "vengeance skills". They will be a collection of PvP specific skills like Assault, that also include offensive skills. These skills do not work outside of PvP zones. Some of the vengeance skills are only available to a particular class (and are inspired by the class skill lines), while other skills are available to any class.

What this would do is create distinct class archetypes, but with some flexibility in skill selection. And everything would be tested for:

1) Balance

2) Performance

This is probably the best possible outcome. And I don't see it being an unrealistic amount of work.

Just remove proc sets from the game entirely, they probably contribute to lag in trials.

PvE and PvP should have the same gear that works in the same way. Some might be better in or the other of course, but as a player if I venture into any map I should really be able to expect my gear to be functionally the same.

I don't mind if they "convert" gear you are wearing to a simplified build, though.

But what if they can't get that working? And they have had ten years, so it's unlikely.

Would having specific PvP sets be that bad?

Yes PvP specific sets would be bad for the game. It would take away incentive for PvP players to participate in PvE activities. That isn't good for the long term health of the game. having crossover between PvE and PvP is good for the game.

ImmortalCX · March 26

kargen27 wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

SwimsWithMemes wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Vengence campaign has shown player base that by removing sets and skills with procs that lag isn't much of a problem. This was a smart move. Does PvP really need these things anyway?
The solution is in sight. And I expect this is where they are going with it:

1) Remove any proc effects from sets in PvP. PvE sets will work, except that many will be underwhelming when they lose their proc. Chose your sets accordingly. Also, provide mythic PVP sets that have a very useful 5-piece effect for PvP, so that players have something to work towards.

2) Provide specific PvP skills that are tested and balanced for PvP. Call them "vengeance skills". They will be a collection of PvP specific skills like Assault, that also include offensive skills. These skills do not work outside of PvP zones. Some of the vengeance skills are only available to a particular class (and are inspired by the class skill lines), while other skills are available to any class.

What this would do is create distinct class archetypes, but with some flexibility in skill selection. And everything would be tested for:

1) Balance

2) Performance

This is probably the best possible outcome. And I don't see it being an unrealistic amount of work.

Just remove proc sets from the game entirely, they probably contribute to lag in trials.

PvE and PvP should have the same gear that works in the same way. Some might be better in or the other of course, but as a player if I venture into any map I should really be able to expect my gear to be functionally the same.

I don't mind if they "convert" gear you are wearing to a simplified build, though.

But what if they can't get that working? And they have had ten years, so it's unlikely.

Would having specific PvP sets be that bad?

Yes PvP specific sets would be bad for the game. It would take away incentive for PvP players to participate in PvE activities. That isn't good for the long term health of the game. having crossover between PvE and PvP is good for the game.

If Dungeons dropped PvP gear that I knew to be competitive, I would run them and then try PVP again.

The problem is that PvP requires very specific setups and there isn't any crossover. If I know I could just throw on a PvP set and jump into battlegrounds and have it be a skill based competition, not just getting zerged or focued by a ball, I think I would enjoy it.

Amottica · March 26

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

You could say the same thing for PvE. Does PvE really need all these flashy sets that degrade performance?. We should´ve a "vengeance" PvE test to see if performance would improve there as well.

I dont think PvE people are complaining.

The sets were created for novelty, to sell DLC, and to use in trials and dungoens.

This is not a PVE problem. Your arguement is, "If we can't have nice things, then you shouldn't be able to have nice things."

and we can easily say the same about PvP since the overwhelming number of Cyrodiil players chose a campaign that allowed procs when there was a choice.

Procs are here to stay. Players already voted and Zenimax heard that loud and clear and the response in this thread making that reality even clearer for Zenimax that it eliminating procs from a campaign was a poor choice to start with.

The people who want the system to continue working as is are nervous. Here and on the reddit, they are all screaming to counterbalance all the positive posts about the test. You are acting as if it has been settled, like you are privy to the design team meetings at ZOS.

Its inevitable. Something is going to change.

I am wise enough to not speak for the entire group though no one here seems nervous about anything. I certainly am not.

Comments about this test and the suggestion to eliminate proc sets from Cyrodiil are two very different topics making comparison meaningless.

An yes, I am acting as though the PvP player base has spoken loudly eliminating procs from PvP. Spoken loudly in Cyrodiil and in this thread.

My comment concerning Zenimax is that they clearly heard us on this issue because they killed the no-proc campaign. In other words, based on a historical fact.

Again, the no-proc campaign was not a desirable campaign. The majority spoke with a solid and loud voice did not want any part of that no-proc campaign. Another historical fact.

BXR_Lonestar · March 26

@ImmortalCX

My bias is that I don't have respect for people who play a pvp game that is based on weird combinations of gear that become overpowered. But I recognize that these people are all who is remaining in eso pvp, because there skill based games are numberous.

So do nothing then! Devs should just put in the earplugs and say F-lag.

But I suspect the number of people who migrated to New World or other rpg for its more competitive pvp are larger than the group remaining in low pop eso campaigns. And as I don't have respect that kind of player, I would rather they fix the lag by removing procs. Maybe get back the people who left for better pvp systems. I would rather play with those people anyway.

From a lag prospective, all of the things people complain about now we used to have before, and worse, when we were able to run with groups of 24, and I don't remember the lag being a dominant issue. Heal stacking was an issue, proc sets were an issue, people were still comping out back then with the sets that were available for coordinated play. And I will tell you that the times I lag the worst is not when we're in ballgroup vs. ballgroup combat - but when we're in combat and there is a massive amount of siege involved. Which quite frankly sucks because I absolutely love the siege combat of Cyro - its one of the things that keeps me coming back.

That said, I'm not saying "F lag." I'm just saying that they can't go about making tons of changes in an effort to fix things if it is ultimately going to kill the golden goose. Now one of the things that I think they could do to improve performance in Cyrodil without drastic changes is to just eliminate support for older generation consoles. I used to have all kinds of lag problems (compounded by the fact that I have country internet) but nearly ALL of those issues went away the moment I bout my Series X console. 95-99% reduction in lag, graphic lag, and other issues that I would experience nearly at all times on old gen consoles.

I'm wondering how many people complaining about lag are still playing on an older gen console that simply has limited or insufficient processing power to play in Cyrodil in prime time. Moreover, I'm wondering if these consoles aren't creating a data processing bottleneck such that it is causing others to lag, even if they have a newer console?

