Request to Roll Back No-CP Servers (Disable Procs Again)

Markytous · April 5

Currently there is no option to play the game in PVP while avoiding egregious gameplay such as ballgroups with Snow Treaders, Rush of Agony or even just avoid set powercreep like with the case of Rallying Cry. In the old Ravenwatch, sets like Impregnable Armor had a place in the game. In Live Grey Host and Ravenwatch, so many sets go unviable because proc sets outperform them. "Back bar" culture has proliferated upon the meta of the game and holding 2 5pc bonuses is simply outclassed by them. This wasn't the case in instances where procs were disabled. Because of the vacuum of powercreep and consequently the increasingly heavy "steamroll" that is opposing players who fully utilize this, there is currently no place for newer ESO players to learn the game or for veteran ESO players to play in a truly competitive environment.

I propose that Ravenwatch and No-CP Imperial City return to having proc sets and Mythics disabled. On top of that, I would like to encourage that these servers, since the community has allowed them to die anyways, to be used to further test efforts to improve the overall experience. Grey Host can be left alone and remain the "Pro Proccer" zone. In my view (and I know I'm not alone in this even if it's not a huge number of players), there has been something sorely missing since the Proc Disabled PVP instances were removed. If anything, these servers have become a PvDoor farming simulator for ball groups off-hours. Players need a PVP server they can go to avoid playing with these over-performing set abusers.

One more thing - I would like No Proc to return but please. We need a fix for the Lightning Staff Tri-Focus Passive in the Imperial City. When it tethers to players from a PvE monsters, the damage it deals is not mitigated by Battle Spirit which results in a 1shot to the receiving player. I have sent in feedback for a long time over this bug and there are players who make entire builds around exploiting this. This is unhealthy for the game and needs immediate fixing. Do what you have to do - disable the passive for Lightning Staff in Imperial City or make it against monsters only temporarily until its fixed.

In conclusion, there is a need for a place where players can tangibly participate in the core combat mechanics of PVP instead of just exploiting and abusing proc sets. This applies to both new and returning PVP players. Cyrodiil and the Imperial City both can become places where that can happen once again. I'm not concerned about low player participation because these servers are dead as of right now! So, at the very least, these servers would benefit from making at least one person happy as opposed to no one.

Also, Battlegrounds are a mess in my view. I am not enjoying 4v4 and 8v8. They don't feel skillful or competitive and proc sets are a large part to blame due to sets like Mechanical Acuity deleting entire teams removes any potential fun that could exist - the fact that it exists further hinders fun because you contemplate that any player that could be doing this that doesn't do this is just an underachiever. Like I said, a mess. 4v4v4 didn't feel this egregious and I'd like to see those return as well. But if its impossible to return us to those beautiful 4v4v4 maps, give us No Proc Battlegrounds. I want to see skillful PVP return to this game and I have no concern for "splitting the community". The community is split no matter what between fans of proc abuse and fans of core combat mechanics. These groups don't have fun playing together and thats the truth. I've seen it across forum participation for years regarding ESO PVP. The system worked better before where there were places PVP players could go to select their experience to some degree. CP and no-CP is okay, but the proc sets are far more impactful than any slotted CP %modifiers could ever be.

Major_Mangle · April 5

If you want to kill battlegrounds completely, sure go ahead and disable 80%+ of all sets. Sure we need some sets to be adjusted (acuity ain't one of them however). But restricting what sets you can use has proven not to be that likable by the community as a whole (Ravenwatch being the prime example of this)

Edit: Most of the problem "proc sets" people tend to complain about aren't even "proc sets" (aka sets doing damage for you) but rather stat enhancing sets (I don't consider acuity a "proc sets" due to the fact that it enhances your stats).

And all proc sets aren't equally problematic. Anti stacking sets like azureblight was considered a healthy proc sets due to the fact that it was a tool against ballgroups anf larger stacks of players, while simultaneously being a bad set used by the groups it counters. If you wanna fix whatever problem/issue you should adress those specifically (even tho ZOS for some reason refuse to adjust problematic things for some reason), instead of asking for global/broad changes that usually ends in disaster.

