Community Update – Vengeance Testing & Cyrodiil

BardokRedSnow · November 24

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Sidewaves89 wrote: »

So basically you gave up on trying to improve performance in current campaigns. If Scenario 2 come true what's the point for pvp players in buying new DLCs if sets won't work there?

Scenario 1 is what we are working toward, in which case Grey Host would remain as it is now. Like noted in the original message, through the Vengeance tests we've done so far, we learned that in order to support our goals - a large-scale PvP zone with mass-scale battles and a much higher population - the abilities, procs, passives, etc. must be lighter versions of the ones that exist in the rest of the game. So we will be applying that to Vengeance, and giving those who prefer the current Grey Host ruleset that option.

This will work just fine, if you also close the other campaigns. Under 50 can stay probably, but there's no reason for Ravenwatch or Blackreach to remain, theyre totally dead, and the people mostly just take empty keeps. It looks like greyhost during lunch hour/week work hours except all the time.

You could make it specifically Greyhost and Vengeance, and things would probably be just fine, with also that smaller map for when greyhost is locked, and I guess vengeance.

Scenario 1 is honestly the only option you at ZOS have. Scenario 2 I will tell you straight up, it will make players like me uninstall the game for good. These tests have already caused many to not return mind you, and I was almost one of them. I can't stand being forced to do this, when the pve side of the community are the main ones enjoying the tests especially with their content untouched and unaffected.

On top of that, you're creating a false positive by limiting everyone to one server with nowhere else to go. Of course you'll get full servers then, and that this wasn't the case during a pve event highlights that Vengeance is overwhelmingly not for pvp fans, the ones that will participate and keep the war going for literal years.

Just food for though, I would make your tests have greyhost open alongside it from the start, not just in "phase 2".

React · November 24

Yudo wrote: »

We worked on it for so long, if we do not release it we will get fired.

The code rewrite would like a word.

DaisyRay · November 24

At the risk of being banned from the forums, please do not ruin pvp any more than you already have. The majority of pvpers that I know hate vengeance, and this includes me. It's too much like pve for my liking. I really don't care if sweats merk me in two hits or if ballgroups farm me, I just want to be able to play with the builds I created.

The whole enjoyment of cyro for me is the fun and unique fights. Unlike pve, I never know what the outcome will be. Vengeance, while not laggy, is just a 100 vs 100, 30-minute fight with no actual uniqueness or interesting combat.

There are people who want it now, but I feel like having that campaign will be the end of gh and pvp as a whole. Which sucks, because that's one of the main attractions of this game for me. Housing is fun too, but we quite literally have no space for all this furniture.

And please stop nerfing everything.

fizzybeef · November 24

Everyone hates vengeance and they want to bring it live as only one campaign. There is a reason why we havent been shown the last 2 vengeance surveys.

People didnt like it !!!

SpiritKitten · November 24

Okay so a lot of comments are saying 'pvpers' hate Vengeance. Well, they are not making Vengeance for pvpers. Don't y'all get that?

It is for PVErs, of which there are a lot, who love it. There are many more players like that than 'dedicated' pvpers. This game's design decisions always revolve around the largest player demographic- the casual gamer. And it's smart to. That's who pays the bills. It's a numbers game.

Vengeance is super fun for casual pvp.

They are going to let y'all hardcore pvpers enjoy your ball groups and other unbalanced ridiculousness in Grayhost. Be happy for that. Vengeance won't affect y'all at all. Unless of course...you secretly realize that a lot of Grayhosters actually want to leave for Vengeance?

I have played all sorts of pvp since DAoC. I have spent a lot of time in all the Cyro campaigns. Grayhost is a 50-car pileup wreck. And they just admitted they are not going to fix it. Let's be honest with ourselves. It's time to move on.

Bring on Vengeance!

Jaimeh · November 24

So they were lying all along, it was never intended to stay as a test, there was always a plan to introduce it a veritable mode... dear lord... if they delete Gray Host it will be the final nail in the coffin of this game.

RDMyers65b14_ESO · November 24

This is going to be just like the other campaigns during MYM. Gray Host will be full and with a queue and Vengeance will be empty.

licenturion · November 24

SpiritKitten wrote: »

Okay so a lot of comments are saying 'pvpers' hate Vengeance. Well, they are not making Vengeance for pvpers. Don't y'all get that?

It is for PVErs, of which there are a lot, who love it. There are many more players like that than 'dedicated' pvpers. This game's design decisions always revolve around the largest player demographic- the casual gamer. And it's smart to. That's who pays the bills. It's a numbers game.

Vengeance is super fun for casual pvp.

They are going to let y'all hardcore pvpers enjoy your ball groups and other unbalanced ridiculousness in Grayhost. Be happy for that. Vengeance won't affect y'all at all. Unless of course...you secretly realize that a lot of Grayhosters actually want to leave for Vengeance?

I have played all sorts of pvp since DAoC. I have spent a lot of time in all the Cyro campaigns. Grayhost is a 50-car pileup wreck. And they just admitted they are not going to fix it. Let's be honest with ourselves. It's time to move on.

Bring on Vengeance!

I do think ZOS had to say that they commit in keeping the current PvP as a permanent option so people have a choice. The two modes will balance itself because players will only play the mode they prefer the most. If PvP’ers are so afraid that the majority will switch to Vengeance, that only says they agree that mode is better for the majority.

