Can you revive PvP a bit? I'm tired of so many ball groups.

soelslaev · April 13

Rhodghard wrote: »

-Ravenwatch (campaign with NO CP and NO proc sets) not fun for group balls, and fun for the vast majority of people

With either an icon on the set indicating Ravenwatch-approved or if you are in Ravenwatch the proc text is dim red to indicate it didn't work. There were some sets that kinda sorta seemed like proc sets there weren't. And a few times I had to attempt to explain proc vs non-proc sets and it was painful.

Rhodghard · April 13

soelslaev wrote: »

Rhodghard wrote: »

-Ravenwatch (campaign with NO CP and NO proc sets) not fun for group balls, and fun for the vast majority of people

With either an icon on the set indicating Ravenwatch-approved or if you are in Ravenwatch the proc text is dim red to indicate it didn't work. There were some sets that kinda sorta seemed like proc sets there weren't. And a few times I had to attempt to explain proc vs non-proc sets and it was painful.

When we talk about a set proc, it's when it has a time period and is activated every X amount of time. The vast majority of these sets in PvP are very unbalanced, hence the many complaints.

Example of Set Procs: https://eso-sets.com/set/rallying-cry

Example of Non-Procs Set: https://eso-sets.com/set/draugrkins-grip

I hope you understood the difference between the two. You could even test them and see if they worked or not in RAVENWATCH, but that's no longer the case, since NOW in ALL campaigns, Set Procs work.

WaywardArgonian · April 13

Rhodghard wrote: »

I think your answer is perfect, but that doesn't justify anything. You like to play with procs set. In the case I propose, go to greyhost, simple, and let people CHOOSE what they want to play.

Most people prefer to play with proc sets and the no-proc campaign we have already had made that abundantly clear. The answer is addressing overperforming sets and mechanics; not segregating the playerbase into a bunch of arbitrary rulesets that would all need their own balancing.

Rhodghard · April 13

WaywardArgonian wrote: »

Rhodghard wrote: »

I think your answer is perfect, but that doesn't justify anything. You like to play with procs set. In the case I propose, go to greyhost, simple, and let people CHOOSE what they want to play.

Most people prefer to play with proc sets and the no-proc campaign we have already had made that abundantly clear. The answer is addressing overperforming sets and mechanics; not segregating the playerbase into a bunch of arbitrary rulesets that would all need their own balancing.

I assure you that today, if they released the Blackreach campaign (with CP and NO proc sets), it would undoubtedly be the one most people would play, mainly because, among other reasons, people are tired of ball groups.

I still say the same thing, with what I've already proposed: whoever wants to play with their set procs, should keep playing on Greyhost.

Whoever doesn't want to, should go to the other campaign or campaigns. It's that simple, everyone wins.

Cooperharley · April 13

I imagine they'll move towards a vengeance campaign w/ weapon skill lines and guild skill lines enabled like you mentioned and also have a separate grey host campaign that'll largely die off with only gankers, ball groups and immortal DKs inhabiting it. We shall see though! Vengeance was an absolute blast!

WaywardArgonian · April 13

Rhodghard wrote: »

I assure you that today, if they released the Blackreach campaign (with CP and NO proc sets), it would undoubtedly be the one most people would play, mainly because, among other reasons, people are tired of ball groups.

I still say the same thing, with what I've already proposed: whoever wants to play with their set procs, should keep playing on Greyhost.

Whoever doesn't want to, should go to the other campaign or campaigns. It's that simple, everyone wins.

You are assuring me this based on nothing. We already had a no-proc campaign until recently. I played on it longer than most. People didn't like it.

On the hypothetical off-chance that populations do flock to a new non-proc campaign en masse, most ballgroups would simply follow them. You can do ballgroup play in a non-proc environment and nearly all ballgroups will play where they can find the most action.

xylena_lazarow · April 13

Rhodghard wrote: »

I think your answer is perfect, but that doesn't justify anything. You like to play with procs set. In the case I propose, go to greyhost, simple, and let people CHOOSE what they want to play.

They've tried repeatedly. Players were given the choice. They chose procs. Now we're trying Vengeance.

Rhodghard · April 13

WaywardArgonian wrote: »

Rhodghard wrote: »

I assure you that today, if they released the Blackreach campaign (with CP and NO proc sets), it would undoubtedly be the one most people would play, mainly because, among other reasons, people are tired of ball groups.

I still say the same thing, with what I've already proposed: whoever wants to play with their set procs, should keep playing on Greyhost.

Whoever doesn't want to, should go to the other campaign or campaigns. It's that simple, everyone wins.

You are assuring me this based on nothing. We already had a no-proc campaign until recently. I played on it longer than most. People didn't like it.

On the hypothetical off-chance that populations do flock to a new non-proc campaign en masse, most ballgroups would simply follow them. You can do ballgroup play in a non-proc environment and nearly all ballgroups will play where they can find the most action.

Indeed, you see, you're proving me right. It's very simple to understand. Whoever wants to play with their Procs can go there. Whoever doesn't can go to the other one. It's very, very, very simple. Let everyone choose the way they want to play. If they want to eat 6 active balls, get killed 300 times, and be unable to do anything, it's their choice. Let them eat them and go to Greyhost.

