Honestly - Is Vengeance Viable?

Artisian0001

xylena wrote: »

ToddIngram wrote: »

You basically haven't played for the last year and you missed a few months before that while moving to the east coast etc. You've been playing less and less since about 2022. I know who I'm talking to.

ToddIngram wrote: »

And why should someone who admits to only playing one week/month have a louder voice in the direction for the game than those of us who still play daily?

Looks like you answered your own question. Other players remember more about my ESO career than I do. Dunno who you are though, sorry.

You make it known. You type like 200 comments a month. Nobody cares to know that you are going to complain about RoA for the 1,000th time or come on a forum post about vengeance and claim it's better yet gets half the players as GH. Your concerns have to be the topic of every thread even when they are completely unrelated. Your sole aspiration is to derail every thread you dislike.

Vengeance's population is much lower than GH and it deserves to take a back seat at every turn.

xylena

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Your sole aspiration is to derail every thread you dislike.

Then why are you replying to me?

Radiate77

Artisian0001 wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

ToddIngram wrote: »

You basically haven't played for the last year and you missed a few months before that while moving to the east coast etc. You've been playing less and less since about 2022. I know who I'm talking to.

ToddIngram wrote: »

And why should someone who admits to only playing one week/month have a louder voice in the direction for the game than those of us who still play daily?

Looks like you answered your own question. Other players remember more about my ESO career than I do. Dunno who you are though, sorry.

You make it known. You type like 200 comments a month. Nobody cares to know that you are going to complain about RoA for the 1,000th time or come on a forum post about vengeance and claim it's better yet gets half the players as GH. Your concerns have to be the topic of every thread even when they are completely unrelated. Your sole aspiration is to derail every thread you dislike.

Vengeance's population is much lower than GH and it deserves to take a back seat at every turn.

That’s kind of rude, I haven’t that experience with @xylena, and while I have seen one or two posts about Rush of Agony, are they not valid?…

Whether or not Vengeance deserves to take a back seat is irrelevant. Gray Host IS taking the back seat. I don’t like Vengeance presently, but you would never see me attacking people who do. 😂

Poss

ToddIngram wrote: »

Tonight is the third night in a row that Grey Host has been pop locked while vengeance only has one bar. Not sure how ZOS is going to be able to spin the side by side comparison at this point. The vast majority of people will play Grey Host when given the choice between Grey Host and vengeance.

They just wont. They'll still declare it a resounding success and push this abomination through to Live

spartaxoxo

This isn't it's final form so it's hard to say. No new stuff is being added but they're going to be looking at its damage/healing balance.

Lord_Hev

.

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Lord_Hev wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

because you like mindless template PvP

It’s a time sink, when it’s not, guess what, people won’t sink their time into it and it’ll die out.

Come fight me on Vengeance and see if that holds true.

Players sink time into what they find fun. Not homework. There's good reason ESO, WoW, and FF14 have all been relaxing grind requirements in favor of accessibility. If you want 00s era competitive grind, you're on the wrong game. Maybe try some K-MMOs.

Surely you remember the golden days of pvp? It was ironically during a time when ESO -was- a hardcore grind game. I think the concept of a grind has been misconstrued. The way I see it, it has been the casualification of a lot of the "grind" systems that actually turned pvp into the sweat-fest it is now. Consider the ease of building all the hyper-specialized min-max set-ups. The only time sink is transmute crystals, but all gear is now universally accessible. I'd argue that a hardcore grind mechanic-philosophy actually casualifies the game more.

Now of course, there is also the issue that this was a timeframe where the only established meta was centered around stat balance due to the limit of proc sets amongst several other factors. And right now, there is a plethora of these sets that have in their own vacuum caused and continue to cause issues. But what if transmutation never existed? What if reconstruction never existed? What if people had to actually grind all these ridiculous hyper min-max'd soulless builds that have zero personalization and creativity? I'd wager the playing field right now would be more level.

The super sweats would be the ones that have the energy and time-sink to grind them out, as it has always been. But for the rest? They would settle for craftable and more easily accessible options, as it had been. This also goes into this whole "equal-playing field" argument, and I believe that sentiment actually ruined the game. And I will use my anecdotal experience with you Xylena. I have fond memories of squaring off against your DK: completely off-meta, a stamdk. And you were a nightmare to fight against. Again, this was delicate balance as the most "meta" one could go largely revolved around "stat balance" the game under-the-hood was also very different, but I hope the point I'm making, makes sense. A hardcore grind isn't inherently bad if it's done within reason. The vast plethora of sets now, the "bloat" all the other under-the-hood decisions in conjunction with transmutes allowing "build however you want, ultimate casual freedom" has enabled some of the most sweat-fest hyper min-max'd metas of all of eso's time. These have all "added up" over time.

HARD disagree that things like Transmutation and Reconstruction have been bad additions to the game. That's a wild take!

Don't overthink it, the answer is staring everyone in the face - it's balance, it's always been balance, it always will be balance. We have had basically an AFK approach to combat balance, especially in PvP, for the last 3+ years, maybe even longer.

I remember joining the game back in Summerset and the patch notes were PHAT and loaded with thoughtful tweaks and comments. Nowadays, we have patch notes and they contain like 6 combat tweaks, most of which are changing magic numbers from round numbers to weird spreadsheet-ified values (e.g. 600 to 613 or some such) that just completely miss the forest for the trees.

ZOS drew the wrong conclusions from the disastrous Scalebreaker patch. Players are fine with changes provided that those changes are thoughtful and being done for an accepted purpose. Scalebreaker itself was rejected because the changes were massive and completely nonsensical. We had a few more out-of-touch, whiplash patches after that, with seemingly no goal for what was being done apart from pleasing the master spreadsheet. Then they just threw up their hands and said, okay, it is what it is now and we are making only minor alterations.

