Community Update – Vengeance Testing & Cyrodiil

Ashryn · December 7

I just didn't even want to log into this after seeing the pre-made skill choices. I did enjoy other Vengeance campaigns, but this was just seemed too controlling and contrived.

virtus753 · December 7

Ashryn wrote: »

I just didn't even want to log into this after seeing the pre-made skill choices. I did enjoy other Vengeance campaigns, but this was just seemed too controlling and contrived.

You can customize the skills and perks after you choose a loadout. Those are suggestions to help people get started, not something you’re locked into.

Avran_Sylt · December 7

TheSherryOnTop wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

TheSherryOnTop wrote: »

I'm not sure how I feel about every campagne (except maybe GH) being removed and replaced by one or two Vengeance campagnes. One week of playing Vengeance is fun and all, but the problem with it is that the characters don't feel like they do normally. You don't have normal skills, everyone is somehow squishy af despite having 70k health; overall it becomes monotone very fast. Of course normal PvP does have it's problems (mostly ballgroups), but I thought the part of Vengeance being a test campagne was to figure out what problems current PvP is having and resolving those problems without changing the campagnes and removing what is essential to ESO (that is, playing the character as you like it to play - be it with subclassing or not, be it with procs or not).

Really? I've found the baseline TTK for all players has significantly increased. I've never been able to kill someone in a single GCD yet.

To be fair, in this Vengeance with all the perks you can choose from, it improved quite a bit. That being said, killing others is still quite easy - but that might be because I'm used to tank meta in standard PvP.

Oooh, thought you were talking about the general sense. Yeah, the bulwark meta isn't there anymore (though stalemates sure are). At the same time I'm not seeing people that get killed from a sneeze. (that they know how to handle the increased survivability is another question). I'm coming from the perspective of a ganker. Floor raised, ceiling lowered.

Sarannah · December 7

Have played some vengeance during test 4, and it was fun. The loadout and perk system is quite good, and easy to understand. Perks are a good addition, having us choose between general bonusses or a large bonus with a similar downside.

Haven't encountered any nightblades which the forums state are overpowered, but the balance between players seems to be quite well. Time to kill between players seems right as well, not too slow but also not too fast, allowing players time to respond and learn PvP. The NPC's could use a bit of tuning, unless they were meant to only be fought as groups. But I think soloing should also be able to make a bit of a difference, by capturing resources at keeps for example.

Haven't seen the population for vengeance quite high yet, two bar tops but mostly at one bar. Though this may just be during the times that I was logged in. Not sure if that is enough of a population to sustain that mode longterm, and maybe vengeance can bring more 'casual PvPers' back to the game once it has a permanent campaign. Personally I hope it is/becomes a sustainable PvP mode.

virtus753 wrote: »

Ashryn wrote: »

I just didn't even want to log into this after seeing the pre-made skill choices. I did enjoy other Vengeance campaigns, but this was just seemed too controlling and contrived.

You can customize the skills and perks after you choose a loadout. Those are suggestions to help people get started, not something you’re locked into.

At first I too couldn't figure out if we could edit the loadouts, but we can easily. Just go to the regular skillwindow and change the skills. Perks can be changed in the alliance overview window( "L" on pc).

PS: Small bug, the vengeance weapons are de-equipped upon zoning in/out of delves.
PPS: What are the vengeance population caps during test 4?

CAB_Life · December 8

It really is antithetical to the “play your way” mantra. It's fine if they offer this as a side campaign but it should in no way ever replace a standard Cyro campaign. If people wanna play with worse performance, let them, that’s the trade-off: performance versus character freedom. Also the amount of resources and time that they’re dedicating to this, which was originally a test to fix the issues with Cyro feels duplicitous at best. From a company that has made hundreds of millions of dollars a year for many years, I find it dubious that they cannot crack the walnut of performance issues or things like cross play, and frankly, I’m tired of excuses.

CURSIN_IT · December 8

X-EU one hour before reset:

AD = 52
DC = 12
EP = 70

dcrush · December 8

Because Vengeance isn’t faction locked and the only real win strategy is outzerg your opponent, what you get is people changing toons to join the winning alliance until the Zerg is big enough to emp/take scrolls/take the map.

It’s so incredibly boring.

Sarannah · December 8

dcrush wrote: »

Because Vengeance isn’t faction locked and the only real win strategy is outzerg your opponent, what you get is people changing toons to join the winning alliance until the Zerg is big enough to emp/take scrolls/take the map.

It’s so incredibly boring.

This happens with every Cyrodiil PvP mode and is not exclusive to vengeance. A similar behaviour can be seen during PvP events, where each alliance controls one of the separate Cyrodiil maps entirely. This is just the way humans are designed, taking the path of least resistance.