Markytous · April 5

Major_Mangle wrote: »

If you want to kill battlegrounds completely, sure go ahead and disable 80%+ of all sets. Sure we need some sets to be adjusted (acuity ain't one of them however). But restricting what sets you can use has proven not to be that likable by the community as a whole (Ravenwatch being the prime example of this)

Edit: Most of the problem "proc sets" people tend to complain about aren't even "proc sets" (aka sets doing damage for you) but rather stat enhancing sets (I don't consider acuity a "proc sets" due to the fact that it enhances your stats).

And all proc sets aren't equally problematic. Anti stacking sets like azureblight was considered a healthy proc sets due to the fact that it was a tool against ballgroups anf larger stacks of players, while simultaneously being a bad set used by the groups it counters. If you wanna fix whatever problem/issue you should adress those specifically (even tho ZOS for some reason refuse to adjust problematic things for some reason), instead of asking for global/broad changes that usually ends in disaster.

What is the issue of having a place for players who don't want to deal with proc sets? It doesn't matter what you consider a proc set. Proc is an effect beyond a set like Hundings, Spinners or Shacklebreaker type sets. If it has an ignition effect or conditional with (or without) a cooldown then it is a proc. Clever Alchemist is a proc. Mech Acuity is a proc. Hist Sap is a proc. They are all procs. There is server space to support having these environments. I don't care about specific sets. There needs to be an environment where Rush of Agony isn't in the game. There needs to be a place where the Rallying Cry ice-berg tip of set power creep is not there.

Battlegrounds currently are all lifeless already. 30 minute queues for imbalanced matches. Its just not enjoyable like 4v4v4 was. Since No-Proc is unpopular, you shouldn't find any hiccups in your usual programming queuing in for Proc Battlegrounds. You don't have to see my point, but its there. You don't lose anything because naturally most players will want to participate in proc content, right? No worries of "splitting the playerbase" will happen. I'm fine with waiting an hour in no-proc no-cp PVP queues just for one good match. This doesn't have any effect on you. This is my point. Ravenwatch and no-CP Imperial City are already dead. They have no purpose, currently. Giving them a purpose, even if that is unpopular, is a gain for somebody. Currently they are a gain for nobody. Adding the no-proc option to Battlegrounds functions exactly the same.

Major_Toughness · April 6

Markytous wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

If you want to kill battlegrounds completely, sure go ahead and disable 80%+ of all sets. Sure we need some sets to be adjusted (acuity ain't one of them however). But restricting what sets you can use has proven not to be that likable by the community as a whole (Ravenwatch being the prime example of this)

Edit: Most of the problem "proc sets" people tend to complain about aren't even "proc sets" (aka sets doing damage for you) but rather stat enhancing sets (I don't consider acuity a "proc sets" due to the fact that it enhances your stats).

And all proc sets aren't equally problematic. Anti stacking sets like azureblight was considered a healthy proc sets due to the fact that it was a tool against ballgroups anf larger stacks of players, while simultaneously being a bad set used by the groups it counters. If you wanna fix whatever problem/issue you should adress those specifically (even tho ZOS for some reason refuse to adjust problematic things for some reason), instead of asking for global/broad changes that usually ends in disaster.

What is the issue of having a place for players who don't want to deal with proc sets? It doesn't matter what you consider a proc set. Proc is an effect beyond a set like Hundings, Spinners or Shacklebreaker type sets. If it has an ignition effect or conditional with (or without) a cooldown then it is a proc. Clever Alchemist is a proc. Mech Acuity is a proc. Hist Sap is a proc. They are all procs. There is server space to support having these environments. I don't care about specific sets. There needs to be an environment where Rush of Agony isn't in the game. There needs to be a place where the Rallying Cry ice-berg tip of set power creep is not there.