We will never have balance as long as the spreadsheet is this strange deity that constantly needs pleasing. Because the spreadsheet, and the ratios defined within it, are wrong and incorrectly set. Thus, anything work product that flows from the spreadsheet is wrong and incorrectly set. Anyone who plays the game at a reasonable level knows this. In some alternate dimension where SkinnyCheeks is driving the bus on balance we wouldn't be having this conversation at all because this issue would already have been solved.

In any case, for all the folk blaming systems that they don't like or whatever - that ain't it. We simply need to ask the combat team to step it up with the quantity and quality of their work product. And they... seemingly are? Sometimes leadership does matter and the new guy seems to understand that the ways of the past need to change. So, IMO, there's finally a reason for optimism after a fairly bleak spree of years. Hopefully they will deliver.

I basically agree with everything you just said. Balance has been and still is a big mess and the Spreadsheet is an atrocity. My wild take though I still stand-by. When transmutation and much later reconstruction where released, man I was hyped for it. It felt like a huge relief. But now on retrospective, it feels like a disaster because I look back at when pvp builds and also pve builds were a lot more simplified and competitive(with each other in relative to the most "meta" one can go) and it's the ease of access that made the bulk of player settle for the "not super min-max'd option.) So, "gate-keeping" in a sense. I used to be very against that too lol. If there's no limitations in place, then the meta is more accessible and... more "defined" thus no room for creativity. Just an arms race of sorts.

I also agree with Skinnycheeks as a developer, HOWEVER. I also remember Gilliam whom was an active eso player and pvper who eventually got invited to the Zos team. People spoke fondly about how that would turn things around... but instead the Spreadsheet was given great power and hold and has basically evolved since then. There're great minds and talent on the Zenimax team, but it seems like overall direction is all-over-the-place and focused on the wrong things. And it really needs to change.

SneaK

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This isn't it's final form so it's hard to say. No new stuff is being added but they're going to be looking at its damage/healing balance.

Yet.. they are supposed to be looking at performance not balance.

spartaxoxo

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This isn't it's final form so it's hard to say. No new stuff is being added but they're going to be looking at its damage/healing balance.

Yet.. they are supposed to be looking at performance not balance.

Now that it's going to be a permanent feature, it obviously needs to be balanced. Whether or not you believe they lied about what it was from the beginning, they announced they were going to do balancing tests at the same time as they announced it becoming a feature. It's not supposed to just be a performance test anymore.

Vulkunne

I'm not one bit phased by Vengeance performance. Meaningful change is difficult. It's a slow process and I still truly believe this way is better than to just uh keep cloning the Cyrodiil servers and serving those to us ... why not this way you ask? Because only Grayhost has the population 'flare' perk. Time has proven that Grayhost will always be the priority for people to visit over the other servers. To keep cloning them is just creating a distraction with the problem, rather than moving on from the problem with an actual solution.

So, what of Vengeance? What now. We wait and see what move ZOS does next. I still believe that given enough time and dedication Vengeance will become something that allows transformation from Grayhost. It could happen. But then again, what you have here my friends, is the love of power for some is greater than the love of the game itself. They don't want to give up their proc sets, or their lofty group bonus (ball groups), computer synergy as I like to call it , makes them look good on stream, in their guilds and such. It's way easier to have a computer do the work for you. That's why the Guilds left Ravenhome. No proc Cyrodiil makes for poor bombers and ball groups. The grander the spectacle the greater the attraction to the things it brings.

I'm somewhat enjoying reading posts from others who have woken up to how people complain about these same power problems in Cyrodiil but then the same are dead set against making adjustments to Cyrodiil to fix problems with things being overpowered. Of course, for many of these people Grayhost has been all they've had for so long they just, I dunno can't live without it. I'm not saying to take Grayhost away by any means. But what I am saying is because the balance has become so bad, every patch/year that goes by without fixing things, make this transformation from old Grayhost to something even better, troublesome and less welcome especially when factoring in those who already don't like change.

Ah well. Over time many of us have voiced our concerns, we're tired of having our time and reputation in game abused and exploited by ball groups, grief bombers, gankers, rush of agony, streamers (sometimes) and so on so forth. So that said, I've thought about it. If Vengeance has no pop and Cyrodiil isn't going to change then there's no point going back to that. I don't care how many people queue ... because like 98.5% of them are just fodder for the ball groups and for bombers. They'll PvP until everything sits and stops... for hours. You won't get rid of the problem by feeding exploiters AP. Maybe I'll just goto things like BGs and PvE from now on. There are more than a few dungeons I haven't run yet and there's Tales of Tribute too which uh I haven't bothered to learn. Yeah, I know, I'm stubborn as well in my own way, I guess.

I have no regrets regarding my arguments on here and I'm still hopeful for the best however at this point, I think all the energy in the world won't accomplish more than whatever ZOS decides to do next. I wish ZOS the best of luck trying to work all of this out and look forward to what will probably be an interesting new year. Best wishes and Happy Holidays.

Artisian0001

xylena wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Your sole aspiration is to derail every thread you dislike.

Then why are you replying to me?

Because you get your comments deleted often and have been banned before. Your sole purpose is to troll and derail threads because you think PvP where players have any skill and you can't just troll dodge every instance of damage shouldn't exist.

Oh by the way, GH is way above vengeance right now in population, just thought I would keep you updated on what the thread is about.

SneaK

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This isn't it's final form so it's hard to say. No new stuff is being added but they're going to be looking at its damage/healing balance.

Yet.. they are supposed to be looking at performance not balance.

Now that it's going to be a permanent feature, it obviously needs to be balanced. Whether or not you believe they lied about what it was from the beginning, they announced they were going to do balancing tests at the same time as they announced it becoming a feature. It's not supposed to just be a performance test anymore.