I also think there are some people who are in panic they are losing the ability to 'farm noobs' if there is another option for players available. I am not saying all PvP'er think like this, but for some this is surely one of the reasons why they don't even want a second option.

This is exactly what is happening with Call Of Duty this year. They finally caved this year and added a non skill based matchmaking list after years of complaining from a part of the community. Guess what after one week, all the casual people are already back to the standard skill based matchmaking list leaving all the sweats in their own room and they are very upset because they can’t farm easy kills anymore...so the system balanced itself again.

Orbital78 · November 24

RDMyers65b14_ESO wrote: »

This is going to be just like the other campaigns during MYM. Gray Host will be full and with a queue and Vengeance will be empty.

I guess we'll see. I couldn't use GH even though it was my home campaign. I think many were forced to resort to backup campaigns that weren't balanced.

Ratzkifal · November 24

SpiritKitten wrote: »

Okay so a lot of comments are saying 'pvpers' hate Vengeance. Well, they are not making Vengeance for pvpers. Don't y'all get that?

It is for PVErs, of which there are a lot, who love it. There are many more players like that than 'dedicated' pvpers. This game's design decisions always revolve around the largest player demographic- the casual gamer. And it's smart to. That's who pays the bills. It's a numbers game.

Vengeance is super fun for casual pvp.

They are going to let y'all hardcore pvpers enjoy your ball groups and other unbalanced ridiculousness in Grayhost. Be happy for that. Vengeance won't affect y'all at all. Unless of course...you secretly realize that a lot of Grayhosters actually want to leave for Vengeance?

I have played all sorts of pvp since DAoC. I have spent a lot of time in all the Cyro campaigns. Grayhost is a 50-car pileup wreck. And they just admitted they are not going to fix it. Let's be honest with ourselves. It's time to move on.

Bring on Vengeance!

@SpiritKitten Where is my vengeance version of trials? I want the same rewards, but I don't want to put in the effort of getting good at the game. They should make a trial that you can complete with a group of 12 random PvPers that grants you the exact same rewards as doing veteran hardmode trifecta trial runs. Bring on Vengeance trials!

This is the attitude of players that want Vengeance because real PvP is too tough for them. They just want to zerg and zerging is the only playstyle Vengeance enables. These players will obviously quit Gray Host, and I'm not blaming them for choosing the game mode most suited to their desires. I'm blaming ZOS for enabling this attitude and for downgrading the experience for the players that don't like Vengeance by splitting the population.

silentxthreat · November 24

i still feel that ball groups using add ons and third party programs to track uptime damage healing and ults is most of the problem on live. if vengeance gets rid of root immunity via mythic boots and heal stacking ill be happy but without that addressed we will be right back where we were

SpiritKitten · November 24

Ratzkifal wrote: »

SpiritKitten wrote: »

Okay so a lot of comments are saying 'pvpers' hate Vengeance. Well, they are not making Vengeance for pvpers. Don't y'all get that?

It is for PVErs, of which there are a lot, who love it. There are many more players like that than 'dedicated' pvpers. This game's design decisions always revolve around the largest player demographic- the casual gamer. And it's smart to. That's who pays the bills. It's a numbers game.

Vengeance is super fun for casual pvp.

They are going to let y'all hardcore pvpers enjoy your ball groups and other unbalanced ridiculousness in Grayhost. Be happy for that. Vengeance won't affect y'all at all. Unless of course...you secretly realize that a lot of Grayhosters actually want to leave for Vengeance?

I have played all sorts of pvp since DAoC. I have spent a lot of time in all the Cyro campaigns. Grayhost is a 50-car pileup wreck. And they just admitted they are not going to fix it. Let's be honest with ourselves. It's time to move on.

Bring on Vengeance!

@SpiritKitten Where is my vengeance version of trials? I want the same rewards, but I don't want to put in the effort of getting good at the game. They should make a trial that you can complete with a group of 12 random PvPers that grants you the exact same rewards as doing veteran hardmode trifecta trial runs. Bring on Vengeance trials!

This is the attitude of players that want Vengeance because real PvP is too tough for them. They just want to zerg and zerging is the only playstyle Vengeance enables. These players will obviously quit Gray Host, and I'm not blaming them for choosing the game mode most suited to their desires. I'm blaming ZOS for enabling this attitude and for downgrading the experience for the players that don't like Vengeance by splitting the population.

Sounds like you are in a ball group.

lostineternity · November 24

imPDA wrote: »

I have been mostly silent all these years, watching the Vengeance tests and laughing together with friends about the test ideas I saw on the forum and about cheerful comments like "Vengeance is the thing ESO needs." But it was probably a mistake, and I should have expressed myself earlier and asked others to do the same. But I am doing it now.

If you disagree - I understand. I know there are different types of players, and somebody would prefer simpler gameplay. I was a noob too; I walked the tough path of learning how to play in Cyrodiil. And I have to admit, it is very unique gameplay, very different from other games and I like it very much, so basically, Cyrodiil (and occasional BGs) made me stay with this game since Summerset. Probably, if more people share their thoughts, it will reveal that not that many people support Vengeance (probably?).

Q: Will you still introduce your scenario 1 or 2 if Vengeance is empty during the second part of the tests (with an active Grayhost at the same time)?

P.S. And by the way, lag is probably not the biggest problem of the game. People still play Cyrodiil pretty actively even with lag, just saying.