If they want a more leveled combat and not swallow groups of balls so frequently, go to the other ones.

I see it as very simple, and I repeat, everyone wins. Let everyone play what they want. If they want to play killing NPCs, let them do it. If they want to swallow 6 balls at the same time, let them do it. Let everyone choose their campaign. But as I'm trying to say, and this is my last message for today, YOU GIVE PEOPLE THE OPTION TO CHOOSE THEIR PLAYSTYLE.

Iriidius · April 13

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Rhodghard wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Rhodghard wrote: »

I keep saying the same thing: what they should do at least is have 2 or 3 different campaigns, not like the current ones where there are literally 3 that are the same.

If you want to play with proc sets, face balls, and die 2,000 times, then you queue for Grayhost. But Blackreach, for example, should be non-procs or something that differentiates Grayhost.

Raven definitely died the day they implemented proc sets. Back when that campaign with non-proc sets was around, it had its audience, and a lot of people joined.

Ravenwatch got killed because of the implementation of no-proc, not the other way around. PCEU Ravenwatch was on a regular basis filled before Greyhost before they made it no proc.

And why aren't people joining Raven now? Because they have procs enabled. I'm telling you, why would they join a no-CP campaign with procs enabled? They could have joined one with CP and procs enabled...

It doesn't make sense.

Because trying to revive something after the funeral has been held is mission impossible. The Ravenwatch population that kept it alive before no proc either:
1. Quit Ravenwatch and mainly went doing battlegrounds.
2. Adapted to CP PvP and went to GH/Blackreach (vast majority)
3. Quit PvP

ZOS ignored Ravenwatch for too long so when they finally reverted no proc the old playerbase was no longer present to refill it. Also, no one that actually want to PvP want to play in an empty campaign, regardless of their preferences of PvP. So a better question to ask would be: Why would anyone want to join an empty/abandoned campaign if they're looking to PvP?

Funeral was the moment noproc was introduced and all procabusers left. The whole noproc time was mission impossible of reviving dead campaign ravenwatch after funeral. Disabling procs does not pull in antiproc players who first have to farm make noproc builds from other unchanged campaigns as fast as it drives off players relying on procsets and even players liking noproc remaining in ravenwatch first have to make builds and loose friends same as everyone changing there.

Everyone preferring noproc had to change in empty abandoned campaign but somehow in your opinion it prevented only revival of ravenwatch after proc return and not success of noproc ravenwatch.

With cp also disabled and siege dmg reduced there were to few tools to 1vX, bomb or defend keeps.

If the noproc campaign was cp(and siege dmg not reduced) and all campaigns replaced so every player has to choose again rather than stay were they are noproc would have been more successfull.

Iriidius · April 13

WaywardArgonian wrote: »

Rhodghard wrote: »

If only ZOS could think and satisfy everyone, they would do the following:

Not make three practically identical campaigns (Greyhost, Blackreach, and Ravenwatch)

-Grayhost (campaign with CP and proc sets activated) fun for group balls

-Blackreach (campaign with CP and NO proc sets) not fun for group balls, and fun for the vast majority of people

-Ravenwatch (campaign with NO CP and NO proc sets) not fun for group balls, and fun for the vast majority of people

Pin this comment because this is what people really want, whether you're new or veteran to this game. These guys have been doing PvP for 10 years, and yes, group balls are boring.

This would not work because no-proc has already proven to be an unpopular ruleset among the wider playerbase and it doesn't get rid of ballgroups. Most ballgroups will simply go where the biggest populations are regardless of the ruleset, even if it's Vengeance.

There were almost no ballgroups in Vengeance nor complains about them and the few who did play in Vengeance rather than avoiding Cyrodiil for the test were barely distinguishable from Pve Guilds, PuGs or the faction stack they were surfing.
With template builds and skills any group of 12 can slot skills at raidstart and be effective like ballgroup and doesnt have to prepare group builds for hours before raiding.
The buffs you get from allies are much smaller and at the same time much more available so every pug or zergsurfer can use them.

Ballgroups will not go Vengeance and if they do will not be a big problem.

WaywardArgonian · April 13

Rhodghard wrote: »

Indeed, you see, you're proving me right. It's very simple to understand. Whoever wants to play with their Procs can go there. Whoever doesn't can go to the other one. It's very, very, very simple. Let everyone choose the way they want to play. If they want to eat 6 active balls, get killed 300 times, and be unable to do anything, it's their choice. Let them eat them and go to Greyhost.

If they want a more leveled combat and not swallow groups of balls so frequently, go to the other ones.

I see it as very simple, and I repeat, everyone wins. Let everyone play what they want. If they want to play killing NPCs, let them do it. If they want to swallow 6 balls at the same time, let them do it. Let everyone choose their campaign. But as I'm trying to say, and this is my last message for today, YOU GIVE PEOPLE THE OPTION TO CHOOSE THEIR PLAYSTYLE.