And dropping support for the old-gen consoles would not be unprecedented in a long-lived MMO like this game. In World of WarCraft, you would have to constantly upgrade your PC to meet the latest requirements for each new DLC/Expansion or potentially suffer performance issues as your PC's processing power is slowly overwhelmed.

Certainly I would be more curious as to whether elimination of older consoles would do more to improve performance in Cyrodil than I am about eliminating core gameplay principals that most of the current regular Cyrodil population enjoys.

ImmortalCX · March 26

One of the recent threads calculated about 300 people peak playing pvp. Its a tiny group of people.

BXR_Lonestar wrote: »

@ImmortalCX

My bias is that I don't have respect for people who play a pvp game that is based on weird combinations of gear that become overpowered. But I recognize that these people are all who is remaining in eso pvp, because there skill based games are numberous.

So do nothing then! Devs should just put in the earplugs and say F-lag.

But I suspect the number of people who migrated to New World or other rpg for its more competitive pvp are larger than the group remaining in low pop eso campaigns. And as I don't have respect that kind of player, I would rather they fix the lag by removing procs. Maybe get back the people who left for better pvp systems. I would rather play with those people anyway.

That said, I'm not saying "F lag." I'm just saying that they can't go about making tons of changes in an effort to fix things if it is ultimately going to kill the golden goose. Now one of the things that I think they could do to improve performance in Cyrodil without drastic changes is to just eliminate support for older generation consoles. I used to have all kinds of lag problems (compounded by the fact that I have country internet) but nearly ALL of those issues went away the moment I bout my Series X console. 95-99% reduction in lag, graphic lag, and other issues that I would experience nearly at all times on old gen consoles.

You do realize this is psychotic?

On one hand you say they can't remove procs because it would "kill the golden goose."

Yet on the other hand you say they should just remove old console players?

PS4 was released a year before ESO. This is a ten year old game, many of the people with old consoles are probably still playing ESO because they don't have access to newer games.

Joy_Division · March 26

Amottica wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

You could say the same thing for PvE. Does PvE really need all these flashy sets that degrade performance?. We should´ve a "vengeance" PvE test to see if performance would improve there as well.

I dont think PvE people are complaining.

The sets were created for novelty, to sell DLC, and to use in trials and dungoens.

This is not a PVE problem. Your arguement is, "If we can't have nice things, then you shouldn't be able to have nice things."

and we can easily say the same about PvP since the overwhelming number of Cyrodiil players chose a campaign that allowed procs when there was a choice.

Procs are here to stay. Players already voted and Zenimax heard that loud and clear and the response in this thread making that reality even clearer for Zenimax that it eliminating procs from a campaign was a poor choice to start with.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

I chose to play in the default zerg campaign because campaigns with small populations (read: all the other campaigns) are boring. Nothing to do with procs. If the default zerg campaign was no proc, that's where I would play. That choice too should not be interpreted as a vote against procs.

It's not voting one way or the other.

It's also not quite as simple as a binary: I like procs or I hate procs. The Ravenwatch campaign which disables prcos had a very broad and confusing definition of what a proc set was. For example, a mediocre set like Ayleid Refuge whose "proc" is clearly just an assuming set bonus and not an active effect that disrupts gameplay, is not allowed. I like sets like Ayleid Refuge and Bloodspawn. I hate sets like Rush of Agony or the old Sload's Semblance. Does that make me a "proc" hater?

I'm pretty sure that when most complaints are raised about proc sets, it is meant to be taken as a complaint against certain and specific highly disruptive/powerful procs, rather than against the philosophy or having procs. There have been proc sets since the very first fantasy RPG game was developed. They are for the most part fine and add interesting elements to what otherwise might be a dull aspect when it comes to gear. Procs only become a source of complaint when they are so powerful that the procs begin to define the hero we are supposed to pretend to play rather than the hero herself.

tomofhyrule · March 26

ImmortalCX wrote: »

One of the recent threads calculated about 300 people peak playing pvp. Its a tiny group of people.

BXR_Lonestar wrote: »

@ImmortalCX

My bias is that I don't have respect for people who play a pvp game that is based on weird combinations of gear that become overpowered. But I recognize that these people are all who is remaining in eso pvp, because there skill based games are numberous.

So do nothing then! Devs should just put in the earplugs and say F-lag.

But I suspect the number of people who migrated to New World or other rpg for its more competitive pvp are larger than the group remaining in low pop eso campaigns. And as I don't have respect that kind of player, I would rather they fix the lag by removing procs. Maybe get back the people who left for better pvp systems. I would rather play with those people anyway.

That said, I'm not saying "F lag." I'm just saying that they can't go about making tons of changes in an effort to fix things if it is ultimately going to kill the golden goose. Now one of the things that I think they could do to improve performance in Cyrodil without drastic changes is to just eliminate support for older generation consoles. I used to have all kinds of lag problems (compounded by the fact that I have country internet) but nearly ALL of those issues went away the moment I bout my Series X console. 95-99% reduction in lag, graphic lag, and other issues that I would experience nearly at all times on old gen consoles.

You do realize this is psychotic?

On one hand you say they can't remove procs because it would "kill the golden goose."

Yet on the other hand you say they should just remove old console players?

PS4 was released a year before ESO. This is a ten year old game, many of the people with old consoles are probably still playing ESO because they don't have access to newer games.

The problem here is that the last-gen console limitations are actually factors stifling a lot of things for this game. And not just PvP: it’s also why we have strict housing limits, it’s also referenced in animation overhead (which was why the addition of the Arcanist class required things like the removal of character-based tracking)

Yes, the XB1/PS4 came out a year before ESO. But ESO has grown more and more complicated since then, and those consoles are showing their age since they can’t be expanded. Don’t forget that while PCs can be upgraded with parts, consoles don’t have that option and are designed to be replaced by the next version every 10 years or so. These consoles are out of production and have been for years, and even the current-gen XB1X/PS5 have been out for 5 years or so (which is half of their lifetime! They’re even starting to talk about PS6!). At this point, the last-gen consoles are no longer being supported even by their own companies.

ESO has also updated the recommended specs for PC a few times now, so even PC players are not expected to still be playing on the same thing they started on by now. Support for things like many Mac versions was also ended.