It’s shameful, they haven’t looked at balancing Cyrodiil in how long(?) yet now they are pushing template PvP born from performance issues and focusing on balancing it….. I guess my blindfold doesn’t fit right.

spartaxoxo

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This isn't it's final form so it's hard to say. No new stuff is being added but they're going to be looking at its damage/healing balance.

Yet.. they are supposed to be looking at performance not balance.

Now that it's going to be a permanent feature, it obviously needs to be balanced. Whether or not you believe they lied about what it was from the beginning, they announced they were going to do balancing tests at the same time as they announced it becoming a feature. It's not supposed to just be a performance test anymore.

It’s shameful, they haven’t looked at balancing Cyrodiil in how long(?) yet now they are pushing template PvP born from performance issues and focusing on balancing it….. I guess my blindfold doesn’t fit right.

I mean, I agree with you that live Cyrodiil has needed balance changes for a long time now. You'll get no argument from me there. But that doesn't change that if they're going through with vengeance as a feature, it should launch in a better balanced state too. Those aren't mutually exclusive things. I want to see them have good balance for both


ETA
I want both to succeed. I'm not holding my breath but that's the ideal outcome for me. That Vengeance gets more people to try PvP and those people use it as a way to have fun with larger scale battles. And that once they have a handle on the basics of PvP, those same people go to Gray Host and become dedicated PvPers with dedicated PvP builds. If Vengeance becomes to Cyrodiil what normal trials are to vet ones, and ZOS keeps both of them perfectly balanced and well populated, then that would be the ideal outcome for me. I know it's a longshot but that's what I would prefer.

SneaK

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This isn't it's final form so it's hard to say. No new stuff is being added but they're going to be looking at its damage/healing balance.

Yet.. they are supposed to be looking at performance not balance.

Now that it's going to be a permanent feature, it obviously needs to be balanced. Whether or not you believe they lied about what it was from the beginning, they announced they were going to do balancing tests at the same time as they announced it becoming a feature. It's not supposed to just be a performance test anymore.

It’s shameful, they haven’t looked at balancing Cyrodiil in how long(?) yet now they are pushing template PvP born from performance issues and focusing on balancing it….. I guess my blindfold doesn’t fit right.

I mean, I agree with you that live Cyrodiil has needed balance changes for a long time now. You'll get no argument from me there. But that doesn't change that if they're going through with vengeance as a feature, it should launch in a better balanced state too. Those aren't mutually exclusive things. I want to see them have good balance for both


ETA
I want both to succeed. I'm not holding my breath but that's the ideal outcome for me. That Vengeance gets more people to try PvP and those people use it as a way to have fun with larger scale battles. And that once they have a handle on the basics of PvP, those same people go to Gray Host and become dedicated PvPers with dedicated PvP builds. If Vengeance becomes to Cyrodiil what normal trials are to vet ones, and ZOS keeps both of them perfectly balanced and well populated, then that would be the ideal outcome for me. I know it's a longshot but that's what I would prefer.

I would prefer if it whatever they deliver is successful as well, I just can’t really get onboard with prioritizing something like Vengeance over balancing what we already have. I honestly don’t have an issue with Vengeance PvP existing, but I do have issues with our normal Cyro not existing, and focusing balance efforts elsewhere when the main complaint/burnout people have is about balance!

There will never be perfect balance, that is okay actually. But they are only just now starting to mumble about how they recognize balance is a concern. It’s been this way since hybridization, exacerbated with this team’s updates overtime and now in complete shambles because of subclassing. Why can they not roll out more frequent balance updates? Is it actually that hard to admit/acknowledge Charm is poorly designed? Or that Regen should only be able to be applied once at a time? Or that pull sets aren’t widely enjoyed? Like, fix a couple things here and there, instead of doing NOTHING.

xylena

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Your sole purpose is to troll and derail threads

I'm talking about Vengeance, which is the thread topic. You're talking about me.

aetherix8

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

The answer is pretty simple: to revitalize the population, to add more players to PvP. And frankly, it is delusional to expect that newbies will turn into skilled PvPers in 1 week (or 2 even).

It will be a different story once Vengeance is permanent because it will offer a continuity of learning. At the moment, there is no reason to engage with a mode that is unfinished and only there for a week or two.

If the only audience that matters and should be taken into account is vet PvPers then PvP is as good as dead, as it fails to attract new players while population is actively shrinking.

xR3ACTORx

xylena wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Your sole purpose is to troll and derail threads

I'm talking about Vengeance, which is the thread topic. You're talking about me.

Well then I guess he had a point.

Iriidius

amiiegee wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

amiiegee wrote: »

But im claiming vengeance wont be populated if it becomes a option and this will make the most vengeance enthusiasts play GH.

This is wrong, most of the players in Vengeance are casuals. The pvp player base is very small in comparison. Today was proof you're wrong on this. Both GH and Vengeance were open and Vengeance still had plenty of zergs on all sides (PCNA). I don't know why people are obsessed with comparing bars when it's already been established that the max player count is way higher than GH.

And no the bonuses are not the only reason it's still popular currently. When a new player joins cyro and they first join GH (because that's the only one that ever has players normally) they will be stomped with zero chance of winning. But if they join Vengeance they'll actually be able to play the game and experience pvp and not die in two seconds to some max CP player running meta gear and skills or a ball group.

Yes a dead campaign = no new players. But that is because they're all the same campaigns. The only difference is one no cp campaign and one below level 50. But the below level 50 one is dead because there's not enough players to sustain it and people don't bother making new toons just to rejoin it unless it's to troll real new players.

With Vengeance at least it's a different way to play pvp that is easier for the casual or new player to play. Believe me when I say a casual looks at GH and wants to stay far away from it. It's just not good pvp for them because pve and pvp are vastly different.