Battlegrounds currently are all lifeless already. 30 minute queues for imbalanced matches. Its just not enjoyable like 4v4v4 was. Since No-Proc is unpopular, you shouldn't find any hiccups in your usual programming queuing in for Proc Battlegrounds. You don't have to see my point, but its there. You don't lose anything because naturally most players will want to participate in proc content, right? No worries of "splitting the playerbase" will happen. I'm fine with waiting an hour in no-proc no-cp PVP queues just for one good match. This doesn't have any effect on you. This is my point. Ravenwatch and no-CP Imperial City are already dead. They have no purpose, currently. Giving them a purpose, even if that is unpopular, is a gain for somebody. Currently they are a gain for nobody. Adding the no-proc option to Battlegrounds functions exactly the same.

Just learn from history.

We can't even have game mode specific queues because majority of people just wanted to PvP and queued DM. All the casuals complained objective queues were too long so they got consolidated.

When the game was more populated than now also.

We now have Group and Solo queues where Group is dead.

A vocal minority wanted no proc Ravenwatch which lead to it being a ghost town for 2 years and ZoS reverted it to try put some life back into it.

You want to combine two things that already did not work (more queues and no proc) which will negatively effect the whole BG population.

Markytous · April 6

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

If you want to kill battlegrounds completely, sure go ahead and disable 80%+ of all sets. Sure we need some sets to be adjusted (acuity ain't one of them however). But restricting what sets you can use has proven not to be that likable by the community as a whole (Ravenwatch being the prime example of this)

Edit: Most of the problem "proc sets" people tend to complain about aren't even "proc sets" (aka sets doing damage for you) but rather stat enhancing sets (I don't consider acuity a "proc sets" due to the fact that it enhances your stats).

And all proc sets aren't equally problematic. Anti stacking sets like azureblight was considered a healthy proc sets due to the fact that it was a tool against ballgroups anf larger stacks of players, while simultaneously being a bad set used by the groups it counters. If you wanna fix whatever problem/issue you should adress those specifically (even tho ZOS for some reason refuse to adjust problematic things for some reason), instead of asking for global/broad changes that usually ends in disaster.

What is the issue of having a place for players who don't want to deal with proc sets? It doesn't matter what you consider a proc set. Proc is an effect beyond a set like Hundings, Spinners or Shacklebreaker type sets. If it has an ignition effect or conditional with (or without) a cooldown then it is a proc. Clever Alchemist is a proc. Mech Acuity is a proc. Hist Sap is a proc. They are all procs. There is server space to support having these environments. I don't care about specific sets. There needs to be an environment where Rush of Agony isn't in the game. There needs to be a place where the Rallying Cry ice-berg tip of set power creep is not there.

Battlegrounds currently are all lifeless already. 30 minute queues for imbalanced matches. Its just not enjoyable like 4v4v4 was. Since No-Proc is unpopular, you shouldn't find any hiccups in your usual programming queuing in for Proc Battlegrounds. You don't have to see my point, but its there. You don't lose anything because naturally most players will want to participate in proc content, right? No worries of "splitting the playerbase" will happen. I'm fine with waiting an hour in no-proc no-cp PVP queues just for one good match. This doesn't have any effect on you. This is my point. Ravenwatch and no-CP Imperial City are already dead. They have no purpose, currently. Giving them a purpose, even if that is unpopular, is a gain for somebody. Currently they are a gain for nobody. Adding the no-proc option to Battlegrounds functions exactly the same.

Just learn from history.

We can't even have game mode specific queues because majority of people just wanted to PvP and queued DM. All the casuals complained objective queues were too long so they got consolidated.

When the game was more populated than now also.

We now have Group and Solo queues where Group is dead.

A vocal minority wanted no proc Ravenwatch which lead to it being a ghost town for 2 years and ZoS reverted it to try put some life back into it.

You want to combine two things that already did not work (more queues and no proc) which will negatively effect the whole BG population.