It’s honestly time. Everyone who has upgraded from PS4 to 5 has been amazed by the fact that a lot of lag went away, showing that the player’s hardware specs also play a role in how well the game runs. And then, if ESO wasn’t shackled by trying to keep compatibility, the game might be able to add new things without sacrificing what we already have.

XIIICaesar · March 26

Kappachi wrote: »

Yes. I only play PvP because it's the same as the rest of the game. ESO's build customization is unmatched by any other game and that extends into PvP, if they remove it from cyrodiil then I'd probably never visit again and just stick to bgs.

If you want what you're describing with specific PvP sets then what you want is Guild Wars 2's Structred PvP, not ESO's super customizable PvP with unrivaled depth.

GW2 sPvP stat templates & similar is only a step away from what Vengeance is right now. It wouldn't be so bad. You'd still have build diversity & options as well as balance because all of it would only be in Cyrodiil//IC.

spartaxoxo · March 26

tomofhyrule wrote: »

While reinventing the wheel is not usually the best course of action, maybe we'd need to see first why the first one failed instead of just coming in and claiming that it's a ticket to success, when it demonstrably was not.

I think they did that prematurely. PvP population plummeted due to bad performance. Reinstating the procs did not seem to make that campaign significantly more popular. I think there was just not enough people interested in PvP at all (due to performance and lack of content) to justify so many different campaigns.

KiltMaster · March 26

ImmortalCX wrote: »

1) Remove any proc effects from sets in PvP. PvE sets will work, except that many will be underwhelming when they lose their proc. Chose your sets accordingly. Also, provide mythic PVP sets that have a very useful 5-piece effect for PvP, so that players have something to work towards.

This is how it is in Ravenwatch [no proc, no cp], which is 90% dead whilst Greyhost will be poplocked on the weekends with a 80+ queue.

ImmortalCX · March 26

tomofhyrule wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

One of the recent threads calculated about 300 people peak playing pvp. Its a tiny group of people.

BXR_Lonestar wrote: »

@ImmortalCX

My bias is that I don't have respect for people who play a pvp game that is based on weird combinations of gear that become overpowered. But I recognize that these people are all who is remaining in eso pvp, because there skill based games are numberous.

So do nothing then! Devs should just put in the earplugs and say F-lag.

But I suspect the number of people who migrated to New World or other rpg for its more competitive pvp are larger than the group remaining in low pop eso campaigns. And as I don't have respect that kind of player, I would rather they fix the lag by removing procs. Maybe get back the people who left for better pvp systems. I would rather play with those people anyway.

That said, I'm not saying "F lag." I'm just saying that they can't go about making tons of changes in an effort to fix things if it is ultimately going to kill the golden goose. Now one of the things that I think they could do to improve performance in Cyrodil without drastic changes is to just eliminate support for older generation consoles. I used to have all kinds of lag problems (compounded by the fact that I have country internet) but nearly ALL of those issues went away the moment I bout my Series X console. 95-99% reduction in lag, graphic lag, and other issues that I would experience nearly at all times on old gen consoles.

You do realize this is psychotic?

On one hand you say they can't remove procs because it would "kill the golden goose."

Yet on the other hand you say they should just remove old console players?

PS4 was released a year before ESO. This is a ten year old game, many of the people with old consoles are probably still playing ESO because they don't have access to newer games.

The problem here is that the last-gen console limitations are actually factors stifling a lot of things for this game. And not just PvP: it’s also why we have strict housing limits, it’s also referenced in animation overhead (which was why the addition of the Arcanist class required things like the removal of character-based tracking)

Yes, the XB1/PS4 came out a year before ESO. But ESO has grown more and more complicated since then, and those consoles are showing their age since they can’t be expanded. Don’t forget that while PCs can be upgraded with parts, consoles don’t have that option and are designed to be replaced by the next version every 10 years or so. These consoles are out of production and have been for years, and even the current-gen XB1X/PS5 have been out for 5 years or so (which is half of their lifetime! They’re even starting to talk about PS6!). At this point, the last-gen consoles are no longer being supported even by their own companies.

ESO has also updated the recommended specs for PC a few times now, so even PC players are not expected to still be playing on the same thing they started on by now. Support for things like many Mac versions was also ended.

It’s honestly time. Everyone who has upgraded from PS4 to 5 has been amazed by the fact that a lot of lag went away, showing that the player’s hardware specs also play a role in how well the game runs. And then, if ESO wasn’t shackled by trying to keep compatibility, the game might be able to add new things without sacrificing what we already have.

Microsoft owns ZOS, so I wonder about their Playstation strategy. ESO is part of the xbox game pass.

I suspect they are trying to leverage ZOS expertise in MMO for their next generation game. ESO on GamePass is probably a lead in to people buying DLC/crowns.

The Cyrodil test may actually be for the next generation MMO they are working on, to gather data, rather than to improve ESO.

They will not tell anyone their true plans, but since there has been another MMO in development these past five years, and there has been a decline in quality of the major expansions since then, I suspect ESO will always be a lazy cash shop game.

All the creative energy at MSZOS is going to go into their new game. DO you think their best designers and developers want to work on ESO? Probably only on parts of technology that are going to be used in the new game.

Cutting PS4 players probably not on the menu. In retrospect, they will probably only make token changes to PVP. They will keep saying they are improving it like they have the past decade, but with little effect.

At this point, they should probably just periodically offer a 2 week Vengeance campaign out of every four weeks. Just rotate and see which is more popular. At least there would be variety.

KiltMaster · March 26

And not to mention taking PVE sets out of PVP [as well as the vengeance/ravenwatch game modes] goes directly against the "play your way" they've been marketing for 10 years.

tomofhyrule · March 26

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

While reinventing the wheel is not usually the best course of action, maybe we'd need to see first why the first one failed instead of just coming in and claiming that it's a ticket to success, when it demonstrably was not.

I think they did that prematurely. PvP population plummeted due to bad performance. Reinstating the procs did not seem to make that campaign significantly more popular. I think there was just not enough people interested in PvP at all (due to performance and lack of content) to justify so many different campaigns.

This is also a factor. The PvP population is much smaller than a lot of people want to admit, and as much as people want options, too many options will just lead to empty spaces.