Currently the only way as a new player to enjoy pvp is BG's because they at least have a below level 50 version that is populated some of the time.

So yeah keeping Vengeance is fine and not going to be a problem for GH, as you said most hardcore pvp players will stay in GH. It could sustain itself if the pvp community would stop being so toxic towards the idea, the unique part of Cyro is the siege and capturing stuff, not the pvp gameplay. And Vengeance allows a way bigger player cap due to the reduction of sets and problematic calculations. Which in turns allows for better attacking and defending moments.

Time will show who is right, im just saying 11 years people who began to play pvp started in GH and adapted instead of playing training wheel pvp.
I believe this will continue.

11 years people surely didn’t started to play PvP in GreyHost nor any other cp campaign because neither GreyHost nor cp existed 11 years ago.
If you mean they started in a campaign with builds instead of templates this is true but 11 years ago everyone was a new player and you could type lfg and play Pickupgroup against other PuGs consisting of new players so you didn’t had to be good.
Nowadays even having good build isn’t enaugh to have fun in GH/BR because PuGs are dead, soloplay is dead and premades will don’t invite you in group for beeing a zergling (even when you never play in group or attack outnumbered players) and unskilled and zerg you themself on sight as „revenge“.

Iriidius

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

Vengeance PCNA 4PM Tuesday.


The only reason why it's not viable is because people don't want to play in an empty campaign. When GH wasn't around and the people that apparently "hated Vengeance" so much that they stopped playing pvp entirely, Vengeance was booming with new players and always had big fights going on.

If it's hated so much by the pvp community then why was it packed on PCNA? Because people enjoy it, but now that GH is back to skew the numbers and make people think GH has more players, people don't want to bother joining Vengeance because they think it's dead (which it is because GH is deceptive with it's bars.)

It's not dead because no one liked playing it, if that was the case then no one would have played it. The bonus ap they offered is not that good of an incentive.

Just accept its dead. And thats good.
GH never needed incentives to be populated.
Time to move on, be part of pvp in GH or let it be and stay outside.

As long people are not forced to play it, vengeance will not become populated. And it was only populated because there was no other way to play cyro pvp and people got lurked with double ap lmao.

Pretty sad you're that desperate tbh.

Not desperated at all, because the actions of the players who straight left vengeance as soon it was possible, just proved the game mode is not accepted or wanted.

If Zos brings that game mode aside of grey host you can have fun fighting guards or three people. It will be like IC basically.

Im happy about all that.

And I can't wait for GH to be retired and Vengeance to take over. All the people who hate Vengeance will flock over. There really only needs to be one campaign and GH is just terrible. It's pretty clear that ZOS's plans are to retire GH and add in a new smaller scale version in replace of it.

Forcing Grey Host players to play in Vengeance demonstrates a complete lack of confidence that Vengeance can attract a player base on its own merits. Which is sad.

Honestly, it probably can. It just won't happen overnight. Vengeance boosters need to put in the work to get new players to try it out. That would be a much more productive use of time and energy than trying to steal away other people's campaigns.

Telling the truth isn't sad, ZOS isn't putting all this effort into Vengeance just to let it flop, and the data clearly proves that when it's the only campaign around, it's popular. So sorry to say but most likely GH is gone in the next year and Vengeance is the only campaign left for full scale Cyro.

And it's not a lack of confidence, it's reality. There just isn't enough players to sustain two campaigns. Ofc GH is popular because that's where ballgroups and 1vXers shine. But the majority of the ESO community hate that and just normal siege pvp with massive battles and no annoying pull sets and bombers.

If the majority of the ESO community hates Grey Host then why aren't they all playing in Vengeance?

Without all of the traditional PvP sweats they should be having the times of their lives.

Because it's missing the boost of the GH pvp community, people are playing Vengeance still. Just fought a zerg with another zerg. If it was the only campaign then it would be more active. Let's be real and stop acting like GH is always populated, it's only populated when a pvp guild decides to get on because people move to where the numbers are, and it's a known fact that for some reason pvp guilds were protesting Vengeance while coming onto the forums to whine about it.

Grey Host players aren't props for other people's amusement, though. They are playing the mode that they enjoy and don't need to justify that preference to anyone.

Vengeance as a campaign needs to put in its own work to build its own population base rather than having one simply handed to it.

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

Lucasl402 wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

If people want to play vengeance when it goes live as permanent option, nobody is forcing them.

But trust me they will have not many to fight, because people prefere GH.
Thats just the reality. The Vengeance enjoyers are a noisy MINORITY.

Zos is on a really wrong path pushing this and making this as only option would just result in more people quitting the game.

I know for a fact i would do, and i know for a fact im not the only one.
GH is not perfect but i prefere it 100x over what ever Vengeance is.

Yeah, the game dropped below 10k daily logins on the Steam Charts in November 2024 for the first time in 6 years.
Then it dropped below 9k in September 2025 and has stayed below that since.

I think the remaining players are the daily casuals, fashinistas and housing enthusiasts plus a small smattering of diehard PvPers (Cyrodiil, not BGs or IC) and endgame PvErs.

Now I'm waiting for the conspiracy theorists to come out and say that since only a percentage of players are on Steam and therefore the trends are meaningless. Or maybe that the long term decline is simply Steam players moving over to Epic to take advantage of the clearly superior platform.

Even if the conspiracy theorists claim the chart is not viable, its a trend indicator. It doesnt need to be 100% accurate.

The numbers dropped and continue to drop massively, because ZOS is on a wrong path since years.

Subclassing, Vengeance are just symptoms

To me it looks like removing the annual chapter release model, combined with vengeance is driving away a lot of the PvP and PvE populations at the same time.

And what chance does ZOS have to turn this trend around with super low pre-sale rates and a massively reduced work force?

