My main view is Vengeance is only functional as a test to gain data about performance, however given the popularity of it I suppose changing the U50 campaign or having a completely seperate campaign for a Vengeance gamemode might welcome a new popluation to play PvP.
That said I think Vengeance is too shallow and too boring as well as very dependent on having popluation parity that ultimately it would wither away and die.
A lot of people that have very little understanding of current PvP or are able to pinpoint some sore points about current PvP believe that Vengeance is the fix but the truth is it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
If vengeance is made a campaign the other point of contention then becomes where does workload get allocated by ZOS? At which point it's very feasible to argue the coexistence of Vengeance is a detriment to the game.

Of course also to acknowledge that Vengeance was set up as a test and ZOS have reiterated it is only a test it's probably for the best it remains just as a test.
The argument for a seperate campaign of Vengeance is it's an introductory form of PvP (Though the biggest issue people face entering PvP is having a lack of understanding particularly about builds and their strats) or that Vengeance attracts a different crowd that otherwise would never play PvP.

I would say add it, but if it is not possible for server end reasons then maybe replace the no CP area with this one. I don't think replacing the under 50 area, as I have seen suggested by a lot of people this week, would be good as it will lock out everyone who reaches level 50 and is enjoying this campaign.

I do think it needs some tweaks though.

Definitely more skill options, the alliance war options at the very least.

Quests, emperor, hammer, stuff that needs to be there for achievements etc activated.

Traders active and no unlimited sieges etc.

Being able to interact with things there. I still haven't found that recipe and I would hate to come across it spawned in a zone where I can't pick it up.

I am sure there are other tweaks that could be made as well, but these are just the ones that spring to mind first.

But leave the regular PvP areas as they are so those who want to play in those can still do so. They may also find that more people will come over to those areas in time. Especially if you can grind your PvP build in an area where you are not at a huge disadvantage because you haven't yet got it. Grind it in Vengeance and then move on to the other area where you can use it.

I would like an optional campaign like Vengeance, but have it have some differences. Some more siege options, maybe tuned down weapon skills, as well as passives but also simplified. As well as being to do things like quests and whatnot in it. It’s more fun with people being forced to use skill rather than crutch on sets and, ugh, ball groups.

Here we go again, people who don’t play PvP are going to control what happens to the game mode we love and enjoy. If they gut PvP they need to do this across the board to PvE. See how much fun they really think it is…

Askys94 wrote: »

Burn the old Cyro >:D Rebuild it with the base of Vengence.

Id say Vengence is a good start, needs some tweaking and fleshing out, but it sure is better then the current direction PVP is heading.

This.

Not enough players for another campaign.

i like the performance, and not fussed about no sets active but i would like class skills how they were and able to use mundus stone and food, now if they can add no combat on platform in bg and add in a armoury at the top of the platform that would make bg a lot nicer

Vengeance needs more work on balancing, and to see what types of build customization and features can be added back without ruining the performance gains. But even in its current state, it honestly might be a good replacement for the under-50 campaign and a way to get more new players interested in pvp, while more work is done on it over time.

EDIT: At the very least, consider bringing it back for the next midyear mayhem instead of one of the extra no-cp campaigns.

Elvenheart wrote: »

Xzysts wrote: »

Elvenheart wrote: »

Askys94 wrote: »

Burn the old Cyro >:D Rebuild it with the base of Vengence.

Id say Vengence is a good start, needs some tweaking and fleshing out, but it sure is better then the current direction PVP is heading.

This.

They should do the same to PvE. Wouldn’t you agree?

No, for reasons others have already stated in your thread about that topic.

If it’s a kill, than it’s a complete kill

Console player.

Vengeance has potential to be a fun alternative to Live, which has far too much powercreep in it. But people should be free to decide which PvP they want to play. So I don;t agree with eliminating the regular Live Cyrdoill.

For now Vengeance it's just that potential. There are quite a few things needed to make it sustainable. It should be a goal of ZOS to offer it as a campaign. Though it would be better if ZOS took their data and our feedback to address the very real issues before releasing it as an official offering.

Why do I have to keep resetting my skills? And why do I only have them for one weapon?

I voted to keep both, for whoever likes which.

I think the building blocks are there to make it an interesting game mode, but right now, the combat feels too one-dimensional and I end up getting bored after just 30 minutes. No complexity whatsoever. No outplaying your opponents. Movement speed is very slow. Just pure zerging.

I guess it's great for casuals and new comers, it's much more approachable with the lack of powerful meta builds you typically see outside the test.

I believe this was something they mentioned wasn't polished enough for prime time.

I think once they get it there, they should have it replace no-cp/below 50 PvP. But then leave the regular Gray Host for people who enjoy that.

No idea. No test on console.