ZOS are living in their "positive feedback" echo chamber, everyone who disagrees or critiques their decisions are marked as heretics or haters. Feedback from these people has been ignored (bg's update etc) since forever, removing pvp related questions and banning everyone who even mentioned about pvp during official streams also didn't help.
It has been for years this way and that led us to the point that only white knights were testing vengeance pvp experiments.
And those white knings are positive about literally everything zos are doing right now.

Ratzkifal · November 24

licenturion wrote: »

SpiritKitten wrote: »

Okay so a lot of comments are saying 'pvpers' hate Vengeance. Well, they are not making Vengeance for pvpers. Don't y'all get that?

It is for PVErs, of which there are a lot, who love it. There are many more players like that than 'dedicated' pvpers. This game's design decisions always revolve around the largest player demographic- the casual gamer. And it's smart to. That's who pays the bills. It's a numbers game.

Vengeance is super fun for casual pvp.

They are going to let y'all hardcore pvpers enjoy your ball groups and other unbalanced ridiculousness in Grayhost. Be happy for that. Vengeance won't affect y'all at all. Unless of course...you secretly realize that a lot of Grayhosters actually want to leave for Vengeance?

I have played all sorts of pvp since DAoC. I have spent a lot of time in all the Cyro campaigns. Grayhost is a 50-car pileup wreck. And they just admitted they are not going to fix it. Let's be honest with ourselves. It's time to move on.

Bring on Vengeance!

I do think ZOS had to say that they commit in keeping the current PvP as a permanent option so people have a choice. The two modes will balance itself because players will only play the mode they prefer the most. If PvP’ers are so afraid that the majority will switch to Vengeance, that only says they agree that mode is better for the majority.

I also think there are some people who are in panic they are losing the ability to 'farm noobs' if there is another option for players available. I am not saying all PvP'er think like this, but for some this is surely one of the reasons why they don't even want a second option.

This is exactly what is happening with Call Of Duty this year. They finally caved this year and added a non skill based matchmaking list after years of complaining from a part of the community. Guess what after one week, all the casual people are already back to the standard skill based matchmaking list leaving all the sweats in their own room and they are very upset because they can’t farm easy kills anymore...so the system balanced itself again.

@licenturion Have you played noCP PvP recently? I think noCP PvP is more fun, because a lot of the unbalanced and unfun builds aren't viable in noCP environments. The population of noCP PvP is pretty much dead though, because casuals only queue for the campaign at the very top of the list. So I can't have fun in noCP PvP, because nobody is there.
It isn't a gotcha that PvPers think many people will make the switch to Vengeance, because PvPers are already very familiar with these dynamics. The reason why Vengeance is worse is that Vengeance is inherenlty less fun than having to play with/without CP (or proc sets, back when there were no-proc campaigns). What you are arguing for is the removal of normal PvP. By arguing for Scenario 1, you are actually arguing for Scenario 2 when neither scenario is what PvPers actually want - Gray Host with better performance.
Take food as a metaphor. Vengeance is fast food. People want fast food. But fast food is not healthy and people are making a mistake by consuming it, and yet they desire it anyway. Don't be a fast food junky.

Ratzkifal · November 24

SpiritKitten wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

SpiritKitten wrote: »

Okay so a lot of comments are saying 'pvpers' hate Vengeance. Well, they are not making Vengeance for pvpers. Don't y'all get that?

It is for PVErs, of which there are a lot, who love it. There are many more players like that than 'dedicated' pvpers. This game's design decisions always revolve around the largest player demographic- the casual gamer. And it's smart to. That's who pays the bills. It's a numbers game.

Vengeance is super fun for casual pvp.

They are going to let y'all hardcore pvpers enjoy your ball groups and other unbalanced ridiculousness in Grayhost. Be happy for that. Vengeance won't affect y'all at all. Unless of course...you secretly realize that a lot of Grayhosters actually want to leave for Vengeance?

I have played all sorts of pvp since DAoC. I have spent a lot of time in all the Cyro campaigns. Grayhost is a 50-car pileup wreck. And they just admitted they are not going to fix it. Let's be honest with ourselves. It's time to move on.

Bring on Vengeance!

@SpiritKitten Where is my vengeance version of trials? I want the same rewards, but I don't want to put in the effort of getting good at the game. They should make a trial that you can complete with a group of 12 random PvPers that grants you the exact same rewards as doing veteran hardmode trifecta trial runs. Bring on Vengeance trials!

This is the attitude of players that want Vengeance because real PvP is too tough for them. They just want to zerg and zerging is the only playstyle Vengeance enables. These players will obviously quit Gray Host, and I'm not blaming them for choosing the game mode most suited to their desires. I'm blaming ZOS for enabling this attitude and for downgrading the experience for the players that don't like Vengeance by splitting the population.

Sounds like you are in a ball group.

Believe it or not, I am whatever remains of the small scale players. I have played in a ballgroup many years ago. I don't look down on ballgroup players. But I also think ballgroups are currently out of control and need to be put in check more. Ballgroups are also a significant contributor towards the current horrible performance - another reason why Vengeance isn't the optimal solution for this problem. Just because ballgroups don't exist in Vengeance doesn't mean removing them entirely is the appropriate response. It's a valid playstyle, just like zerging, just like small scale, just like bombing and like ganking.

silentxthreat · November 24

MachineGod wrote: »

I do not blame the players putting together ball groups here but the data from the graphs in the posts clearly showing these massive spikes during the 2-4 hours where typically we will have the large groups fighting each other. Where we have the most overlapping effects. Effectively every player within one of those fights represents 3-4 players from vengeance due to the sheer amount of effects and actions per second.

