Honestly - Is Vengeance Viable?

Theignson

edward_frigidhands wrote: »

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

Seeing how essentially everyone went back to GH as soon as it became available and skipped vengeance all together there is an undeniable answer to the OP now.

No. Vengeance is not viable.

All these players , who by their own statements never set foot in Vengeance, claiming it was dead after GH opened. They can't seem to understand that 1 bar Vengeance often had many more players than 3 or poplocked GH. Of course they don't understand, they didn't go into vengeance.

Just a couple nights ago, with GH open, had a huge 3 faction fight in Vengeance over BRK, over an hour, well over 100 ad and 100 EP . Yes, the bars were only 1-2. DC also showed up with about 30 players. This was in late prime time.

Hugely fun battle, 3-4 holes in BRK, AD made it to the inner, pushed them out, in again. Finally eP pushed out and flanked AD and won the battle. In the end a 165k tick.

Yes, off hours it was pretty empty, but GH is also.

Strengths of VG: AvA is a blast. They boosted defense with oils so smaller force could win this time. No immortal god mode, ball groups strolling into the keep impervious to any counters

Melee is possible in VG, Ability combinations matter, a balance of defense and offense is critical, no saving yourself with proc sets or hugely excess heals. I had more fun meleeing in battles than I have for years in GH: in GH you are constantly pulled or run over by BG.

Last night saw an AD ball group working as a team and they were really effective. Not immortal, but they proved that teamwork gave an edge over the pugs.

Weaknesses of VG: limited build variety (improved this time with perks, which are essentially CP). Limited combinations (essentially one per class, eg NB was soul shred, merciless, assasins blade after dotting them up). Horses still too slow. ability range too short in keep defense. limited options for solo players.

I went back into GH several times and it was fun to have my speed, my sets, my CP. It would be simple to fix GH (from my perspective as someone who isn't in groups very often):
1) Change RoA to every 30 sec (like DC), reduce radius to 8m, make it apply CC immunity
2) make VD only work for solo players
3) delete warden Charm
4) limit cross heals to 3
I would prefer all proc sets to only give stats, to re-emphasize skill over proc crutching, but that will never happen.

spartaxoxo

Theignson wrote: »

All these players , who by their own statements never set foot in Vengeance, claiming it was dead after GH opened.

I also wonder how much of the population will change when the purposeful boycotts end. I've seen people in zone chat tell others not to play Vengeance because it is replacing Gray Host, even though the devs have said that it's meant to be played alongside Gray Host. I'm sure some will never set foot in there again on principle. But, assuming the devs keep their word that they don't want to delete Gray Host, I can also see some people feeling like it's okay to play it once it's no longer viewed as a threat to Gray Host.

There's a lot of us vs them rhetoric around the two campaigns right now.

BardokRedSnow

I think whatever amount of players are "boycotting" will be counter balanced by the amount of players who dont even know greyhost is back because they dont frequent forums or see zone chat gossip, which is a lot of players.

ZOS_Icy

Greetings,

We have recently removed some unnecessary back and forth from this thread. This is a reminder to keep the discussion civil and constructive. Please keep our Community Rules in mind moving forward.

The Elder Scrolls Online Team