MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

So you wanna stop trying to fix GH Cyrodiil, because we cant archive 900 people? Why not just trying to adjust it to 600 for example and keep trying?

Right?!? This is my #1 question. I'm not sure how we went from "please fix things like the stuck in combat bug" to "we MUST have the most number of players in battle to make Cyrodiil epic at the cost of all other things that have made it fun over the years." Yes, there was some short-lived enthusiasm for the larger battles in the first Vengeance tests, but it got old really, really fast because everything was so dumbed down.

The cognitive dissonance is strong. HOW can the same devs who served up scribing, subclassing, and boatloads of new sets every update not see how Vengeance is the exact opposite of those features? Most players who enjoy the complexity of the game will not find a PvP mode that limits creativity and builds to be interesting for long at all. I'm not saying those other items weren't released without issues, but it's like sub-teams are working completely isolated in silos without taking a moment to collaborate, look at the bigger picture, and align with the overall game strategy and what their community members actually find to be fun and fulfilling gameplay.

I play almost every aspect of ESO today. I PvP and I PvE. And I know that I have zero desire to play in a templated, PvP environment... which is why I've basically paused engaging with PvP until this process completed. I didn't want to get too "into" exploring PvP builds with subclassing only to have it be ripped away, which frankly seems inevitable based on how I interpret this announcement. Yes, technically there are two options listed, but the writing's on the wall. And as transparent as this announcement is, and as much as ZOS is obviously allowed to change their minds whenever they want on their game, I do remember all the assurances that the Vengeance campaign was just a test. I also remember someone writing a comment that there's no way ZOS would put all of that effort into adjusted abilities for each class and this whole different mode if it was just a test. I can't help but feel that, while they may be communicating truthfully now, that we were initially misled about intentions... and that bothers me a lot. There is no option listed that doesn't say "Open a Vengeance Campaign." Nor does it say, anywhere in this message, that due to positive feedback or outcomes of the tests that they actively changed their minds about considering the Vengeance mode as simply a test. All of a sudden, we're magically just here.

I certainly don't know what everyone is thinking, and can't read everyone's minds, but I think there is an analysis to be done here on the survey feedback that clearly illustrates the sentiments of the community in response to the tests. Some quotes (emphasis mine):

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

For the first test...
Survey results were also the most positive following this test compared to subsequent ones, with many participants saying they enjoyed the higher population, improved game performance/lower latency, and overall experience. The aligned Golden Pursuit was also noted as a positive. The loss of unique class/character builds and customization was (and continues to be) the biggest negative point.

Ah, the first test. Back when everyone believed that "this was just a test" so they enthusiastically told ZOS which things were improved in this campaign. I felt the need to provide feedback that the lack of builds and customization was not fun, just in case ZOS would take the enthusiasm as a signal that Vengeance mode as-is was better than a fully functioning Cyrodiil. Apparently, I wasn't the only one. It is really important for ZOS to understand that most of the feedback given was through the lens of "this would be awesome IF we could get these improvements in real Cyrodiil" not "oh my gosh, this is way cooler than what we had before!"

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

For the second test...
Survey results for this test were similar in sentiment, leaning positive. Over 80% of participants rated the added skill lines favorably (“OK”, “Good”, or “Great”), sharing appreciation for the variety and balance, while also noting that there’s room to improve.

I remember the skill line question being a red flag to me here. Why do we need to rate them if it's just a test? I don't know if the participant numbers went down, but I'd guess that most of the "real" PvP'ers did not spend as much time in this test as the first one (I know I didn't), but, again, most of us believed that "this was just a test" so feedback submitted was under the banner of "in this test environment, this is what was good" as opposed to "in this environment, which could replace what we have, this is why we like it BETTER than GH."

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

For the third test...
Survey results for this test were more mixed than the results following the first two and we saw less positivity overall. More survey participants noted fatigue with the tests and a desire to be able to play their own unique characters and builds in Cyrodiil, and frustration that the test ran during another in-game event.

I appreciate the honesty about "less positivity," but this little paragraph really says it all. People want to play their unique characters and builds in Cyrodiil. I think it was starting to become more obvious to people, at this time, that Vengeance just might not be a test.

If you look at these three little feedback paragraphs back-to-back, I truly don't understand how the conclusion isn't "let's take what we learned and do everything we can to improve performance in Cyrodiil, even if it isn't quite as good as the Vengeance tests" as opposed to "open up a Vengeance campaign or ONLY Vengeance campaigns." In my opinion, it's disingenuous to gather data about a "test" and then use some of that data to justify turning the test into one of two or the only option available in the future. People might have answered the questions differently, and might have been more negative and clear about their desire for customization and builds, if they knew it was an option that we'd lose them.

It's kind of like giving everyone in the population with a vehicle a Hot Wheels toy car with a new color, and then putting out a survey to ask if people like the new color, and then using the survey results which stated the new color was "cool" to justify seizing everyone's real vehicles, leaving them only with the Hot Wheels toy car. Just because the survey-takers liked the toy car's color doesn't mean they liked it better than their real vehicle!

If ZOS is determined to go down this path... well, it's their game. But I object to positive feedback solicited in a different context being cited and somewhat implying that this is how we got here. ZOS should just own it, and be clear that this is what they want to do and that they're going to do it. Because overall, I don't think it's what the community wants and if we were asked that question directly in the tests ("Did you enjoy playing in this test, AS-IS, more than GH Cyrodiil, and would you consider it an improvement if it were to replace it?"), they'd have that feedback. Instead, this feels more like the AwA fiasco, where we were told "it was what we all wanted" when in reality it was done for performance. And, just like AwA, there will be people that will like the Vengeance campaigns, but overall the changes don't seem like they are being done to improve the game for the target audience currently enjoying the functionality.