With all due respect my friend, Ravenwatch is still dead today. People STILL just Deathmatch on Flag Games and Relic Games in Battlegrounds. That's not the issue. Modern BGs have more issues now than before starting with finding 16 people in realistic queue times who actually want to play at all. Life never returned to Ravenwatch after the recent change and I was there enjoying no-proc Ravenwatch with a few veteran players until it was slashed. What history has told us is that Ravenwatch will be dead NO MATTER WHAT happens to it. There simply aren't enough Cyrodiil participants (for a myriad of reasons) to fill Grey Host and more. Most people don't want to play in a ghost town anyways.

Again, nothing would be lost reverting Ravenwatch. It isn't going to affect Grey Host players in any way. BGs are already messed up, too. Anything is better than what current BGs are.

xylena_lazarow · April 6

Markytous wrote: »

Again, nothing would be lost reverting Ravenwatch.

Developer resources that should be going to Vengeance?

Not sure why this needed to come up in two separate threads, but Ravenwatch was epically unpopular. The game was still broken without procs or cp, just with even fewer ways to try to deal with whatever was broken. Vengeance seems to have succeeded where Ravenwatch failed, so the faster Vengeance gets back online, the better.

the1andonlyskwex · April 6

No proc PvP was a failed experiment. The only way I can see it being made to work is if all proc sets gain alternate effects in no proc that are well communicated in game so you can go into a no proc campaign while wearing a proc set and not be severely disadvantaged.

The biggest problem with the previous implementation was that no proc required both outside research (into which sets would work) and special gearing, neither of which are really compatible with no CP, which mostly appeals to more casual players (both in the lower CP sense and in the sense where you don't need to worry about maintaining a special PvP CP loadout). Without resolving this inconsistency, no proc is a nonstarter.

Major_Toughness · April 6

Markytous wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

If you want to kill battlegrounds completely, sure go ahead and disable 80%+ of all sets. Sure we need some sets to be adjusted (acuity ain't one of them however). But restricting what sets you can use has proven not to be that likable by the community as a whole (Ravenwatch being the prime example of this)

Edit: Most of the problem "proc sets" people tend to complain about aren't even "proc sets" (aka sets doing damage for you) but rather stat enhancing sets (I don't consider acuity a "proc sets" due to the fact that it enhances your stats).

And all proc sets aren't equally problematic. Anti stacking sets like azureblight was considered a healthy proc sets due to the fact that it was a tool against ballgroups anf larger stacks of players, while simultaneously being a bad set used by the groups it counters. If you wanna fix whatever problem/issue you should adress those specifically (even tho ZOS for some reason refuse to adjust problematic things for some reason), instead of asking for global/broad changes that usually ends in disaster.

What is the issue of having a place for players who don't want to deal with proc sets? It doesn't matter what you consider a proc set. Proc is an effect beyond a set like Hundings, Spinners or Shacklebreaker type sets. If it has an ignition effect or conditional with (or without) a cooldown then it is a proc. Clever Alchemist is a proc. Mech Acuity is a proc. Hist Sap is a proc. They are all procs. There is server space to support having these environments. I don't care about specific sets. There needs to be an environment where Rush of Agony isn't in the game. There needs to be a place where the Rallying Cry ice-berg tip of set power creep is not there.

Battlegrounds currently are all lifeless already. 30 minute queues for imbalanced matches. Its just not enjoyable like 4v4v4 was. Since No-Proc is unpopular, you shouldn't find any hiccups in your usual programming queuing in for Proc Battlegrounds. You don't have to see my point, but its there. You don't lose anything because naturally most players will want to participate in proc content, right? No worries of "splitting the playerbase" will happen. I'm fine with waiting an hour in no-proc no-cp PVP queues just for one good match. This doesn't have any effect on you. This is my point. Ravenwatch and no-CP Imperial City are already dead. They have no purpose, currently. Giving them a purpose, even if that is unpopular, is a gain for somebody. Currently they are a gain for nobody. Adding the no-proc option to Battlegrounds functions exactly the same.