See the current BG thing: people want the 4v4, and the 8v8, and the 4v4v4, and DM only, and objective only, and solo only, and group possibility…

The other problem with the Campaigns is balance, and that’s what killed PCNA Blackreach. It was the same rules as Grey Host but without the alliance lock, and it was pretty popular for a while. But then the balance got thrown off and it became a two-faction fight with EP permanently gated. All of the EP players were essentially forced to swap to Grey Host since they couldn’t get groups anywhere else, and then the other alliances started to dwindle as well. As a result, you have one Campaign which is permanently full with queues, and the other two that are basically empty because there’s no AP to gain outside of PvD.

spartaxoxo · March 26

KiltMaster wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

1) Remove any proc effects from sets in PvP. PvE sets will work, except that many will be underwhelming when they lose their proc. Chose your sets accordingly. Also, provide mythic PVP sets that have a very useful 5-piece effect for PvP, so that players have something to work towards.

This is how it is in Ravenwatch [no proc, no cp], which is 90% dead whilst Greyhost will be poplocked on the weekends with a 80+ queue.

Ravenwatch has procs and has had procs for a little while now.

Amottica · March 26

Joy_Division wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

You could say the same thing for PvE. Does PvE really need all these flashy sets that degrade performance?. We should´ve a "vengeance" PvE test to see if performance would improve there as well.

I dont think PvE people are complaining.

The sets were created for novelty, to sell DLC, and to use in trials and dungoens.

This is not a PVE problem. Your arguement is, "If we can't have nice things, then you shouldn't be able to have nice things."

and we can easily say the same about PvP since the overwhelming number of Cyrodiil players chose a campaign that allowed procs when there was a choice.

Procs are here to stay. Players already voted and Zenimax heard that loud and clear and the response in this thread making that reality even clearer for Zenimax that it eliminating procs from a campaign was a poor choice to start with.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

I chose to play in the default zerg campaign because campaigns with small populations (read: all the other campaigns) are boring. Nothing to do with procs. If the default zerg campaign was no proc, that's where I would play. That choice too should not be interpreted as a vote against procs.

It's not voting one way or the other.

It's also not quite as simple as a binary: I like procs or I hate procs. The Ravenwatch campaign which disables prcos had a very broad and confusing definition of what a proc set was. For example, a mediocre set like Ayleid Refuge whose "proc" is clearly just an assuming set bonus and not an active effect that disrupts gameplay, is not allowed. I like sets like Ayleid Refuge and Bloodspawn. I hate sets like Rush of Agony or the old Sload's Semblance. Does that make me a "proc" hater?

I'm pretty sure that when most complaints are raised about proc sets, it is meant to be taken as a complaint against certain and specific highly disruptive/powerful procs, rather than against the philosophy or having procs. There have been proc sets since the very first fantasy RPG game was developed. They are for the most part fine and add interesting elements to what otherwise might be a dull aspect when it comes to gear. Procs only become a source of complaint when they are so powerful that the procs begin to define the hero we are supposed to pretend to play rather than the hero herself.

But why does a campaign become the default campaign? Does Zenimax force players into it? Is there systemic bias in how the campaign selection process works? Or do players and raid leaders decide which campaign they prefer?

As for complaints about proc sets, it is no different than complaints about anything else in that it is really a combination of factors that are part of a build. So yes, this tends to not be as simple as most complaints make it out to be. I would also agree that Zenimax has struggled with balance in ESO but I doubt that will ever improve. Yes, balance is always an issue in MMORPGs but seems to be more so when choices are as varied as they are here.

Getsugatenso · March 26

Your truth is not mine and I love using all the game's resources in pvp

CatoUnchained · March 26

ImmortalCX wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

SwimsWithMemes wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Vengence campaign has shown player base that by removing sets and skills with procs that lag isn't much of a problem. This was a smart move. Does PvP really need these things anyway?
The solution is in sight. And I expect this is where they are going with it:

1) Remove any proc effects from sets in PvP. PvE sets will work, except that many will be underwhelming when they lose their proc. Chose your sets accordingly. Also, provide mythic PVP sets that have a very useful 5-piece effect for PvP, so that players have something to work towards.

2) Provide specific PvP skills that are tested and balanced for PvP. Call them "vengeance skills". They will be a collection of PvP specific skills like Assault, that also include offensive skills. These skills do not work outside of PvP zones. Some of the vengeance skills are only available to a particular class (and are inspired by the class skill lines), while other skills are available to any class.

What this would do is create distinct class archetypes, but with some flexibility in skill selection. And everything would be tested for:

1) Balance

2) Performance

This is probably the best possible outcome. And I don't see it being an unrealistic amount of work.

Just remove proc sets from the game entirely, they probably contribute to lag in trials.

PvE and PvP should have the same gear that works in the same way. Some might be better in or the other of course, but as a player if I venture into any map I should really be able to expect my gear to be functionally the same.

I don't mind if they "convert" gear you are wearing to a simplified build, though.

But what if they can't get that working? And they have had ten years, so it's unlikely.

Would having specific PvP sets be that bad?

Yes PvP specific sets would be bad for the game. It would take away incentive for PvP players to participate in PvE activities. That isn't good for the long term health of the game. having crossover between PvE and PvP is good for the game.

If Dungeons dropped PvP gear that I knew to be competitive, I would run them and then try PVP again.

The problem is that PvP requires very specific setups and there isn't any crossover. If I know I could just throw on a PvP set and jump into battlegrounds and have it be a skill based competition, not just getting zerged or focued by a ball, I think I would enjoy it.

Most of the best PvP gear comes from dungeons and trials in PvE land.

The_Meathead · March 26

ImmortalCX wrote: »

I dont play PvP in its current form, but if they had standardized gear and skills that were balanced and performed well, I would give it a look.

ImmortalCX, please forgive my use of you to illustrate a point. It has absolutely nothing to do with you personally, but your sentiment is one I've seen time and again in various games regarding PvP and specifically sweeping changes to existing gearing, customization, and the use of Templates in them.

Whenever someone says, "Gosh, that might actually get me to play some PvP" it often means, "I hate PvP and have always hated PvP, and if you catered to my level of play and preference for an easier/simplified system, I would cheer it on, maybe try it once or twice, and never play again." It's panned out that way in every MMO I've played.