Could we finally get an answer why this has never once directly been addressed? /quote]

I 100% blame the players putting these groups together knowing it breaks the game they claim to love

@ZOS_Kevin can we get some feedback that team is hearing the huge amount of feedback regarding ball groups??

Estin · November 24

Honestly, Scenario 1 should be the only scenario. I don't believe in any world that Scenario 2 should ever be chosen. It's just negatives all around, and if it's even considered because Grayhost impacts Vengeance performance during the december test, the solution should be to lower max population in Vengeance to keep things running. I doubt it would be the case, because even when Grayhost wasn't available, performance outside cyrodiil was still bad. Even now when Blackreach is completely dead on PCNA, the performance is still the same poor performance compared to when Blackreach used to pop cap at the same time as Grayhost. So in all, Scenario 2 shouldn't be scenario to be taken since Grayhost shouldn't affect Vengeance and vice versa.

I'm hearing a lot of complaints about splitting the population even further with having these two campaigns and the new mid sized one. Am I correct to assume that crossplay is closer than expected with this announcement? Crossplay would immediately remedy any issue involving the population being split.

When it comes to Scenario 1, what are we to expect will happen to Blackreach, Ravenwatch, and Icereach? Obviously all 3 are empty campaigns on PC, and it can be assumed its true for every other server. Will they be removed for Vengeance and this new mid sized campaign? If so, what would happen to faction lock? Will our only options to play characters of other factions only be in Vengeance and the new campaign? I get if that is the only option, but it will be disappointing to have real cyrodiil only locked to one faction at a time. Getting rid of faction lock altogether is also not a feasible idea.

I'll be honest. I barely touch cyrodiil outside of whitestrakes because it's a whole bunch of standing around doing nothing until a fight happens, and then it gets ruined when a ballgroup sweeps through. That said, I would hate to lose the opportunity to play in real cyrodiil. Vengeance was fun for the first test, but I was bored with the others because you're just cannon fodder rather than an individual, and I see myself playing regular Grayhost over it. While the color change was neat too, that also got too hard on the eyes, and losing the beauty of real cyrodiil will also be a big shame. With that said, would there be any way to turn off the filter in Vengreance?

Regardless, I hope that efforts to improve cyrodiil and the overall PvP experience aren't abandoned just because Vegeance meets your goals. It's too early to say even for you that nothing else can be done because healing has been the #1 issue in PvP for years. I can guarantee you even without seeing data that changing how healing works in cyrodiil will fix a lot of the performance. Obviously not to the same degree as Vengeance is doing, but still a noticeable improvement. Is there any plan to address healing in PvP in the future, and how will this affect your only 2 scenarios?

That's pretty much all my thoughts on this, and I'm sure fits the majority as well. I'll end with one last thing though. Bring back 3 sided battlegrounds already. Its been gone for over a year despite it being said that it will be back for events like whitestrake and some smaller weekened events.

BardokRedSnow · November 24

SpiritKitten wrote: »

Okay so a lot of comments are saying 'pvpers' hate Vengeance. Well, they are not making Vengeance for pvpers. Don't y'all get that?

It is for PVErs, of which there are a lot, who love it. There are many more players like that than 'dedicated' pvpers. This game's design decisions always revolve around the largest player demographic- the casual gamer. And it's smart to. That's who pays the bills. It's a numbers game.

At least one of you is finally being honest.

As for casual gamers paying the bills, that's true, to an extent. Casual players wont continue to stick around if they see long term players are jaded and dont stay. Casual players always make up the bulk of any game, vet players are the ones that will tell newcomers if the game is worth playing at all. No healthy end game community, everything else dwindles out and dies.

See New World.

I dont care if you wanna zerg for a couple hours a week mashing buttons, no one else does either. No one complains about the existence of Ravenwatch, its just a dead campaign where pvers run over empty keeps.

The problem here is that "Option 2" is even remotely being considered at all. And also that pvers get to advocate for removing content we enjoy, but if I did the same it would be flagged as trolling and baiting.

ajkb78 · November 24

I would take the positive feedback about Vengeance with a pinch of salt.

I did provide positive feedback about Vengeance, based strictly on the Vengeance terms of reference: a test, aimed at trying to enhance server performance. Within those terms of reference, yes it worked - performance was enormously much better. And the game was fun, to an extent. I liked the lack of ball groups and edgelord troll tank duos. The fluidity of the fighting was much better. There is a lot to learn from Vengeance.

BUT... It was framed only as a test - a starting point to build back from. The first couple of tests have done this, and it sounds like there is more to come in the next Vengeance test. I was glad to see the return of meatbags - that reduced the unbalance between attackers and defenders. But if 3 or 4 prepackaged stat setups is all we'll ever get it will fail, because there needs to be a balance between simple calculations and a degree of build variety that actually supports different playstyles. The full unbalanced gamut of "all the PVE sets" was clearly unmanageable, both for balance and for performance, but "half a dozen cookie cutter stat packages" is too far in the other direction - it's uninspiring.

If packaged stats are manageable from a performance perspective, then provide a large array of possible packaged stats in the form of sets. Yes, it would be basically a no-proc campaign, but you could do something like precompute a player's fixed stats from their armour when they leave the alliance safe zone (and make it impossible to change gear except in the safe zone). That would give a much greater range of build diversity and support a wider range of play styles, and probably go a long way to satisfying most keen pvpers (not the sweaty edgelords, but whatever, nothing will ever satisfy them), and it would actually allow players to make use of stats-based sets.