Just learn from history.

We can't even have game mode specific queues because majority of people just wanted to PvP and queued DM. All the casuals complained objective queues were too long so they got consolidated.

When the game was more populated than now also.

We now have Group and Solo queues where Group is dead.

A vocal minority wanted no proc Ravenwatch which lead to it being a ghost town for 2 years and ZoS reverted it to try put some life back into it.

You want to combine two things that already did not work (more queues and no proc) which will negatively effect the whole BG population.

With all due respect my friend, Ravenwatch is still dead today. People STILL just Deathmatch on Flag Games and Relic Games in Battlegrounds. That's not the issue. Modern BGs have more issues now than before starting with finding 16 people in realistic queue times who actually want to play at all. Life never returned to Ravenwatch after the recent change and I was there enjoying no-proc Ravenwatch with a few veteran players until it was slashed. What history has told us is that Ravenwatch will be dead NO MATTER WHAT happens to it. There simply aren't enough Cyrodiil participants (for a myriad of reasons) to fill Grey Host and more. Most people don't want to play in a ghost town anyways.

Again, nothing would be lost reverting Ravenwatch. It isn't going to affect Grey Host players in any way. BGs are already messed up, too. Anything is better than what current BGs are.

Beofre No-Proc Ravenwatch was pop locked on PC EU before Gray Host, every night. It was the more popular campaign.
It took too long to correct the mistake of no-proc, and all the previous no-cp players either quit or adapted to CP.

Other than the bug with games not starting if teams don't fill, what issues do BGs have?
Sure I don't find them as fun as 4v4v4 but not sure what problems exist, that completely destroying them with no-proc would fix.

Markytous · April 7

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Again, nothing would be lost reverting Ravenwatch.

Developer resources that should be going to Vengeance?

Not sure why this needed to come up in two separate threads, but Ravenwatch was epically unpopular. The game was still broken without procs or cp, just with even fewer ways to try to deal with whatever was broken. Vengeance seems to have succeeded where Ravenwatch failed, so the faster Vengeance gets back online, the better.

I guess this could be the solution. I think this would suffice for me, as Vengeance was more than a sufficient adjustment (at least in theory) to make Cyrodiil tolerable since I dipped out of them in 2022. As for Battlegrounds, a Vengeance variant would work for me but I know a bunch of people would get mad about it. Look. As far as my view goes, Grey Host could go offline forever and I wouldn't even care. It's useless to me and even serves as a detriment because I am an Imperial City player. Players queue out during fights to Cyrodiil from Imperial City and that kind of gameplay greatly bothers me. Ballgroups and lag have become so egregious for me that I don't even enjoy playing there anymore. The anti-Vengeance crowd is gonna hate my opinions no matter what.

btw i'm an imperial city player now because lagrodiil and in bgs 4v4v4 was removed and the 4v4/8v8 crap just doesn't satisfy me like the previous.

Markytous · April 7

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

If you want to kill battlegrounds completely, sure go ahead and disable 80%+ of all sets. Sure we need some sets to be adjusted (acuity ain't one of them however). But restricting what sets you can use has proven not to be that likable by the community as a whole (Ravenwatch being the prime example of this)

Edit: Most of the problem "proc sets" people tend to complain about aren't even "proc sets" (aka sets doing damage for you) but rather stat enhancing sets (I don't consider acuity a "proc sets" due to the fact that it enhances your stats).

And all proc sets aren't equally problematic. Anti stacking sets like azureblight was considered a healthy proc sets due to the fact that it was a tool against ballgroups anf larger stacks of players, while simultaneously being a bad set used by the groups it counters. If you wanna fix whatever problem/issue you should adress those specifically (even tho ZOS for some reason refuse to adjust problematic things for some reason), instead of asking for global/broad changes that usually ends in disaster.