I honestly disagree. I think the meta shift because of subclassing is what is driving away people from PVP. Sure, vengeance doesn't make that any better but I find it hard to believe vengeance has caused a bigger ripple than subclassing despite subclassing having a longer time to cause damage.

Vengeance can only have made an already bad situation, worse.

Vengeance definitely plays a role. Every time that a Vengeance test interrupts normal Cyrodiil folk in my PvP guild go on a break while playing other games and then never come back. And I have no reason to believe that my guild is unique in that regard.

Uncertainty is a huge issue because people don't know if everything that they've done in the game that they care about will randomly go up in smoke. And simply the interruption of a player's daily rhythm of logging-in and such. Once you mess with that inertia by having a Vengeance-only week then their connection to the game as a whole is substantially weakened.

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

Vengeance PCNA 4PM Tuesday.


The only reason why it's not viable is because people don't want to play in an empty campaign. When GH wasn't around and the people that apparently "hated Vengeance" so much that they stopped playing pvp entirely, Vengeance was booming with new players and always had big fights going on.

If it's hated so much by the pvp community then why was it packed on PCNA? Because people enjoy it, but now that GH is back to skew the numbers and make people think GH has more players, people don't want to bother joining Vengeance because they think it's dead (which it is because GH is deceptive with it's bars.)

It's not dead because no one liked playing it, if that was the case then no one would have played it. The bonus ap they offered is not that good of an incentive.

Just accept its dead. And thats good.
GH never needed incentives to be populated.
Time to move on, be part of pvp in GH or let it be and stay outside.

As long people are not forced to play it, vengeance will not become populated. And it was only populated because there was no other way to play cyro pvp and people got lurked with double ap lmao.

Pretty sad you're that desperate tbh.

Not desperated at all, because the actions of the players who straight left vengeance as soon it was possible, just proved the game mode is not accepted or wanted.

If Zos brings that game mode aside of grey host you can have fun fighting guards or three people. It will be like IC basically.

Im happy about all that.

And I can't wait for GH to be retired and Vengeance to take over. All the people who hate Vengeance will flock over. There really only needs to be one campaign and GH is just terrible. It's pretty clear that ZOS's plans are to retire GH and add in a new smaller scale version in replace of it.

Forcing Grey Host players to play in Vengeance demonstrates a complete lack of confidence that Vengeance can attract a player base on its own merits. Which is sad.

Honestly, it probably can. It just won't happen overnight. Vengeance boosters need to put in the work to get new players to try it out. That would be a much more productive use of time and energy than trying to steal away other people's campaigns.

Telling the truth isn't sad, ZOS isn't putting all this effort into Vengeance just to let it flop, and the data clearly proves that when it's the only campaign around, it's popular. So sorry to say but most likely GH is gone in the next year and Vengeance is the only campaign left for full scale Cyro.

And it's not a lack of confidence, it's reality. There just isn't enough players to sustain two campaigns. Ofc GH is popular because that's where ballgroups and 1vXers shine. But the majority of the ESO community hate that and just normal siege pvp with massive battles and no annoying pull sets and bombers.

If the majority of the ESO community hates Grey Host then why aren't they all playing in Vengeance?

Without all of the traditional PvP sweats they should be having the times of their lives.

Because it's missing the boost of the GH pvp community, people are playing Vengeance still. Just fought a zerg with another zerg. If it was the only campaign then it would be more active. Let's be real and stop acting like GH is always populated, it's only populated when a pvp guild decides to get on because people move to where the numbers are, and it's a known fact that for some reason pvp guilds were protesting Vengeance while coming onto the forums to whine about it.

Grey Host players aren't props for other people's amusement, though. They are playing the mode that they enjoy and don't need to justify that preference to anyone.

Vengeance as a campaign needs to put in its own work to build its own population base rather than having one simply handed to it.

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

Lucasl402 wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

If people want to play vengeance when it goes live as permanent option, nobody is forcing them.

But trust me they will have not many to fight, because people prefere GH.
Thats just the reality. The Vengeance enjoyers are a noisy MINORITY.

Zos is on a really wrong path pushing this and making this as only option would just result in more people quitting the game.

I know for a fact i would do, and i know for a fact im not the only one.
GH is not perfect but i prefere it 100x over what ever Vengeance is.

Yeah, the game dropped below 10k daily logins on the Steam Charts in November 2024 for the first time in 6 years.
Then it dropped below 9k in September 2025 and has stayed below that since.

I think the remaining players are the daily casuals, fashinistas and housing enthusiasts plus a small smattering of diehard PvPers (Cyrodiil, not BGs or IC) and endgame PvErs.

Now I'm waiting for the conspiracy theorists to come out and say that since only a percentage of players are on Steam and therefore the trends are meaningless. Or maybe that the long term decline is simply Steam players moving over to Epic to take advantage of the clearly superior platform.

Even if the conspiracy theorists claim the chart is not viable, its a trend indicator. It doesnt need to be 100% accurate.

The numbers dropped and continue to drop massively, because ZOS is on a wrong path since years.

Subclassing, Vengeance are just symptoms

To me it looks like removing the annual chapter release model, combined with vengeance is driving away a lot of the PvP and PvE populations at the same time.

And what chance does ZOS have to turn this trend around with super low pre-sale rates and a massively reduced work force?

I honestly disagree. I think the meta shift because of subclassing is what is driving away people from PVP. Sure, vengeance doesn't make that any better but I find it hard to believe vengeance has caused a bigger ripple than subclassing despite subclassing having a longer time to cause damage.

Vengeance can only have made an already bad situation, worse.

Vengeance definitely plays a role. Every time that a Vengeance test interrupts normal Cyrodiil folk in my PvP guild go on a break while playing other games and then never come back. And I have no reason to believe that my guild is unique in that regard.