And for goodness sake, if you do keep both rulesets, put the "high population capable" campaign at the top of the list, so you drive the "I don't care" masses into it, and leave the slow-performing GH campaign below it so those who really want the full ruleset at least have to make the active choice to press "down" in the menu to get it.

Sarannah · November 24

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

You know exactly how bad liked Vengeance is by a big chunk of the pvp community, perhaps the majority but still pushing this path, is outragous

This may actually be a good thing for PvP! (scenario 1)
Because if grey host keeps the same PvP population as now(those who dislike vengeance as multiple players are stating) while running parallel with vengeance with a healthy population, it means the vengeance campaign was successful in attracting many more PvE players into PvP. Tripling the PvP population, assuming vengeance and grey host are both healthy. Which in turn could benefit the entire PvP population as a whole, including grey host.

Why does it seem the PvP community is against running vengeance parallel to grey host, if as stated, PvPers would stay on grey host anyways? This seems like a fear that grey host would die, basically saying that even many of the players in grey host don't actually want to be in grey host.

Really don't understand why PvP players who feel grey host is the only worthwhile PvP are worried about a parallel running vengeance campaign, because if grey host players go to vengeance that means they didn't want to be in grey host anyways. More PvP options for everyone.

PS: Two different types of Cyrodiil pvp running at the same time, seems like a good thing to me. Especially if both have a healthy player population.

@Sarannah because PvP is only fun when other players are also playing. I prefer Ravenwatch, but if nobody is in Ravenwatch, then Ravenwatch is a dead campaign and not fun. So I'm playing in Gray Host, even though I'd really prefer being in Ravenwatch. This familiar dynamic between Ravenwatch and Gray Host will apply to Vengeance vs Gray Host too. If all the casual PvPers (zerglings) log into Vengeance instead because they can zerg without the fear of some bomb build or an experienced group decimating them, then Gray Host population will suffer, wither and die. This wouldn't be an issue if the PvP population as a whole is big enough to keep all campaigns at population cap for most of the day - but that's not the case anymore. Introducing Vengeance parallel to Gray Host risks killing Gray Host entirely.
So why is that a bad thing? Because people will quit the game over it. Vengeance isn't Ravenwatch. This is a downward spiral, because Vengeance doesn't give you the same opportunity of mastery that regular PvP does. In Gray Host/Ravenwatch you can still learn to play your build better, change your set (or CP) in new ways to try and get an edge over others. There is mastery involved in that, and this self-improvement aspect is at the core of what many PvPers enjoy about PvP in the first place - challenge and competition. There is no challenge, less competition and less mastery involved in a dumbed down version of PvP, where everyone's build is the same and all skills deal "standard damage". That's why adding Vengeance is not the same and that's why people reject the very idea of it.

Thanks for the responses! Also for @SneaK

The bolded: To me it seems you feel the population in grey host cannot be sustained without all the 'casual PvPers' also being in there. But if players are given the choice, and they prefer another campaign where they can have more fun, isn't that their choice? And in turn also stating that they never wanted to be in grey host in the first place, when given the choice.

Now I get that ESO's PvP is unique and requires 'mastery' as you put it, but at the same time ESO's PvP has such a high barrier of entry, that for most players it isn't worth it. Especially for new players, they don't want to spend months training/gearing/skilling, they want to hop into the action straight away(all other competing MMO's offer this/maybe introduce load outs for grey host?). For these players having a vengeance campaign would be perfect, as they don't want to be/shouldn't be forced to be slaughtered over and over by veterans who have 10+ years of ESO PvP training under their belt. Maybe in some clever way vengeance can even be used as a stepping stone towards 'mastered PvP', as you called it. Maybe some changes to the IC could have players flow naturally from vengeance to IC to grey host's more mastered style of PvP. But this is just throwing out some ideas.

Besides challenge and competition that some players love, some other group of players also love fun, fairness/equal, and more casual PvP. Which is why having two different PvP styles running at the same time could even be a blessing.

Maybe the target audiences for grey host and vengeance are so incredibly different on their own, that neither campaign will have any effect on the other and it's populations. The only way to know for sure is to have these campaigns run side-by-side. Maybe ZOS could do a test during the christmas/new years period, where they have both campaigns running for one month(15 dec-15 jan). To see how the populations work, where specific players go, which is more popular, where new/seasonal players go, etc.

For the record, I think vengeance and grey host could live perfectly side by side, as I suspect their target audiences are so incredibly different. Some players seem to be panicking for no good reason. And I do not want grey host to die or be taken away!

PS: Personally I do think there is skill and builds and mastery involved in vengeance as well, but the tests were too short to come into any sort of meta vs countermeta play.
PPS: I doubt ZOS is lying about wanting to keep grey host. There seems to be no logical reason why they would want to alienate a paying portion of their playerbase.
PPPS: Some players seem to be panicking because of this announcement, but there is no reason to as the vengeance and grey host playerbases are completely different player groups.

Radiate77 · November 24

Option 2 isn’t just being considered, it is the road map. Make no mistake.

Then when Vengeance fails, as the only option, what do you guys think will happen?