What is the issue of having a place for players who don't want to deal with proc sets? It doesn't matter what you consider a proc set. Proc is an effect beyond a set like Hundings, Spinners or Shacklebreaker type sets. If it has an ignition effect or conditional with (or without) a cooldown then it is a proc. Clever Alchemist is a proc. Mech Acuity is a proc. Hist Sap is a proc. They are all procs. There is server space to support having these environments. I don't care about specific sets. There needs to be an environment where Rush of Agony isn't in the game. There needs to be a place where the Rallying Cry ice-berg tip of set power creep is not there.

Battlegrounds currently are all lifeless already. 30 minute queues for imbalanced matches. Its just not enjoyable like 4v4v4 was. Since No-Proc is unpopular, you shouldn't find any hiccups in your usual programming queuing in for Proc Battlegrounds. You don't have to see my point, but its there. You don't lose anything because naturally most players will want to participate in proc content, right? No worries of "splitting the playerbase" will happen. I'm fine with waiting an hour in no-proc no-cp PVP queues just for one good match. This doesn't have any effect on you. This is my point. Ravenwatch and no-CP Imperial City are already dead. They have no purpose, currently. Giving them a purpose, even if that is unpopular, is a gain for somebody. Currently they are a gain for nobody. Adding the no-proc option to Battlegrounds functions exactly the same.

Just learn from history.

We can't even have game mode specific queues because majority of people just wanted to PvP and queued DM. All the casuals complained objective queues were too long so they got consolidated.

When the game was more populated than now also.

We now have Group and Solo queues where Group is dead.

A vocal minority wanted no proc Ravenwatch which lead to it being a ghost town for 2 years and ZoS reverted it to try put some life back into it.

You want to combine two things that already did not work (more queues and no proc) which will negatively effect the whole BG population.

With all due respect my friend, Ravenwatch is still dead today. People STILL just Deathmatch on Flag Games and Relic Games in Battlegrounds. That's not the issue. Modern BGs have more issues now than before starting with finding 16 people in realistic queue times who actually want to play at all. Life never returned to Ravenwatch after the recent change and I was there enjoying no-proc Ravenwatch with a few veteran players until it was slashed. What history has told us is that Ravenwatch will be dead NO MATTER WHAT happens to it. There simply aren't enough Cyrodiil participants (for a myriad of reasons) to fill Grey Host and more. Most people don't want to play in a ghost town anyways.

Again, nothing would be lost reverting Ravenwatch. It isn't going to affect Grey Host players in any way. BGs are already messed up, too. Anything is better than what current BGs are.

Beofre No-Proc Ravenwatch was pop locked on PC EU before Gray Host, every night. It was the more popular campaign.
It took too long to correct the mistake of no-proc, and all the previous no-cp players either quit or adapted to CP.

Other than the bug with games not starting if teams don't fill, what issues do BGs have?
Sure I don't find them as fun as 4v4v4 but not sure what problems exist, that completely destroying them with no-proc would fix.

I miss the Ravenwatch days. So much fun! The fact that its gone, unable to be revisited again is what drives my frustration on this topic.

8v8 is far to zergy for my enjoyment. As for 4v4 I've had too many times where my team drops off the spawn platform and gets vaporized because they have 18k HP or something. As a person who understands how to build a character and how to perform in PVP, seeing this kind of play while the words "more competitive" get thrown around just baffles me. I used to be able to get my daily BGs reward quickly and efficiently - would play a few more matches for good measure because it was FUN and SATISFYING to participate in the 4v4v4 chaos. Now, it just feels like some arms race that not just you but the 7/15 other players on your team are sub-consciously participating in (as in running Rallying Cry+whatever or Bomber or Blocktank depending on the game mode). Also, 16 player matches take so long to fill. It just feels like a humiliation ritual considering 4v4v4 was just overall FUN FUN FUN. Makes my heart sink knowing I'll never fight on that Wrothgar Battlements map with the statue of Malacath in the middle anymore. Give me a break T_T

opethmaniac · April 7

I speak from the perspective of Ravenwatch/EU. Before the introduction of proc sets, we had a relatively healthy population. The biggest problem was an overpowered group on DC whose guild leader held the Emperor title for months (many months, I didn't count). AD held up reasonably well, even with Poplock during peak times, but EP declined hopelessly, and many guilds (of all factions) switched to Blackreach when proc sets were introduced. That was the final nail in the coffin for the campaign.