Again, I don't mean you personally. You might be someone who's played a ton of PvP in ESO and just got disillusioned at some point, I have NO idea. I'm only addressing the general sentiment you expressed.

PvP should cater first and foremost to the players who have always participated, truly taken part, and will always do so. Dance with the one who brought you, as the saying goes. Growing the population with new faces is of course ideal but trying to do so by making something as bumper rails, mobile phone-level simple as Vengeance is NOT the way to retain a population. The game is too simple, the growth too limited. I see people saying, "Now it's all about skill!" without realizing how hamstrung actually skilled gameplay is, by the lack of speed or customization.

Right now, it's a fun novelty (for me too!) during the week of testing, but I hope ZOS doesn't take the VERY temporary enthusiasm or the 'I'd actually PvP if it was like this!' statements as proof it should ever be the norm.

Don't get me wrong, I'm REALLY hoping that this test results in the permanent reduction of Heals/shield stacking, because I detest the 10+ Vigor/etc junk we see with Ball Groups, but it's important to not wish for a removal of integral theory-crafting and build creation in PvP because the game would lack motivation very quickly without them.

ImmortalCX · March 26

The_Meathead wrote: »

ImmortalCX, please forgive my use of you to illustrate a point. It has absolutely nothing to do with you personally, but your sentiment is one I've seen time and again in various games regarding PvP and specifically sweeping changes to existing gearing, customization, and the use of Templates in them.

Whenever someone says, "Gosh, that might actually get me to play some PvP" it often means, "I hate PvP and have always hated PvP, and if you catered to my level of play and preference for an easier/simplified system, I would cheer it on, maybe try it once or twice, and never play again." It's panned out that way in every MMO I've played.

I am just estimating, but I probably had 500+ hours of PvP in WOW. I loved WOW Battlegrounds. You didn't need special gear, you could PUG in and play. There were better geared people, but you could still have an impact, and you didn't get one shotted.

I also have probably 3000+ hours into various first person shooters. And I am an avid Chess player.

ESO PvP is broken every time I have tried it. I mean, I get a kick out of it, but its *really* a bottom barrel PvP game. Cyrodil and IC are interesting for the scale and the fact that you can run PvE objectives there, that is about all that I find interesting. I have to go there on occasion for PVE objectives and events, but the gulf between a normal PVE build with yellow DLC gear and whatever the PVP players are running is immense.

If they could create an environment, where you farm some blue/purple drops in dungoen or at a vender, with a big flashing sign that says ***Wear this in PVP and you wont get stomped*** and if the game delivered on that promise, then I would add BGs into my daily rotation. PVP rewards in terms of transmute crystals are far superior so there is incentive to play it, but it is just plain bottom barrel PVP experience, from someone who has 25 years into PVP games.

You just have to trust that there are intelligent, experienced gamers who try ESO PVP and decide not to play because its bad. Not because skill issue or something else. The population is on life support because its a bad pvp game. Vengeance fixes lag and at least sorta levels the playing field. It gives a glimpse of what could be if they invested some brainpower into a complete redesign.

MorallyBipolar · March 26

ImmortalCX wrote: »

The_Meathead wrote: »

ImmortalCX, please forgive my use of you to illustrate a point. It has absolutely nothing to do with you personally, but your sentiment is one I've seen time and again in various games regarding PvP and specifically sweeping changes to existing gearing, customization, and the use of Templates in them.

Whenever someone says, "Gosh, that might actually get me to play some PvP" it often means, "I hate PvP and have always hated PvP, and if you catered to my level of play and preference for an easier/simplified system, I would cheer it on, maybe try it once or twice, and never play again." It's panned out that way in every MMO I've played.

I am just estimating, but I probably had 500+ hours of PvP in WOW. I loved WOW Battlegrounds. You didn't need special gear, you could PUG in and play. There were better geared people, but you could still have an impact, and you didn't get one shotted.

I also have probably 3000+ hours into various first person shooters. And I am an avid Chess player.

ESO PvP is broken every time I have tried it. I mean, I get a kick out of it, but its *really* a bottom barrel PvP game. Cyrodil and IC are interesting for the scale and the fact that you can run PvE objectives there, that is about all that I find interesting. I have to go there on occasion for PVE objectives and events, but the gulf between a normal PVE build with yellow DLC gear and whatever the PVP players are running is immense.

If they could create an environment, where you farm some blue/purple drops in dungoen or at a vender, with a big flashing sign that says ***Wear this in PVP and you wont get stomped*** and if the game delivered on that promise, then I would add BGs into my daily rotation. PVP rewards in terms of transmute crystals are far superior so there is incentive to play it, but it is just plain bottom barrel PVP experience, from someone who has 25 years into PVP games.

You just have to trust that there are intelligent, experienced gamers who try ESO PVP and decide not to play because its bad. Not because skill issue or something else. The population is on life support because its a bad pvp game. Vengeance fixes lag and at least sorta levels the playing field. It gives a glimpse of what could be if they invested some brainpower into a complete redesign.

Template only PvP will be the downfall of ESO PvP if they make it the only option. The original Cyrodiil PvP was and could be again the best PvP in the history of MMO's.

ImmortalCX · March 26

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

The_Meathead wrote: »

ImmortalCX, please forgive my use of you to illustrate a point. It has absolutely nothing to do with you personally, but your sentiment is one I've seen time and again in various games regarding PvP and specifically sweeping changes to existing gearing, customization, and the use of Templates in them.

Whenever someone says, "Gosh, that might actually get me to play some PvP" it often means, "I hate PvP and have always hated PvP, and if you catered to my level of play and preference for an easier/simplified system, I would cheer it on, maybe try it once or twice, and never play again." It's panned out that way in every MMO I've played.

I am just estimating, but I probably had 500+ hours of PvP in WOW. I loved WOW Battlegrounds. You didn't need special gear, you could PUG in and play. There were better geared people, but you could still have an impact, and you didn't get one shotted.

I also have probably 3000+ hours into various first person shooters. And I am an avid Chess player.

ESO PvP is broken every time I have tried it. I mean, I get a kick out of it, but its *really* a bottom barrel PvP game. Cyrodil and IC are interesting for the scale and the fact that you can run PvE objectives there, that is about all that I find interesting. I have to go there on occasion for PVE objectives and events, but the gulf between a normal PVE build with yellow DLC gear and whatever the PVP players are running is immense.