Edit: This is why, I cannot stress enough, that the new PvP mode that ZOS is making to replicate Cyrodiil needs to be done well. Fights need to be evenly numbered, and there needs to be incentive to overcome odds, and this needs to be matchmade. They can’t release this without role-queues.

Anything else will be an abject failure.

LarsS · November 24

I appreciate the efforts done, we will see how it works out.

Personally I think Cyro in is present form is doomed, the number of players has been decresing slowly over a long time. Possibly it can be saved if the power gap between new pvp players and the top players are reduced. It is exciting to fight against many more than your number and win, but not fun for casual and new pvp players.

So someting new has to be implemented, maybe vengenace in a more mature form will be atractive with it's big fights, or the medium sized "cyro". The medium sized cyro will have the same power gap problem though.

SpiritKitten · November 24

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

SpiritKitten wrote: »

Okay so a lot of comments are saying 'pvpers' hate Vengeance. Well, they are not making Vengeance for pvpers. Don't y'all get that?

It is for PVErs, of which there are a lot, who love it. There are many more players like that than 'dedicated' pvpers. This game's design decisions always revolve around the largest player demographic- the casual gamer. And it's smart to. That's who pays the bills. It's a numbers game.

At least one of you is finally being honest.

As for casual gamers paying the bills, that's true, to an extent. Casual players wont continue to stick around if they see long term players are jaded and dont stay. Casual players always make up the bulk of any game, vet players are the ones that will tell newcomers if the game is worth playing at all. No healthy end game community, everything else dwindles out and dies.

See New World.

I dont care if you wanna zerg for a couple hours a week mashing buttons, no one else does either. No one complains about the existence of Ravenwatch, its just a dead campaign where pvers run over empty keeps.

The problem here is that "Option 2" is even remotely being considered at all. And also that pvers get to advocate for removing content we enjoy, but if I did the same it would be flagged as trolling and baiting.

Well I'm not advocating for removal of Grayhost. Believe me, I WANT the ballgroups, etc to stay there.

When you say 'one of you', understand this: I am not a pve or pvp absolutist. I play both and have for years, including leading guild groups regularly in pvp. I am not biased enough either way though to not see the actuality of the situation, what you call 'being honest'. I want Scenario 1.

Ratzkifal · November 24

Sarannah wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

You know exactly how bad liked Vengeance is by a big chunk of the pvp community, perhaps the majority but still pushing this path, is outragous

This may actually be a good thing for PvP! (scenario 1)
Because if grey host keeps the same PvP population as now(those who dislike vengeance as multiple players are stating) while running parallel with vengeance with a healthy population, it means the vengeance campaign was successful in attracting many more PvE players into PvP. Tripling the PvP population, assuming vengeance and grey host are both healthy. Which in turn could benefit the entire PvP population as a whole, including grey host.

Why does it seem the PvP community is against running vengeance parallel to grey host, if as stated, PvPers would stay on grey host anyways? This seems like a fear that grey host would die, basically saying that even many of the players in grey host don't actually want to be in grey host.

Really don't understand why PvP players who feel grey host is the only worthwhile PvP are worried about a parallel running vengeance campaign, because if grey host players go to vengeance that means they didn't want to be in grey host anyways. More PvP options for everyone.

PS: Two different types of Cyrodiil pvp running at the same time, seems like a good thing to me. Especially if both have a healthy player population.

@Sarannah because PvP is only fun when other players are also playing. I prefer Ravenwatch, but if nobody is in Ravenwatch, then Ravenwatch is a dead campaign and not fun. So I'm playing in Gray Host, even though I'd really prefer being in Ravenwatch. This familiar dynamic between Ravenwatch and Gray Host will apply to Vengeance vs Gray Host too. If all the casual PvPers (zerglings) log into Vengeance instead because they can zerg without the fear of some bomb build or an experienced group decimating them, then Gray Host population will suffer, wither and die. This wouldn't be an issue if the PvP population as a whole is big enough to keep all campaigns at population cap for most of the day - but that's not the case anymore. Introducing Vengeance parallel to Gray Host risks killing Gray Host entirely.
So why is that a bad thing? Because people will quit the game over it. Vengeance isn't Ravenwatch. This is a downward spiral, because Vengeance doesn't give you the same opportunity of mastery that regular PvP does. In Gray Host/Ravenwatch you can still learn to play your build better, change your set (or CP) in new ways to try and get an edge over others. There is mastery involved in that, and this self-improvement aspect is at the core of what many PvPers enjoy about PvP in the first place - challenge and competition. There is no challenge, less competition and less mastery involved in a dumbed down version of PvP, where everyone's build is the same and all skills deal "standard damage". That's why adding Vengeance is not the same and that's why people reject the very idea of it.

Thanks for the responses! Also for @SneaK

The bolded: To me it seems you feel the population in grey host cannot be sustained without all the 'casual PvPers' also being in there. But if players are given the choice, and they prefer another campaign where they can have more fun, isn't that their choice? And in turn also stating that they never wanted to be in grey host in the first place, when given the choice.

Now I get that ESO's PvP is unique and requires 'mastery' as you put it, but at the same time ESO's PvP has such a high barrier of entry, that for most players it isn't worth it. Especially for new players, they don't want to spend months training/gearing/skilling, they want to hop into the action straight away(all other competing MMO's offer this/maybe introduce load outs for grey host?). For these players having a vengeance campaign would be perfect, as they don't want to be/shouldn't be forced to be slaughtered over and over by veterans who have 10+ years of ESO PvP training under their belt. Maybe in some clever way vengeance can even be used as a stepping stone towards 'mastered PvP', as you called it. Maybe some changes to the IC could have players flow naturally from vengeance to IC to grey host's more mastered style of PvP. But this is just throwing out some ideas.