Uncertainty is a huge issue because people don't know if everything that they've done in the game that they care about will randomly go up in smoke. And simply the interruption of a player's daily rhythm of logging-in and such. Once you mess with that inertia by having a Vengeance-only week then their connection to the game as a whole is substantially weakened.

Sure, but I was never arguing against that. It seems like deflection to claim vengeance is the sole killer of Cyrodiil as if the state of the game hasn't been inherently bad on all fronts. For example, people are STILL to this day debating subclassing's effects on this game both good and bad, months after it has become a permanent thing where we can't reverse course and even more so after the devs statement over re-looking class dynamics. To claim such, you'd have to completely ignore all the other problems that exist in the game.

Again, like I said, before, it's a compounding problem; vengeance can only bad a bad situation even worse. It wouldn't really make a good game(which I doubt many people think the current state of the game is good, especially the pvp crowd), suddenly bad.

Sure, but if someone is ambiently frustrated with the state of the game and then Vengeance comes along and makes them stop playing for a week... it is a VERY convenient time to simply step away for good. Which I've seen happen countless times over the last 9 or whatever months that Vengeance-only testing has been a thing.

If players are too frustrated to have much fun and are only stuck in routine than Vengeance breaking that routine is doing them a favor.
So why do we blame Vengeance only for freeing them of that routine and not also the problems in GreyHost that frustrated them?
Is keeping players that lost fun playing stuck in routine a good thing?
Maybe it helps keep the player numbers up for a while but players should play for fun not for routine.
If breaking their routine for a week is enaugh to make them quit than holidays without PC or work overtime or broken wrist or any other routine break would have done the same.
Maybe ZOS should fix the things making GH players frustrated instead of stop Vengeance tests to keep them stuck in routine.

BardokRedSnow

Artisian0001 wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Your sole aspiration is to derail every thread you dislike.

Then why are you replying to me?

Because you get your comments deleted often and have been banned before. Your sole purpose is to troll and derail threads because you think PvP where players have any skill and you can't just troll dodge every instance of damage shouldn't exist.

Oh by the way, GH is way above vengeance right now in population, just thought I would keep you updated on what the thread is about.

The queue was so long that when people crashed they just logged lmao, that’s the Cyrodiil I missed XD

In fact they should raise the GH population cap too, 200 per faction at least. Last night was very fun even despite ballgroups. We had plenty of bombers making them suffer.

BardokRedSnow

aetherix8 wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

The answer is pretty simple: to revitalize the population, to add more players to PvP. And frankly, it is delusional to expect that newbies will turn into skilled PvPers in 1 week (or 2 even).

It will be a different story once Vengeance is permanent because it will offer a continuity of learning. At the moment, there is no reason to engage with a mode that is unfinished and only there for a week or two.

If the only audience that matters and should be taken into account is vet PvPers then PvP is as good as dead, as it fails to attract new players while population is actively shrinking.

Why do you (need) to be skilled in one or two weeks? Where did that argument even come from, my comment was about experience because the newbies who do not like PvP should not get to shape the future of PvP for those who do.

Do you expect new pvers to parse 110k damage on the dummy?

Again, Greyhost specifically is end game content. We already had 50 and under and no proc campaigns for new players or players tired of ballgroups and the like, like what @Iriidius is talking about. Theres still organized groups but it’s not like it is in greyhost.

Fact is, if people needing a break from procs and gh shenanigans were numerous enough to keep a campaign alive besides Greyhost, those campaigns wouldn’t be so dead.

No one here can justify or advocate for Vengeance without explaining that first. Especially when next to greyhost vengeance is dead also on day 1.

If you’re tired of PvP, do some questing, go farm some sets to get better, or for gold. We don’t need another dead side campaign next to greyhost and as shown pvers aren’t enough to sustain it alone. They’re not interested and no amount of simplicity will make them become pvpers. This has been proven again and again.

GH sees new players all the time, another example of why pvpers’ experience should be taken more seriously, if GH wasn’t receiving new players, then with the amount of people we’ve seen quit the game, GH being pop locked and having a queue every night would be an interesting magic trick.

The games population is dwindling but pretty sure it has more to do with battle pass shenanigans and awful events on solstice, in pve land. Not anything to do with PvP. Also bad implementations of subclassing has done more damage to pve than PvP. Look over there first maybe PVE needs Vengeance….

And it will dwindle even more if vengeance is forced on us.

manukartofanu

aetherix8 wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

The answer is pretty simple: to revitalize the population, to add more players to PvP. And frankly, it is delusional to expect that newbies will turn into skilled PvPers in 1 week (or 2 even).

It will be a different story once Vengeance is permanent because it will offer a continuity of learning. At the moment, there is no reason to engage with a mode that is unfinished and only there for a week or two.

If the only audience that matters and should be taken into account is vet PvPers then PvP is as good as dead, as it fails to attract new players while population is actively shrinking.

Because the current GH has already evolved to a point where it is no longer very interesting for PvP players. This happened due to constant flirtation with PvE, not through a separate campaign but through the meta itself, which kept shifting more and more toward ensuring that you do not die. The natural result is ball groups that have no real counter.

In real PvP, you die again and again. You get better and you die even more. You change your builds, learn mechanics and timings, come back to compete, and you die again. This goes on endlessly. Even when you are the best, you still die to specific builds that can and should counter the meta. If something has no counter, if it cannot be killed, it gets nerfed.

In this game, however, everything is reversed. If something can kill, it gets nerfed. This is simply the evolution of a PvP environment into a PvE activity. The current GH is PvE in its essence, just with a high barrier to entry.

Vengeance is merely a continuation of the idea that PvE players can be drawn into PvP by giving them more and more concessions. This will not work. These are completely different players with completely different mindsets.

aetherix8

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

The answer is pretty simple: to revitalize the population, to add more players to PvP. And frankly, it is delusional to expect that newbies will turn into skilled PvPers in 1 week (or 2 even).