If they could create an environment, where you farm some blue/purple drops in dungoen or at a vender, with a big flashing sign that says ***Wear this in PVP and you wont get stomped*** and if the game delivered on that promise, then I would add BGs into my daily rotation. PVP rewards in terms of transmute crystals are far superior so there is incentive to play it, but it is just plain bottom barrel PVP experience, from someone who has 25 years into PVP games.

You just have to trust that there are intelligent, experienced gamers who try ESO PVP and decide not to play because its bad. Not because skill issue or something else. The population is on life support because its a bad pvp game. Vengeance fixes lag and at least sorta levels the playing field. It gives a glimpse of what could be if they invested some brainpower into a complete redesign.

Template only PvP will be the downfall of ESO PvP if they make it the only option. The original Cyrodiil PvP was and could be again the best PvP in the history of MMO's.

This would take some market research.

Word on the street is the New World and WOW both have larger PVP communities. What is it about those games that attracts PVP players?

I think the people who remain in ESO PVP are drawn to certain elements, but when ESO PVP is 1/20th or 1/100th the size of other PVP games, should those people be catered to?

ESO is a great PVE game with an interesting economy and plenty of single player questing and stories to enjoy.

Amottica · March 26

CatoUnchained wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

SwimsWithMemes wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Vengence campaign has shown player base that by removing sets and skills with procs that lag isn't much of a problem. This was a smart move. Does PvP really need these things anyway?
The solution is in sight. And I expect this is where they are going with it:

1) Remove any proc effects from sets in PvP. PvE sets will work, except that many will be underwhelming when they lose their proc. Chose your sets accordingly. Also, provide mythic PVP sets that have a very useful 5-piece effect for PvP, so that players have something to work towards.

2) Provide specific PvP skills that are tested and balanced for PvP. Call them "vengeance skills". They will be a collection of PvP specific skills like Assault, that also include offensive skills. These skills do not work outside of PvP zones. Some of the vengeance skills are only available to a particular class (and are inspired by the class skill lines), while other skills are available to any class.

What this would do is create distinct class archetypes, but with some flexibility in skill selection. And everything would be tested for:

1) Balance

2) Performance

This is probably the best possible outcome. And I don't see it being an unrealistic amount of work.

Just remove proc sets from the game entirely, they probably contribute to lag in trials.

PvE and PvP should have the same gear that works in the same way. Some might be better in or the other of course, but as a player if I venture into any map I should really be able to expect my gear to be functionally the same.

I don't mind if they "convert" gear you are wearing to a simplified build, though.

But what if they can't get that working? And they have had ten years, so it's unlikely.

Would having specific PvP sets be that bad?

Yes PvP specific sets would be bad for the game. It would take away incentive for PvP players to participate in PvE activities. That isn't good for the long term health of the game. having crossover between PvE and PvP is good for the game.

If Dungeons dropped PvP gear that I knew to be competitive, I would run them and then try PVP again.

The problem is that PvP requires very specific setups and there isn't any crossover. If I know I could just throw on a PvP set and jump into battlegrounds and have it be a skill based competition, not just getting zerged or focued by a ball, I think I would enjoy it.

Most of the best PvP gear comes from dungeons and trials in PvE land.

+1

MorallyBipolar · March 26

ImmortalCX wrote: »

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

The_Meathead wrote: »

ImmortalCX, please forgive my use of you to illustrate a point. It has absolutely nothing to do with you personally, but your sentiment is one I've seen time and again in various games regarding PvP and specifically sweeping changes to existing gearing, customization, and the use of Templates in them.

Whenever someone says, "Gosh, that might actually get me to play some PvP" it often means, "I hate PvP and have always hated PvP, and if you catered to my level of play and preference for an easier/simplified system, I would cheer it on, maybe try it once or twice, and never play again." It's panned out that way in every MMO I've played.

I am just estimating, but I probably had 500+ hours of PvP in WOW. I loved WOW Battlegrounds. You didn't need special gear, you could PUG in and play. There were better geared people, but you could still have an impact, and you didn't get one shotted.

I also have probably 3000+ hours into various first person shooters. And I am an avid Chess player.

ESO PvP is broken every time I have tried it. I mean, I get a kick out of it, but its *really* a bottom barrel PvP game. Cyrodil and IC are interesting for the scale and the fact that you can run PvE objectives there, that is about all that I find interesting. I have to go there on occasion for PVE objectives and events, but the gulf between a normal PVE build with yellow DLC gear and whatever the PVP players are running is immense.

If they could create an environment, where you farm some blue/purple drops in dungoen or at a vender, with a big flashing sign that says ***Wear this in PVP and you wont get stomped*** and if the game delivered on that promise, then I would add BGs into my daily rotation. PVP rewards in terms of transmute crystals are far superior so there is incentive to play it, but it is just plain bottom barrel PVP experience, from someone who has 25 years into PVP games.

You just have to trust that there are intelligent, experienced gamers who try ESO PVP and decide not to play because its bad. Not because skill issue or something else. The population is on life support because its a bad pvp game. Vengeance fixes lag and at least sorta levels the playing field. It gives a glimpse of what could be if they invested some brainpower into a complete redesign.

Template only PvP will be the downfall of ESO PvP if they make it the only option. The original Cyrodiil PvP was and could be again the best PvP in the history of MMO's.

This would take some market research.

Word on the street is the New World and WOW both have larger PVP communities. What is it about those games that attracts PVP players?

I think the people who remain in ESO PVP are drawn to certain elements, but when ESO PVP is 1/20th or 1/100th the size of other PVP games, should those people be catered to?

ESO is a great PVE game with an interesting economy and plenty of single player questing and stories to enjoy.

After reading many of your posts they can be boiled down to this singular statement I think. Judging by your numerous posts you just don't like PvP and want to see it removed from ESO.

Joy_Division · March 26

Amottica wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

You could say the same thing for PvE. Does PvE really need all these flashy sets that degrade performance?. We should´ve a "vengeance" PvE test to see if performance would improve there as well.

I dont think PvE people are complaining.

The sets were created for novelty, to sell DLC, and to use in trials and dungoens.

This is not a PVE problem. Your arguement is, "If we can't have nice things, then you shouldn't be able to have nice things."

and we can easily say the same about PvP since the overwhelming number of Cyrodiil players chose a campaign that allowed procs when there was a choice.