Besides challenge and competition that some players love, some other group of players also love fun, fairness/equal, and more casual PvP. Which is why having two different PvP styles running at the same time could even be a blessing.

Maybe the target audiences for grey host and vengeance are so incredibly different on their own, that neither campaign will have any effect on the other and it's populations. The only way to know for sure is to have these campaigns run side-by-side. Maybe ZOS could do a test during the christmas/new years period, where they have both campaigns running for one month(15 dec-15 jan). To see how the populations work, where specific players go, which is more popular, where new/seasonal players go, etc.

For the record, I think vengeance and grey host could live perfectly side by side, as I suspect their target audiences are so incredibly different. Some players seem to be panicking for no good reason. And I do not want grey host to die or be taken away!

PS: Personally I do think there is skill and builds and mastery involved in vengeance as well, but the tests were too short to come into any sort of meta vs countermeta play.
PPS: I doubt ZOS is lying about wanting to keep grey host. There seems to be no logical reason why they would want to alienate a paying portion of their playerbase.
PPPS: Some players seem to be panicking because of this announcement, but there is no reason to as the vengeance and grey host playerbases are completely different player groups.

@Sarannah

As I commented to someone else, it's a bit like food. Vengeance is fast food. People willingly consume it, crave it even, but it's bad for them. Think of me as someone advocating for a healthy diet while people willingly choose the unhealthy option that will kill them slowly.
All competitive games need casuals. That's just how healthy populations work. So if ZOS makes choices that move the casual players elsewhere but keeps out the hardcore players (by Vengeance simply not being enjoyable to them), then ZOS is making the conscious decision to kick out the hardcore playerbase. Why should I be celebrating that? Why should anyone be? It's the equivalent of removing veteran trials from PvE. The casual players (fast food enjoyers) are going to celebrate for a while because all the annoying hardcore players (fitness gurus) aren't getting on their nerves anymore, or in the PvE example they'll celebrate getting all the hardcore trial rewards from normal difficulty. But long term, this will be bad for the playerbase. Long term this is not sustainable and the casuals will lose interest in this very repetitive gamemode that doesn't allow for meaningful mastery and no set customization. ZOS will feel it too, because why would anyone do anything anymore if new gear, new skill lines etc are all not present in Vengeance? Why get ESO+ if your Vengeance inventory is separate?

Your arguments toward Vengeance being a stepping stone sadly don't work. Vengeance doesn't prepare you for real PvP, because it's fundamentally different - aside from the inherent and existential threat Vengeance poses towards real PvP, considering that the devs are considering to simply remove Gray Host and only keep Vengeance. The people stomping casuals should drive casuals towards one of two things:

Grouping up for safety in numbers (zerg route)
getting better at the game (hardcore route)

And if they choose the hardcore route, they'll continue making mistakes until they've learned enough from their mistakes until they are good. And on the way, they'll be fighting against other casuals also, so they experience success as well. That's why the PvP events are the most fun. More casuals to kill for the veterans, but also more casuals to kill for other casuals. But a lack of new content and the lag makes casuals quit the game too, so that's why PvP is suffering. Just like in nature, you need a certain number of herbivores to sustain a healthy population of carnivores. And to get the herbivores to stay, the grass needs to be greener! Vengeance grass is stale, but there is an electric fence keeping out the wolves (meaning everyone loses).

The reason why I think Vengeance and Gray Host cannot coexist is the same reason why Ravenwatch and Gray Host could not coexist. The population is just too small. And once only hardcore players remain, you get Imperial City. Imperial City is too small, so the difference between the best player currently in IC and everybody else is felt more keenly. You constantly run into each other, which ruins the fun of IC. Once only the hardcore players remain in Gray Host, even assuming enough of them are left to keep the campaign "alive", you'll simply be fighting the same couple of players all the time. The same unkillable ballgroup every hour of the day. Don't get me wrong, theoretically what you are saying is absolutely possible and we could miraculously have enough engagement to sustain a healthy population of both. I just don't trust it, because that would be unprecedented. I just don't see how anything would improve for Gray Host if Vengeance gets added, so I don't trust what you are proposing is realistic.

PS: Vengeance doesn't have enough complexity. The meta is "having the bigger group" and "focus fire".
PPS: I don't think they are lying either. But they seem to not even consider other options. There is also plenty of evidence suggesting they are trying to alienate a portion of their playerbase, but that is a discussion mired in conspiracy theories and assumes malice instead of incompetence.
PPPS: That's the thing. They are the same playerbase, but at two opposite ends of the skill spectrum. Just like casual PvErs who struggle doing mechanics in normal DLC dungeons and hardcore raiders blazing through Fungal Grotto. There is some natural friction here, but ZOS is absolutely not helping by setting up these parts of the playerbase to fight amongst each other (on the forums) instead of simply delivering a shared and improved experience of what we already love - old Cyrodiil.

Edit: Spoilered for convenience.

KingLogix · November 24

Its evident performance is due to complex sets/cp perks. Rather than redesigning cyrodil, create an "old school"/"classic" campaign that is based on pre 1.5 patch or imperial city patch. These were the best pvp patches.

licenturion · November 24

Ratzkifal wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

diamondo · November 24

I like the idea of a smaller campaign map, I won’t be playing the vengeance version personally. I hope you still remember to correct the huge issues with subclassing in PvP… improving pure class builds.