My guess is only the true PvP diehards actually care for factionlock. (personally I do not like factionlock as it locks 2/3rd of my characters out of PvP)

Sotha_Sil · December 8

Just gonna post this here and I expect tons of Vengeance haters replies but whatever, I just want to share my feedback to ZOS somehow.

I had tons of fun this weekend with Vengeance and I really liked it overall! It feels balanced in terms of class skills numbers and I had tons of fun playing in zerg and solo dueling/small scale. Finally we can play in a monitored PVP environment. For me, this is going in the right direction and I haven't had this much fun in Cyro in years. TY ZOS.

For the future, I'd love to see new elements added to cyrodiil to make it fresh (new PVE-PVP encounters, like big bosses, assist an Alliance hero and so on / new things you could place (like build your own fort -just throwing ideas here but anything would be appreciated)).

LPapirius · December 8

edward_frigidhands wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

Correction: The OP/ZOS post states two possible options, and that ZOS is leaning towards option one. Which is to keep grey host and have a vengeance campaign running at the same time. And that they can't fix the performance issues in grey host without massive buildcompromises. But grey host does not seem to be going anywhere.

I think people are just disappointed that option 1 sounds very much like: "Dear tenants, we won't repair the building's plumbing after all, because it's too difficult. Instead, we suggest you move to this apartment that's half the size, one hour away by car, and in a worse neighborhood. But if you're fine living without running water, you can of course stay here."

Personally, I'm kind of neutral on this, but I get that even if Grey Host remains, it's not really great news for those who were hoping for any kind of improvement of the existing gameplay.

Sarannah wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. The difference in audiences may actually lead to a new population for a healthy vengeance campaign. As also stated in the OP, vengeance was received quite positive based on the survey. If the survey for vengeance was positive but grey host PvPers are overwhelmingly against vengeance, that means there is a new population that differs from the current PvP population that actually likes vengeance.

OP states that the first two tests received positive feedback, although the only actual number given is that 80% of participants rated the skill lines in test #2 favorably. Honestly, if the player feedback was so positive, I would have expected ZOS to throw around a lot more numbers to make a point, but perhaps I'm reading too much into what's (not) been said.

But more importantly, the enthusiasm for Vengeance does not seem to stick. They explicitly say that for the third test, the feedback results "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." And they still have 2-3 more tests planned...

ZOS ran that PvP related Golden Pursuit for the first test for a reason. Now we know that reason was so they could present the graphs in the OP and present artificially inflated participation numbers. Not because they think vengeance will ever be popular. In fact, the action shows they know already that nobody wants to play vengeance. That's why they didn't give the PvE players a carrot, they came them a five star full four course steak dinner, and now ZOS is trying to say "look how many people liked their free steak dinner!".

I didn't think of that right away but it makes so much sense now.

That's why so many people are saying we have to watch what they're doing, not listen to what they're saying.

LPapirius · December 8

MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »

I'd understand if cyrodiil was full but its pretty empty during the test, seems kinda pointless.

yep. Every instance of vengeance there have been fewer and fewer players, with the last instance having about the same number of players as Grey Host in the beginning, and by the end of the week the vengeance servers weren't even putting up a single bar of population and Cyrodiil was an absolute ghost town.

Worse, by far, is that fewer and fewer PvP mains are returning after every vengeance mandate, so ZOS is running off the few of us left who still log on to PvP all at the same time.

VidmaVirtual · December 8

Right now Vengeance is only for big fights, you can't do anything alone. And it's a pretty boring style for me. I think it's best to keep only two companies in Cyrodiil: one in the Gray Host style and one in the Vengeance style. But I like Gray Host's style more.

LPapirius · December 8

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

I think it's best to keep only two companies in Cyrodiil: one in the Gray Host style and one in the Vengeance style. But I like Gray Host's style more.

It will be one or the other and Jessica's post says ZOS isn't even going to try and fix anything in normal live Cyrodiil, so that only leaves vengeance as their goal. No Grey Host. This is why so many people are very justifiably upset and feeling betrayed by and lied to by ZOS, because they were.

Jaavaa · December 8

GH is back 🥳🥳🥳

LarsS · December 8

First primetime, when both GH and Ven were up on PC/EU. GH were never locked on all alliances. Vengeance were on 2bars so about 300 on GH when it peaked, but it dropped relativiely fast to substantially less than that. Ven stayed over 300 during primetime (min for 2 bars on all alliances). So more played Ven, partly perhaps to double ap.

FireSoul · December 9

So I don't know if anyone realizes this, but we're not going to be testing GH and Vengeance correctly.