Procs are here to stay. Players already voted and Zenimax heard that loud and clear and the response in this thread making that reality even clearer for Zenimax that it eliminating procs from a campaign was a poor choice to start with.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

I chose to play in the default zerg campaign because campaigns with small populations (read: all the other campaigns) are boring. Nothing to do with procs. If the default zerg campaign was no proc, that's where I would play. That choice too should not be interpreted as a vote against procs.

It's not voting one way or the other.

It's also not quite as simple as a binary: I like procs or I hate procs. The Ravenwatch campaign which disables prcos had a very broad and confusing definition of what a proc set was. For example, a mediocre set like Ayleid Refuge whose "proc" is clearly just an assuming set bonus and not an active effect that disrupts gameplay, is not allowed. I like sets like Ayleid Refuge and Bloodspawn. I hate sets like Rush of Agony or the old Sload's Semblance. Does that make me a "proc" hater?

I'm pretty sure that when most complaints are raised about proc sets, it is meant to be taken as a complaint against certain and specific highly disruptive/powerful procs, rather than against the philosophy or having procs. There have been proc sets since the very first fantasy RPG game was developed. They are for the most part fine and add interesting elements to what otherwise might be a dull aspect when it comes to gear. Procs only become a source of complaint when they are so powerful that the procs begin to define the hero we are supposed to pretend to play rather than the hero herself.

But why does a campaign become the default campaign? Does Zenimax force players into it? Is there systemic bias in how the campaign selection process works? Or do players and raid leaders decide which campaign they prefer?

As for complaints about proc sets, it is no different than complaints about anything else in that it is really a combination of factors that are part of a build. So yes, this tends to not be as simple as most complaints make it out to be. I would also agree that Zenimax has struggled with balance in ESO but I doubt that will ever improve. Yes, balance is always an issue in MMORPGs but seems to be more so when choices are as varied as they are here.

A popular theory here is that the people are lazy and just select the first campaign. It's an incredibly arrogantly assumption: everyone is lazy, but not I, the thoughtful, independent, conscientious choice maker, who puts much objective thought into everything I do.

This theory is in fact nonsense as any veteran from PC/NA knows as the very first default zerg campaign was Wabbajack, which was listed last.

We also know that the default zerg campaign became a thing before procs because default zerg campaigns came first. So their existence has nothing to do with procs or the desire to play with them.

I suspect people have their reasons for wanting to play the default zerg campaign: most AP gain, most of their friends are there, it tends to be less sweaty, tri faction locks means less time getting gated, more action/fights, all of the above, etc. Speaking for me personally, I'm in the all of the above camp. I have played non locked servers many times before and know exactly how they roll: imbalanced population, emp swapping, taking a farm and then being swarmed down by 50 enemies because they have nothing to do on a dead map, etc. I suspect other people have similar experiences. The point is there are reasons and these reasons have been consistent for 11 years now and are independent of procs.

I do not agree that procs are just another factor when it comes to balance. Procs offer something that skills cannot do: bypass the core mechanic of a global cooldown and thus allow the player to output more damage in a shorter time, which is incredibly powerful in PvP. Procs also play the game for players, activating effects when they otherwise would not be able to do so (such as being crowd controlled). This makes their potential power much greater than other things in the game, thus it is not a coincidence they are complained about far more than skills and abilities.

ImmortalCX · March 26

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

The_Meathead wrote: »

ImmortalCX, please forgive my use of you to illustrate a point. It has absolutely nothing to do with you personally, but your sentiment is one I've seen time and again in various games regarding PvP and specifically sweeping changes to existing gearing, customization, and the use of Templates in them.

Whenever someone says, "Gosh, that might actually get me to play some PvP" it often means, "I hate PvP and have always hated PvP, and if you catered to my level of play and preference for an easier/simplified system, I would cheer it on, maybe try it once or twice, and never play again." It's panned out that way in every MMO I've played.

I am just estimating, but I probably had 500+ hours of PvP in WOW. I loved WOW Battlegrounds. You didn't need special gear, you could PUG in and play. There were better geared people, but you could still have an impact, and you didn't get one shotted.

I also have probably 3000+ hours into various first person shooters. And I am an avid Chess player.

ESO PvP is broken every time I have tried it. I mean, I get a kick out of it, but its *really* a bottom barrel PvP game. Cyrodil and IC are interesting for the scale and the fact that you can run PvE objectives there, that is about all that I find interesting. I have to go there on occasion for PVE objectives and events, but the gulf between a normal PVE build with yellow DLC gear and whatever the PVP players are running is immense.

If they could create an environment, where you farm some blue/purple drops in dungoen or at a vender, with a big flashing sign that says ***Wear this in PVP and you wont get stomped*** and if the game delivered on that promise, then I would add BGs into my daily rotation. PVP rewards in terms of transmute crystals are far superior so there is incentive to play it, but it is just plain bottom barrel PVP experience, from someone who has 25 years into PVP games.

You just have to trust that there are intelligent, experienced gamers who try ESO PVP and decide not to play because its bad. Not because skill issue or something else. The population is on life support because its a bad pvp game. Vengeance fixes lag and at least sorta levels the playing field. It gives a glimpse of what could be if they invested some brainpower into a complete redesign.

Template only PvP will be the downfall of ESO PvP if they make it the only option. The original Cyrodiil PvP was and could be again the best PvP in the history of MMO's.

This would take some market research.

Word on the street is the New World and WOW both have larger PVP communities. What is it about those games that attracts PVP players?

I think the people who remain in ESO PVP are drawn to certain elements, but when ESO PVP is 1/20th or 1/100th the size of other PVP games, should those people be catered to?

ESO is a great PVE game with an interesting economy and plenty of single player questing and stories to enjoy.

After reading many of your posts they can be boiled down to this singular statement I think. Judging by your numerous posts you just don't like PvP and want to see it removed from ESO.

That directly contradicts what I said a few posts back.

spartaxoxo · March 26

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

The_Meathead wrote: »

ImmortalCX, please forgive my use of you to illustrate a point. It has absolutely nothing to do with you personally, but your sentiment is one I've seen time and again in various games regarding PvP and specifically sweeping changes to existing gearing, customization, and the use of Templates in them.