To conclude, I guess the other questions I'd like answered are: "When was it decided that Vengeance was going to be an outcome of these tests? When you reference the 'most players ever in Cyrodiil at one time,' have you thought about how many people present in Vengeance would have stayed in regular PvP if they had a choice during that time period? Perhaps should you try a Vengeance test alongside GH being available, to see if enough people really select Vengeance over another option and are interested in using it long term? Why, if only one campaign can remain, must it be Vengeance only, if the community prefers a fully featured environment? Wouldn't it make sense to test the two against each other, and monitor those volumes, before making the final decision and landing on "only two options?"

licenturion wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Just like in nature, you need a certain number of herbivores to sustain a healthy population of carnivores. And to get the herbivores to stay, the grass needs to be greener! Vengeance grass is stale, but there is an electric fence keeping out the wolves (meaning everyone loses).

While I find your analogies you make in this thread amusing, they don't really make a good case for non-hardcore players to support your cause. You basically say here 'we need casual victims to have fun'.

Since you like analogies. Think of a city football league:
- Gray Host is the premier division. It’s intense, competitive, and only the most skilled players thrive. Matches are brutal but rewarding.
- Vengeance is the amateur division. It’s still football, but the rules are simplified, the pace is slower, and newcomers don’t get crushed instantly.

If the league only had the premier division, most casual players would quit after being demolished every match. If it only had the amateur division, the skilled players would leave because there’s no challenge. But with both divisions running side by side, casuals can play at their level, enjoy the sport, and maybe one day climb into the premier division.

The choice keeps the league alive: casuals don’t feel excluded, veterans don’t feel bored, and the ecosystem sustains itself. Without that split, the league collapses because one group inevitably burns out. (which already happened with the current low PvP population).

While I 100 percent agree they should commit to keeping and improving Gray Host, they should also move forward with Vengeance. It is quite telling that the PvP people have been complaining nothing is done for PvP for years and now there are some clear initiatives like Vengeance, a brand new mode and new progression system, the hardcore PvP players are basically saying 'nope, hands off, leave everything as it is'.

@licenturion It is how this works. Online game ecosystems and the social dynamics within have long been studied. My plea is not for non-hardcore players to "support my cause". My cause, as is yours, as is ZOS', is to create a healthy and sustainable game environment that we all enjoy. PvPers do need casual victims to have fun. Casual PvPers need victims too, and so do hardcore PvPers. Removing the casual PvPers turns the community cannibalistic and causes rapid collapse (as seen in the population of Ravenwatch and Imperial City). So if ZOS cares about this game, they need to intervene and make the experience better for the non-hardcore crowd. It's not on the hardcore playerbase to be less hardcore to make things more bearable for others. ZOS needs to add incentives to go into Cyrodiil. ZOS needs to make it fun regardless of whether you win or lose. They need to add more and exciting rewards. They need to make the grass greener. This doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.

The problem with your football analogy is that fundamentally amateur division and premier division are still playing the same sport. Vengeance and Grayhost are not the same sport because the rules are fundamentally different. We can hope that some people will make the switch from Vengeance to Grayhost, but there really is no reason for that. Maybe if Vengeance had certain achievements and quest rewards remain disabled even after becoming standard (like the Emperor title), but I don't think I need to tell you that this sounds very unsatisfactory for the people who want Vengeance. I think we'd achieve better results by increasing the cap from below50 PvP to below 160CP to extend the period of time people can spend in the safety of the "amateur division" as you say. If we turned on Vengeance for below50 PvP only, then that could serve the same purpose as well, although I still doubt the effectiveness of it, since it is ultimately a different sport. There are issues with this game's learning curve in general. I think there is an argument to be made for the Impenetrable trait to be removed, just to make that first time PvP experience less harsh, but that's a whole different discussion. Point is: Vengeance is not really the "amateur division" of real PvP, nor should it be.

Another major flaw with your analogy is that football doesn't end in ties as frequently as ESO fights between two high skill players. Between two players of similar skill, duels can last forever, depending on the build. Imagine if most games in the premier league resulted in a draw. That gets boring fast. And not to mention, removing the bottom half of the playerbase only moves the issue elsewhere. You'd have a new bottom half of players - players who you previously identified as hardcore, who are now the bottom of the premier league barrel. All of your arguments aimed at protecting the casual players from the hardcore players suddenly apply to half of the hardcore players themselves, except they still don't enjoy Vengeance and will just quit. That's not the ecosystem sustaining itself. Rince and repeat, and that's half of the ecosystem collapsing.

Your last point I feel is a bit disingenuous. Nobody says "leave everything as it is" and many of the hardcore PvPers appreciated that vengeance was done ... for the purpose of testing. Now ZOS is pulling the rug from under us, saying sike! It's not a test after all! All the conspiracies about Vengeance becoming the new future of PvP are true! We are going to remove Grayhost if you aren't playing Vengeance because, as Jessica put it, these are the only two options. That's literally what they are saying - improving Grayhost is not something they are willing to look into. The best they can do is their new "midsized PvP" whatever that's supposed to be. And hey, maybe that'll be fun. Who knows. All I know is that they've abandoned Imperial City, they've abandoned Daedric Artifacts in Cyrodiil, they've abandoned Battlegrounds until recently and even the new BGs are already being neglected again. So I don't think it is a stretch to assume that they are going to abandon that new midsized PvP Grayhost alternative too. Let's hope I'm wrong about that, but I think you can understand why I'm not too thrilled.