Major_Toughness · April 7

opethmaniac wrote: »

I speak from the perspective of Ravenwatch/EU. Before the introduction of proc sets, we had a relatively healthy population. The biggest problem was an overpowered group on DC whose guild leader held the Emperor title for months (many months, I didn't count). AD held up reasonably well, even with Poplock during peak times, but EP declined hopelessly, and many guilds (of all factions) switched to Blackreach when proc sets were introduced. That was the final nail in the coffin for the campaign.

I hate this false information, which was even posted while Ravenwatch was still alive in a desperate attempt to keep it how it was.

Those same DC players were on the forums claiming it pop locked every night. They even said at a certain time on Friday Evenings locked EVERY week. I went on at that time as it was Medium/Low/Low. When presented with that fact and screenshots there was no response.

It did not have a health population or ever hit a single faction pop lock for two years. I do not understand the need to lie.

Zallion · April 7

I do agree no proc has a place in the game even if it’s for a minority of the player base. It should be an option. Fights did feel fairer in no proc, and it is a good stepping stone to get better at mechanics and the pvp environment without always getting instagibbed by a set or mechanic you haven’t learned to counter yet. It’s a decent stepping stone. However, I think it should just be limited to one cyro campaign or IC campaign. These would be mostly dead camps but I do think the ruleset has some merit to learning better pvp mechanics without needing to cut through all the cheese. Battlegrounds need to be left as is.

Tigor · April 7

This sound as reinventing a broken wheel to me.

Major_Toughness · April 7

Tigor wrote: »

This sound as reinventing a broken wheel to me.

And you are one of the very few people/guilds that did play that campaign.
We had some fun fights.

image.png?ex=67f4ea44&is=67f398c4&hm=f3d811c64479fc2ff22fe074ef28aad74cd7d503d012f71d7728eef583721a11&=&format=webp&quality=lossless

WaywardArgonian · April 7

Major_Toughness wrote: »

I hate this false information, which was even posted while Ravenwatch was still alive in a desperate attempt to keep it how it was.

Those same DC players were on the forums claiming it pop locked every night. They even said at a certain time on Friday Evenings locked EVERY week. I went on at that time as it was Medium/Low/Low. When presented with that fact and screenshots there was no response.

It did not have a health population or ever hit a single faction pop lock for two years. I do not understand the need to lie.

There is a little bit of truth to it, in the sense that a 24/7 emp group was what beat the last bit of life out of no-proc Ravenwatch. But it was the server already being on life support due to no proc not being popular that allowed for the campaign to be susceptible to this type of gameplay in the first place. That is the part that many forget or leave out on purpose.

The recent calls for no-proc to return are a bit surreal though. I spent too many evenings fruitlessly looking for content on that campaign to still believe that it can be viable.

TyrantNikolai · April 8

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

No proc PvP was a failed experiment. The only way I can see it being made to work is if all proc sets gain alternate effects in no proc that are well communicated in game so you can go into a no proc campaign while wearing a proc set and not be severely disadvantaged.

The biggest problem with the previous implementation was that no proc required both outside research (into which sets would work) and special gearing, neither of which are really compatible with no CP, which mostly appeals to more casual players (both in the lower CP sense and in the sense where you don't need to worry about maintaining a special PvP CP loadout). Without resolving this inconsistency, no proc is a nonstarter.

Agreed it was communication failure on zos a simple set labeling it active or not was all that had to be done. But even then it would make building a character less enjoyable

darvaria · April 9

No CP and no gear .... just 30/70/30 like Vengeance.

Markytous · April 9

darvaria wrote: »

No CP and no gear .... just 30/70/30 like Vengeance.

I'd play it!