If Vengeance is 2x AP and GH is 1x AP, then the general populace of players are going to pick where it benefits them most: Vengeance. For The AP. This test is tainted and faulty if all you're doing is testing popularity.

BOTH have to have the same AP bonuses if you want to treat these equally.

minnowfaun · December 9

FireSoul wrote: »

So I don't know if anyone realizes this, but we're not going to be testing GH and Vengeance correctly.

If Vengeance is 2x AP and GH is 1x AP, then the general populace of players are going to pick where it benefits them most: Vengeance. For The AP. This test is tainted and faulty if all you're doing is testing popularity.

BOTH have to have the same AP bonuses if you want to treat these equally.

They haven't tested vengeance equally yet. Why would they start now? :-(

SneaK · December 9

minnowfaun wrote: »

FireSoul wrote: »

So I don't know if anyone realizes this, but we're not going to be testing GH and Vengeance correctly.

If Vengeance is 2x AP and GH is 1x AP, then the general populace of players are going to pick where it benefits them most: Vengeance. For The AP. This test is tainted and faulty if all you're doing is testing popularity.

BOTH have to have the same AP bonuses if you want to treat these equally.

They haven't tested vengeance equally yet. Why would they start now? :-(

It’s ridiculous, one thing after another.

LPapirius · December 9

LarsS wrote: »

First primetime, when both GH and Ven were up on PC/EU. GH were never locked on all alliances. Vengeance were on 2bars so about 300 on GH when it peaked, but it dropped relativiely fast to substantially less than that. Ven stayed over 300 during primetime (min for 2 bars on all alliances). So more played Ven, partly perhaps to double ap.

It's the opposite on PC NA prime time.

On PC NA 18:00 Grey Host is 4-3-4 population
On PC NA 18:00 Vengeance is 1-2-1 population

And bear in mind that vengeance is still giving double AP over Grey Host at this time. So more incentives to play vengeance, but more people actually playing Grey Host.

LPapirius · December 9

FireSoul wrote: »

So I don't know if anyone realizes this, but we're not going to be testing GH and Vengeance correctly.

If Vengeance is 2x AP and GH is 1x AP, then the general populace of players are going to pick where it benefits them most: Vengeance. For The AP. This test is tainted and faulty if all you're doing is testing popularity.

BOTH have to have the same AP bonuses if you want to treat these equally.

Yes, there is a undeniable pattern here.

blktauna · December 9

I couldnt get into PCNA for a couple of days because the queue is too long. PC EU was also full on their primetime. I loved this except again for borked range. Lots of fights, bug d ticks, actual cooperation between forces. Loved it. No cheese, not deathless tanks. Delighhtdul all round.

xylena · December 9

LPapirius wrote: »

On PC NA 18:00 Grey Host is 4-3-4 population
On PC NA 18:00 Vengeance is 1-2-1 population

Each Vengeance bar is about 3x as many players as each Live bar. So it's more like 4/3/4 vs 3/6/3. The weird faction split is bad for the health of both campaigns. They need to commit.

amiiegee · December 9

Vengeance is such a fail its comical

xR3ACTORx · December 9

Sarannah wrote: »

This is just the way humans are designed, taking the path of least resistance.

I guess the same rule applies to pveers who favor vengeance because they are taking the path of least resistance.

dcrush · December 9

FireSoul wrote: »

So I don't know if anyone realizes this, but we're not going to be testing GH and Vengeance correctly.

If Vengeance is 2x AP and GH is 1x AP, then the general populace of players are going to pick where it benefits them most: Vengeance. For The AP. This test is tainted and faulty if all you're doing is testing popularity.

BOTH have to have the same AP bonuses if you want to treat these equally.

Wait, only Vengeance is double AP and GH is not? That’s ridiculous and indeed a misleading way to test popularity.

CatoUnchained · December 9

LPapirius wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

No, they're not going to keep Grey Host. They said very clearly they're aren't even going to try to fix it. Read the OP.

Correction: The OP/ZOS post states two possible options, and that ZOS is leaning towards option one. Which is to keep grey host and have a vengeance campaign running at the same time. And that they can't fix the performance issues in grey host without massive buildcompromises. But grey host does not seem to be going anywhere.

Amongst the players, there seems to be practically noone who wants grey host taken away. Even those who do not like grey host.

LPapirius wrote: »

No, everyone who's going to PvP is already doing so. Vengeance will not bring in 10% of of the players it will drive out of the game.

Maybe, maybe not. The difference in audiences may actually lead to a new population for a healthy vengeance campaign. As also stated in the OP, vengeance was received quite positive based on the survey. If the survey for vengeance was positive but grey host PvPers are overwhelmingly against vengeance, that means there is a new population that differs from the current PvP population that actually likes vengeance.