Back to the campaigns, if you’re redesigning the map completely. Make it a progressive campaign like in the age of reckoning where you’d play on map one faction would win lock out the map move onto the next so it’s like your working towards something the current set up is repetitive.
Also Make keep guards actually decent no offence but currently it takes two good players to take a keep that’s always been a silly idea in my mind. Just some ideas 💡

gariondavey · November 24

React wrote: »

Why are the numbers on the graphs blurred out and made to be illegible?

I'd love to see an analysis of the people who participated in these surveys which apparently showed how much they preferred vengeance. I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of people who actually filled out these surveys are those who almost never step foot in cyrodiil, and likely will never step foot in cyrodiil even with the vengeance ruleset unless you provide some similar incentive like you did during the tests (double AP, golden pursuits, etc).

What I'm implying is that you're taking the opinions of non-PVP players, which seem to be in contrast to those of the vocal majority of actual PVP players, and re-designing the PVP environment to suit their needs rather than those of the die hard loyalist who have stuck with PVP all these years.

It is a shame to see. I'm interested to see if you address the elephant in the room during the upcoming part 3 of the PVP Q&A, which is the nature of ball groups and how stacking HOTS/Shields/bufff sets in that setting impact performance. It really feels like this is an issue that should have been addressed years ago to study it's impact on performance, rather than taking this sledgehammer approach that is vengeance.

Now, I am happy to hear about a new "mid size" pvp zone. This is something that has been requested for years now. However, we already have a zone that is beautifully designed and fills this exact niche - the imperial city and imperial city sewers. This area as a whole is the best designed open world PVP zone I've played in any game with a huge variety of terrains and environments, a mix of enemies to attract a wider crowd, etc. It's simply fallen out of popularity due to a lack of updates for years now. While I absolutely would not turn down receiving a new mid size PVP zone (with the normal "cyrodiil" rulesets!), I am not at all confident the team will deliver something with a good design and format after the recent disaster that is the battleground rework.

I'd instead encourage the team to work with what they have and do a massive imperial city overhaul. Take the beautifully designed area that is the city and sewers, and give it a new facelift with a new ranking system, factionless small-group based format, and a variety of new rewards and mechanics. I wrote a very detailed post back in 2023 describing the changes I'd make to accomplish what I think would be a popular mid-sized gamemode with imperial city, which I'll link here.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/620139/in-depth-imperial-city-rework-idea-the-pvp-content-eso-needs-in-2023/p1

Came here to say this very same thing.

Pepegrillos · November 24

Whatever you do with Vengeance, you have to change the skybox, it's depressing as hell.

Stamicka · November 24

Ratzkifal wrote: »

because PvP is only fun when other players are also playing.

I logged in for the Whitestrake's Mayhem event this summer and there was genuinely almost no PvP. As is, almost no one PvPs, even during events. Cyrodiil doesn't get or retain new players and fewer and fewer veterans seem to play as time goes on. There's systemic reasons for PvP's terrible participation rates. I won't get into it here, but if you care you can check out a thread I made in the past: click here.

You and others trying to make this point need to understand that whether they go through with Vengeance or not, PvP doesn't have much of a future anyway. It's basically dead already, in its current state it's losing players and gaining almost no new ones. Like it or not, it needs to get new players in who will stick around.

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Vengeance doesn't give you the same opportunity of mastery that regular PvP does. In Gray Host/Ravenwatch you can still learn to play your build better, change your set (or CP) in new ways to try and get an edge over others. There is mastery involved in that, and this self-improvement aspect is at the core of what many PvPers enjoy about PvP in the first place - challenge and competition.

Both Vengeance and Gray Host are very low skill environments. Vengeance is low skill because surviving is effortless. The healing is so overturned that many fights simply don't end and it doesn't really matter which player lines up damage better. This is a very straightforward and easy problem to fix though, they can reduce healing, increase burst, or lower max health... even a combination of those things would work.

Gray Host on the other hand is low skill because 8 years of bad changes and broken sets have piled up. They have so much to address to save Gray Host from the death spiral it's on. I truly think it's at the point where they are better off starting fresh (sort of like Vengeance) than trying to fix the current state of PvP through tweaks. The power gap and the amount of build customization is unsustainable.

Ratzkifal wrote: »

All competitive games need casuals. That's just how healthy populations work. So if ZOS makes choices that move the casual players elsewhere but keeps out the hardcore players (by Vengeance simply not being enjoyable to them), then ZOS is making the conscious decision to kick out the hardcore playerbase.

ESO is not a competitive game whatsoever and in its current state appeals to a very specific and small group of players. New players and casuals have such a high bar to enter that they just don't. The people who are willing to give PvP a shot will decide it's not worth it when they see how bad the power gap is. The more competitive and serious PvP crowd would also be turned off by the power gap and broken sets because that lessens the importance of skill when fighting players on the same level.

So this leaves a population of players that basically likes to farm players who have half as strong of a build. These players also often ignore people who could pose a threat to them. That's obviously not fun for new/casual players and they'll either grow to hate PvP or never return. It's been like this for a long time. Most people in Imperial City or Cyrodiil would rather port out or run then to engage in any sort of PvP. That's telling. It's all completely unsustainable.