We already tried no-proc and it killed off PC/EU's most popular campaign. There is no reason to think further experiments would have a different result, and it would be a waste of time to deploy resources to prop up a playstyle that the playerbase at large has already rejected. A quote about the definition of insanity comes to mind.

You also do not seem to understand that ballgroups would not remain in Gray Host if there is no one else playing there. They would just go to the campaign with the highest activity. Hence why it would be much more sensible to address the things that give 12-man groups such a statistical advantage rather than running weird experiments with unpopular rulesets.

Iriidius wrote: »

There were almost no ballgroups in Vengeance nor complains about them and the few who did play in Vengeance rather than avoiding Cyrodiil for the test were barely distinguishable from Pve Guilds, PuGs or the faction stack they were surfing.
With template builds and skills any group of 12 can slot skills at raidstart and be effective like ballgroup and doesnt have to prepare group builds for hours before raiding.
The buffs you get from allies are much smaller and at the same time much more available so every pug or zergsurfer can use them.

Ballgroups will not go Vengeance and if they do will not be a big problem.

Ballgroups were not much of a factor in Vengeance because they knew they only had to wait for 1 week before things returned to normal. For most ballgroups this meant cancelling 1 or 2 runs.

But the point I was making is that a blanket statement saying 'get rid of ballgroups' is meaningless unless you add concrete suggestions in what adjustments to make. Vengeance killed most forms of gameplay that weren't faction-stack zerging; ballgrouping was but one of those playstyles. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater like that does not seem like it'd be good for the long-term health of PVP in this game.

Iriidius · April 14

WaywardArgonian wrote: »

Rhodghard wrote: »

Indeed, you see, you're proving me right. It's very simple to understand. Whoever wants to play with their Procs can go there. Whoever doesn't can go to the other one. It's very, very, very simple. Let everyone choose the way they want to play. If they want to eat 6 active balls, get killed 300 times, and be unable to do anything, it's their choice. Let them eat them and go to Greyhost.

If they want a more leveled combat and not swallow groups of balls so frequently, go to the other ones.

I see it as very simple, and I repeat, everyone wins. Let everyone play what they want. If they want to play killing NPCs, let them do it. If they want to swallow 6 balls at the same time, let them do it. Let everyone choose their campaign. But as I'm trying to say, and this is my last message for today, YOU GIVE PEOPLE THE OPTION TO CHOOSE THEIR PLAYSTYLE.

We already tried no-proc and it killed off PC/EU's most popular campaign. There is no reason to think further experiments would have a different result, and it would be a waste of time to deploy resources to prop up a playstyle that the playerbase at large has already rejected. A quote about the definition of insanity comes to mind.

You also do not seem to understand that ballgroups would not remain in Gray Host if there is no one else playing there. They would just go to the campaign with the highest activity. Hence why it would be much more sensible to address the things that give 12-man groups such a statistical advantage rather than running weird experiments with unpopular rulesets.

Iriidius wrote: »

There were almost no ballgroups in Vengeance nor complains about them and the few who did play in Vengeance rather than avoiding Cyrodiil for the test were barely distinguishable from Pve Guilds, PuGs or the faction stack they were surfing.
With template builds and skills any group of 12 can slot skills at raidstart and be effective like ballgroup and doesnt have to prepare group builds for hours before raiding.
The buffs you get from allies are much smaller and at the same time much more available so every pug or zergsurfer can use them.

Ballgroups will not go Vengeance and if they do will not be a big problem.

Ballgroups were not much of a factor in Vengeance because they knew they only had to wait for 1 week before things returned to normal. For most ballgroups this meant cancelling 1 or 2 runs.

But the point I was making is that a blanket statement saying 'get rid of ballgroups' is meaningless unless you add concrete suggestions in what adjustments to make. Vengeance killed most forms of gameplay that weren't faction-stack zerging; ballgrouping was but one of those playstyles. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater like that does not seem like it'd be good for the long-term health of PVP in this game.

Most ballgroup critics would prefer a more specific solution to ballgroups but ZoS ignored a ballgroup complains and did nothing about it. But Vengeance despite disabling many other playstiles and having still a few multitarget buff/heal skills helping groups (but not strong enaugh for ballgroups to play) was still preferred by many non ballgroupler critics over current Grey Host if only because it was ballgroup free.
That ballgroups had to wait only 1 week to play normal again means they also had to play only 1-2 runs in Vengeance and choosing skills can be done in a few minutes. The first few runs would at least be new experience and finish golden pursuit.
If Vengeance stays longterm ballgroups would skip it longterm(=quit) rather than play it longterm (many players saying it gets boring fast) or stay in GH/BR if it still exists.

Noproc campaign failed because they choose nocp campaign full of proc enjoyers making them all quit and as soon as players from BR/GH willing to give up also cp in addition to procs had their build ready they already found dead campaign. Siege dmg is also reduced making outnumbered defenses a lost cause.

xylena_lazarow · April 14

Iriidius wrote: »

Noproc campaign failed because

Because it was still the same laggy broken mess, but with a boring pointless build system, that still enforces an oppressive meta, still enables degenerate group comps, still requires farming and golding out gear...

Vengeance seems to be succeeding where Ravenwatch and its variants all failed miserably.