Not only that, but having vengeance running will allow ZOS to advertise massive scale PvP with hundreds of players without any performance issues again. Which ups the entire marketing for the game, which now often seems negative due to the performance issues on grey host. Changing the outside marketing view of the game towards a more positive one, including in PvP.

There seems to be no negatives to having both vengeance and grey host running at the same time.

SneaK wrote: »

albertberku wrote: »

They are going to keep both Vengeance and Grey Host up and people will just choose wherever they want to play. Should they just leave broken Grey Host up forever so that ESO PvP rapidly dies? What do you exactly want? People dont want to bother with Grey Host and its broken PvP. The population is so low there is almost never 3 bars anymore except maybe 1 hour a day and there are no queues anymore. Just let the ESO PvP be more like similar to how a modern MMO should be and how it is out there for every other sane game. 0.25 sec reaction times, and 6 different skills hitting at the same time isnt it, not for a MMO. ESO PvP with its current state is a chaotic mess, it is not a design choice. Vengeance is a try to fix it. Doesnt really matter if 100 ESO PvP veterans that are so used to abusing broken gameplay mechanics will quit or not, Vengeance could possibly attract 1000s of new players.

You will quit ESO and which game you will play then? There are no other mainstream PvP game on the market that has that many broken combat gameplay mechanics ESO PvP currently has. At some point you will have to learn to play on an equal field if you want to continue doing PvP in online gaming and not just stacking every OP proc set that the newest patch introduced and every OP damage skill line, then just press a single button whole fight and call it "build diversity".

Seems like you’re saying balance is what has driven people away……

Not balance, but the massive hurdle of months or training/gearing to even be able to start to PvPing in this game(balance would only come in play after this). Balance and hurdle are two very different things. Balance only comes into play when both sides are on equal footing to begin with, which is another thing vengeance provided.

The OP did type the sentence you highlighted. But that's not what they said. Reading comprehension skills are paramount here. The statement that they aren't going to even try to fix normal live Cyrodiil going forward is the action statement in their post. That means scenario 2 is the target their aiming for.

I don't understand what people aren't realizing here. I can only conclude that the people who are still believing vengeance is just a test are new or something.

CatoUnchained · December 9

xylena wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

On PC NA 18:00 Grey Host is 4-3-4 population
On PC NA 18:00 Vengeance is 1-2-1 population

Each Vengeance bar is about 3x as many players as each Live bar. So it's more like 4/3/4 vs 3/6/3. The weird faction split is bad for the health of both campaigns. They need to commit.

You don't know this to be true. They said the cap for the first "test" was 900. But as someone who participated in the first three "tests", it was obvious they were lowering the population cap after the first run. So nobody outside of ZOS knows what the caps are for this current vengeance against the PvP community.

CatoUnchained · December 9

dcrush wrote: »

FireSoul wrote: »

So I don't know if anyone realizes this, but we're not going to be testing GH and Vengeance correctly.

If Vengeance is 2x AP and GH is 1x AP, then the general populace of players are going to pick where it benefits them most: Vengeance. For The AP. This test is tainted and faulty if all you're doing is testing popularity.

BOTH have to have the same AP bonuses if you want to treat these equally.

Wait, only Vengeance is double AP and GH is not? That’s ridiculous and indeed a misleading way to test popularity.

Turns out most of what we've been told about vengeance, it's popularity, it's stability etc. has all been cherry picked data. This is just the latest example of how.

TheSherryOnTop · December 9

dcrush wrote: »

FireSoul wrote: »

So I don't know if anyone realizes this, but we're not going to be testing GH and Vengeance correctly.

If Vengeance is 2x AP and GH is 1x AP, then the general populace of players are going to pick where it benefits them most: Vengeance. For The AP. This test is tainted and faulty if all you're doing is testing popularity.

BOTH have to have the same AP bonuses if you want to treat these equally.

Wait, only Vengeance is double AP and GH is not? That’s ridiculous and indeed a misleading way to test popularity.

Not only does Vengeance give you double AP, it gives you 50 transmutes every day too. Definitely not a good way to design a test concerning popularity if one campagne gives you a lot more loot than the other one.

minnowfaun · December 9

I firmly believe that Blackreach needs to stay. GH is a pressure cooker filled with metas, ball groups, and other finely tuned gaming players. Which is not in and of itself a bad thing. However, as ZoS takes a very loose hand with managing toxic players/guilds Blackreach functions as a place where people can play on a less serious level but still 'play as they want'. With vengeance as the only other other option it will simply turn up the heat in GH.