Whenever someone says, "Gosh, that might actually get me to play some PvP" it often means, "I hate PvP and have always hated PvP, and if you catered to my level of play and preference for an easier/simplified system, I would cheer it on, maybe try it once or twice, and never play again." It's panned out that way in every MMO I've played.

I am just estimating, but I probably had 500+ hours of PvP in WOW. I loved WOW Battlegrounds. You didn't need special gear, you could PUG in and play. There were better geared people, but you could still have an impact, and you didn't get one shotted.

I also have probably 3000+ hours into various first person shooters. And I am an avid Chess player.

ESO PvP is broken every time I have tried it. I mean, I get a kick out of it, but its *really* a bottom barrel PvP game. Cyrodil and IC are interesting for the scale and the fact that you can run PvE objectives there, that is about all that I find interesting. I have to go there on occasion for PVE objectives and events, but the gulf between a normal PVE build with yellow DLC gear and whatever the PVP players are running is immense.

If they could create an environment, where you farm some blue/purple drops in dungoen or at a vender, with a big flashing sign that says ***Wear this in PVP and you wont get stomped*** and if the game delivered on that promise, then I would add BGs into my daily rotation. PVP rewards in terms of transmute crystals are far superior so there is incentive to play it, but it is just plain bottom barrel PVP experience, from someone who has 25 years into PVP games.

You just have to trust that there are intelligent, experienced gamers who try ESO PVP and decide not to play because its bad. Not because skill issue or something else. The population is on life support because its a bad pvp game. Vengeance fixes lag and at least sorta levels the playing field. It gives a glimpse of what could be if they invested some brainpower into a complete redesign.

Template only PvP will be the downfall of ESO PvP if they make it the only option. The original Cyrodiil PvP was and could be again the best PvP in the history of MMO's.

I don't think this game has ever had truly popular PvP. They had to make Battlegrounds available for everyone decently quickly after release and this game was not doing well when PvP was a greater focus in the early years. I get that the people who like it, really like it. And I won't say it's a bad PvP game. But the way it works seems to cater to a fairly niche audience. I can't experience the Vengeance campaign because I'm on console, so no idea if that is any better of an experience. I just know that I enjoy PvP in other games but not as much here.

SaffronCitrusflower · March 27

Joy_Division wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

You could say the same thing for PvE. Does PvE really need all these flashy sets that degrade performance?. We should´ve a "vengeance" PvE test to see if performance would improve there as well.

I dont think PvE people are complaining.

The sets were created for novelty, to sell DLC, and to use in trials and dungoens.

This is not a PVE problem. Your arguement is, "If we can't have nice things, then you shouldn't be able to have nice things."

and we can easily say the same about PvP since the overwhelming number of Cyrodiil players chose a campaign that allowed procs when there was a choice.

Procs are here to stay. Players already voted and Zenimax heard that loud and clear and the response in this thread making that reality even clearer for Zenimax that it eliminating procs from a campaign was a poor choice to start with.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

I chose to play in the default zerg campaign because campaigns with small populations (read: all the other campaigns) are boring. Nothing to do with procs. If the default zerg campaign was no proc, that's where I would play. That choice too should not be interpreted as a vote against procs.

It's not voting one way or the other.

It's also not quite as simple as a binary: I like procs or I hate procs. The Ravenwatch campaign which disables prcos had a very broad and confusing definition of what a proc set was. For example, a mediocre set like Ayleid Refuge whose "proc" is clearly just an assuming set bonus and not an active effect that disrupts gameplay, is not allowed. I like sets like Ayleid Refuge and Bloodspawn. I hate sets like Rush of Agony or the old Sload's Semblance. Does that make me a "proc" hater?

I'm pretty sure that when most complaints are raised about proc sets, it is meant to be taken as a complaint against certain and specific highly disruptive/powerful procs, rather than against the philosophy or having procs. There have been proc sets since the very first fantasy RPG game was developed. They are for the most part fine and add interesting elements to what otherwise might be a dull aspect when it comes to gear. Procs only become a source of complaint when they are so powerful that the procs begin to define the hero we are supposed to pretend to play rather than the hero herself.

But why does a campaign become the default campaign? Does Zenimax force players into it? Is there systemic bias in how the campaign selection process works? Or do players and raid leaders decide which campaign they prefer?

As for complaints about proc sets, it is no different than complaints about anything else in that it is really a combination of factors that are part of a build. So yes, this tends to not be as simple as most complaints make it out to be. I would also agree that Zenimax has struggled with balance in ESO but I doubt that will ever improve. Yes, balance is always an issue in MMORPGs but seems to be more so when choices are as varied as they are here.

A popular theory here is that the people are lazy and just select the first campaign. It's an incredibly arrogantly assumption: everyone is lazy, but not I, the thoughtful, independent, conscientious choice maker, who puts much objective thought into everything I do.

This theory is in fact nonsense as any veteran from PC/NA knows as the very first default zerg campaign was Wabbajack, which was listed last.

We also know that the default zerg campaign became a thing before procs because default zerg campaigns came first. So their existence has nothing to do with procs or the desire to play with them.

I suspect people have their reasons for wanting to play the default zerg campaign: most AP gain, most of their friends are there, it tends to be less sweaty, tri faction locks means less time getting gated, more action/fights, all of the above, etc. Speaking for me personally, I'm in the all of the above camp. I have played non locked servers many times before and know exactly how they roll: imbalanced population, emp swapping, taking a farm and then being swarmed down by 50 enemies because they have nothing to do on a dead map, etc. I suspect other people have similar experiences. The point is there are reasons and these reasons have been consistent for 11 years now and are independent of procs.

I do not agree that procs are just another factor when it comes to balance. Procs offer something that skills cannot do: bypass the core mechanic of a global cooldown and thus allow the player to output more damage in a shorter time, which is incredibly powerful in PvP. Procs also play the game for players, activating effects when they otherwise would not be able to do so (such as being crowd controlled). This makes their potential power much greater than other things in the game, thus it is not a coincidence they are complained about far more than skills and abilities.

Ah, the infamous Wabbajack. LoL. Thanks for the flashback!

At any rate, going back to Cyrodiil v1.6 would be far, far, far, far, x1,000,000 better than anything that resembles this test.

(and in case anyone forgot, the Wabbajack is a stave from a previous version of Elder Scrolls)