It will be a different story once Vengeance is permanent because it will offer a continuity of learning. At the moment, there is no reason to engage with a mode that is unfinished and only there for a week or two.

If the only audience that matters and should be taken into account is vet PvPers then PvP is as good as dead, as it fails to attract new players while population is actively shrinking.

Why do you (need) to be skilled in one or two weeks? Where did that argument even come from, my comment was about experience because the newbies who do not like PvP should not get to shape the future of PvP for those who do.

Do you expect new pvers to parse 110k damage on the dummy?

Again, Greyhost specifically is end game content. We already had 50 and under and no proc campaigns for new players or players tired of ballgroups and the like, like what @Iriidius is talking about. Theres still organized groups but it’s not like it is in greyhost.

Fact is, if people needing a break from procs and gh shenanigans were numerous enough to keep a campaign alive besides Greyhost, those campaigns wouldn’t be so dead.

No one here can justify or advocate for Vengeance without explaining that first. Especially when next to greyhost vengeance is dead also on day 1.

If you’re tired of PvP, do some questing, go farm some sets to get better, or for gold. We don’t need another dead side campaign next to greyhost and as shown pvers aren’t enough to sustain it alone. They’re not interested and no amount of simplicity will make them become pvpers. This has been proven again and again.

GH sees new players all the time, another example of why pvpers’ experience should be taken more seriously, if GH wasn’t receiving new players, then with the amount of people we’ve seen quit the game, GH being pop locked and having a queue every night would be an interesting magic trick.

The games population is dwindling but pretty sure it has more to do with battle pass shenanigans and awful events on solstice, in pve land. Not anything to do with PvP. Also bad implementations of subclassing has done more damage to pve than PvP. Look over there first maybe PVE needs Vengeance….

And it will dwindle even more if vengeance is forced on us.

I doubt that players who “do not like PvP” try to shape it ever in any way other than “remove PvP” or “make Cyro PvE”. Basically, players who don’t like it are not participating at all unless event tickets, and I’m pretty sure that they have better discussions to read and comment on, like class refresh, or fake roles in dungeons, or fashion. Players who debate Vengeance are all PvPers, some veterans, some newer, but we all have the same objective: PvP that is working (performance) and fun (balance).

As for other campaigns, U50 is dead since conception and no-proc was a half baked and botched experiment promptly abandoned by ZOS. And how is CP2k+ supposed to take a break from ballgroups or whatever in U50? There is simply 0 alternative rn for anyone tired of GH blatant lack of balance.

GH pop-wise, trick for sure just not magic. How many times ZOS have reduced population caps in Cyrodiil? How long the queue is nowadays? PC EU GH I rarely see a queue, and if there’s one it is extremely rarely longer than 15min., while a few years ago queue could be longer than 1 hour. Sure, there are new players who try it, but it seems that far too few stay.

And you say that the fact that PvPers are leaving the game does not have “anything to do with PvP”? Is that even real!? So they left because there are too many fake tanks in dungeons? Or because new PvE content is downsized currently? Or because new mounts are too flashy? It certainly has nothing to do with broken sets or OP ballgroups, or shield/HoT stacking?

And how did subclassing hurt PvE more than PvP? Because everyone is beaming everything now? Because players can burn through trials even faster now? It doesn’t make any sense.

Iriidius

xR3ACTORx wrote: »

I can confirm. On Xbox EU cyro population dropped already during the second vengeance "test". The Midyears Mayhem after this "test" was already much less populated than the MYM at the beginning of the year.

According to my friendlist some players moved on to other games during that test and never returned.

Speaking for myself as someone who enjoyes GH but dislikes Vengeance I admit that I am one of those.

Paying every month for ESO+ just to not be able to play my favorite game mode once a month for a week out of four weeks? No, thanks.

I would really like to return some day to ESO if ZOS gets rid of these periodically returning Vengeance nonsense.
And of course as an DoT Arcanist pvp main I would really want ZOS to make changes to subclassing and make pure classes strong again.
Arcanist really took enough jabs in the past 2 years, but that's another topic.

It is 1 week out of 13 weeks not out of four and nothing is preventing you from playing the remaining 12 weeks and use the 1 for whatever you do now instead of playing eso. Giving up 12 weeks of GreyHost voluntarily because ZoS took away one is your choice.

MYM was shortly after subclassing so Event PvP players probably didn’t had subclassing build ready as they didn’t play Cyrodiil or at all between update 46 and MYM.
You dislike subclassing yourself but still rather blame vengeance that most event PvP players didn’t even noticed(unless they came back to play it too) than subclassing that was active during MYM in every PvP instance.

Iriidius

Poss wrote: »

Lucasl402 wrote: »

Grey Host has been part of the game since inception (maybe not with same name). ZOS should fix the game they created not waste time creating something new that won't help their business in any capacity.

ESO was originally marketed as a PvP game too, Cyrodiil was literally the endgame.

Most popular real PvP games have players start on equal ground like in Vengeance and unlike GreyHost.
Vengeance allows players to play ESO as pure PvP game and brings in PvP players that wouldn’t play GreyHost.

SneaK wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

and then Vengeance comes along and makes them stop playing for a week... it is a VERY convenient time to simply step away for good.

I only play this game when Vengeance is up, so I only get 1 week every 3 months.

The 100 or so GH regulars could all quit forever with zero impact on the game as a whole.

If you're still holding hope that they'll "fix" GH after 12 directionless years... lol.

Right….. Cause if all you do is PvP and all you have is Vengeance there’s no reason to play the rest of the game cause it’s makes PvE irrelevant for PvPers. Thanks for proven a point with your entitlement.

Majority of players are pure PvE players or mostly PvE players occasional PvPing, there are enaugh of them that you don’t have to force pure PvPer to do PvE content to keep it full when most players do the PvE content without even needing the rewards for PvP.
Content that you have to force players to play because they don’t do it for fun is bad content

ceruulean

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

The queue was so long that when people crashed they just logged lmao, that’s the Cyrodiil I missed XD

In fact they should raise the GH population cap too, 200 per faction at least. Last night was very fun even despite ballgroups. We had plenty of bombers making them suffer.

ZoS raised the population cap in Greyhost 2 years ago as a test (which I participated in)

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/648108/cyrodiil-population-cap-testing/p1

The devs didn't really publish anything about the results afterwards. In fact the test probably made them conclude that GH is unsalveagable and they started working on Vengeance.

SneaK

Iriidius wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

and then Vengeance comes along and makes them stop playing for a week... it is a VERY convenient time to simply step away for good.

I only play this game when Vengeance is up, so I only get 1 week every 3 months.

The 100 or so GH regulars could all quit forever with zero impact on the game as a whole.

If you're still holding hope that they'll "fix" GH after 12 directionless years... lol.

Right….. Cause if all you do is PvP and all you have is Vengeance there’s no reason to play the rest of the game cause it’s makes PvE irrelevant for PvPers. Thanks for proven a point with your entitlement.

Majority of players are pure PvE players or mostly PvE players occasional PvPing, there are enaugh of them that you don’t have to force pure PvPer to do PvE content to keep it full when most players do the PvE content without even needing the rewards for PvP.
Content that you have to force players to play because they don’t do it for fun is bad content

These are my favorite comments. Such facts in your perspective and opinion on what other people prefer to do with their time.

NO, I don’t want to be “forced” to run a trial for Null Arca. But, YES, I want a reason to go into Solstice and participate in a 50$ event that I paid for, be it to hustle gold, level a character, or find gear/skill points etc.

None of that matters if all we have to do is select “Soldier” with the default M4 and dead silence.

Major_Mangle

The most ironic thing about Vengeance or the game in general as of late, is how ZOS won't spend a single calorie reading or even considering whatever feedback any of you give. Either you accept whatever they throw at you, or you do like a lot of others have done during this year and move on to other games.

MorallyBipolar

Poss wrote: »

How come all my posts complaining about Vengeance and rigorously supporting the future of GH get deleted but people above who are literally trolling in their support of Vengeance have free reign?

All i said was PvP needs to be treated like a trifecta prog. You aren’t going to get Godslayer first run. You need to wear meta sets, practice your rotations and really try for it. People advocating for GH’s removable because they cant complete their Golden Pursuits or their Scout mission without dying to someone who has been playing for 11 years need to understand that their 180k parse means diddly squat in Cyrodiil

Well, if you have to ask.....you can probably guess why nobody is directly answering your question.

MorallyBipolar

Poss wrote: »

Lucasl402 wrote: »

Grey Host has been part of the game since inception (maybe not with same name). ZOS should fix the game they created not waste time creating something new that won't help their business in any capacity.

ESO was originally marketed as a PvP game too, Cyrodiil was literally the endgame.

It sure was. Now ZOS is refusing to even try to fix Grey Host, which was an original part of the game from the beginning.

So a few points here.

First, ZOS should fix the PvP they originally designed into the game. They can fix it. It might take some effort or investment they don't want to make, but it can be done. They've done it before. They can do it again. So ZOS stating they're not even going to try fixing their product going forward is a vendor saying they're selling a product they're not going to support. This is obviously a highly self destructive business and public relations decision.

Second, if ZOS can't make their premier PvP work smoothly and reliably as it is now, they're not going to be able to make some other new system work smoothly and reliably either.

And third, if the last three days are any indication, essentially nobody will play vengeance with or without an alternative. The last three nights prime time PC NA has been pop locked for Grey Host and vengeance hasn't even filled one bar of population. Almost nobody likes vengeance.

Any investments into vengeance should be ceased immediately to save resources so ZOS can invest in actually fixing their game as opposed to creating something totally different. I mean, what's happened to all those "THEY'RE WORKING ON IT!" explanations and commitments to the player base?

aetherix8

manukartofanu wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

The answer is pretty simple: to revitalize the population, to add more players to PvP. And frankly, it is delusional to expect that newbies will turn into skilled PvPers in 1 week (or 2 even).

It will be a different story once Vengeance is permanent because it will offer a continuity of learning. At the moment, there is no reason to engage with a mode that is unfinished and only there for a week or two.

If the only audience that matters and should be taken into account is vet PvPers then PvP is as good as dead, as it fails to attract new players while population is actively shrinking.

Because the current GH has already evolved to a point where it is no longer very interesting for PvP players. This happened due to constant flirtation with PvE, not through a separate campaign but through the meta itself, which kept shifting more and more toward ensuring that you do not die. The natural result is ball groups that have no real counter.

In real PvP, you die again and again. You get better and you die even more. You change your builds, learn mechanics and timings, come back to compete, and you die again. This goes on endlessly. Even when you are the best, you still die to specific builds that can and should counter the meta. If something has no counter, if it cannot be killed, it gets nerfed.

In this game, however, everything is reversed. If something can kill, it gets nerfed. This is simply the evolution of a PvP environment into a PvE activity. The current GH is PvE in its essence, just with a high barrier to entry.

Vengeance is merely a continuation of the idea that PvE players can be drawn into PvP by giving them more and more concessions. This will not work. These are completely different players with completely different mindsets.

There are many posts on this forum pointing out that PvP and PvE should indeed be balanced separately, which was never the case. New features and systems added over the years are designed with PvE in mind and, I assume, with a total disregard for their impact on PvP balance.

Personally, I like to think that Vengeance is a continuation of an effort to accommodate all the differing preferences of ESO's PvP community, an effort that began when ZOS enabled the no-proc campaign permanently, following player feedback.