kargen27 wrote: »

Lag and gear are completely separate. The tests in Cyrodiil are all about server performance not player performance. There is some lag in trials and other similar content and it would be nice if that could be fixed. If you can't do the content now though you probably wouldn't be able to do it with a template.
Nothing requires 100k DPS to finish. If all DPS in the group can average 30K DPS and the group understands the mechanics you can make it through all content. You aren't going to make the leader boards but you can do the content.
Vengeance doesn't mean all of a sudden you are going to be competitive in PvP even if you have the same gear. Part of the problem with PvP is all the calculations that have to be made with cross heals, multiple AOE and all kinds of other stuff. Trials are limited to 12 players while PvP can have much more than that. PvP has many more calculations to make.
PvE could probably (I'm guessing) be helped with less effects going off?

PvE is nowhere near as laggy and unstable as PvP probably more than 90% of the time. Would be nice to have better server performance in trials and dungeons. Still either way even if ZoS did put you in a template build it won't mean much towards completion. I have a build where players are showing 110K DPS on a dummy and using that same build I'm lucky to push 60K. Just having the template won't mean much if your rotation isn't on point.
And for the most part the PvP crowd wants to be able to use all their available builds and sets. They want more diversity than what Vengeance provides.

All I’m asking for is for the dev team to bring Vengeance to PvE, since it’s saved Cyrodiil from lag.

Being in an even playing field with endgame PvErs is just a bonus.

Also please add it to dueling, bg's and imperial city!

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Bad faith argument is made in bad faith.

That said, I absolutely see why. PvP has been gaslit for so long about so many things, and despite the PvP pretty unanimously coming to the same conclusions (heal stacking is a huge issue, ball groups should be strong but not that strong and beed a counter other than expecting a faction stack to zerg them down, balance is in the toilet and hybridization/Subclassing just made it so much worse), the team is addressing none of those things. Instead, the idea is to remake PvP for the only-here-for-MYM-tickets crowd.

PvP does need an on ramp. The U50 campaign (and Ravenwatch, and Blackreach) was supposed to be that, allowing people to go into Grey Host later. I can understand the desire to replace the non-GH campaigns with a Vengeance ruleset to try to bring new people into PvP to be that on ramp.
But it’s too late for that now.

If the team spreads out the minimal PvP base further, then nothing will be populated. The first thing they need to do is get people back in, and that requires them to address the issues the PvP community has, not ignore them and wait for casuals to beg for more uniformity to take the RPG out of their MMORPG.

ESO is known for having a large base of “never PvPers,” along with a lot of “ew, get these other people out of my MMO” players. You won’t convert them into PvPers by giving them Vengeance. You may be able to bring back lapsed players by addressing balance though. But if the idea is that you’re going to try to make the casuals into PvPers by adding Vengeance? Well, the fact that Vengeance 3 wasn’t able to get many people because of the lack of a Golden Pursuit and a competing event should show how effective that is at getting people into the mode…

No argument, just seems like a logical solution since I hear Vengeance fixed performance issues in Cyro - which I never really had, to implement it where I personally see the most lag.

Erickson9610 wrote: »

The only PvE content where the Vengeance ruleset should be applied is the Infinite Archive. In no other roguelite do you source most of your power from a completely separate gamemode — the power of your build needs to go down while the power of your Visions needs to go up.

Looking forward to having an optional Cyrodiil campaign aside from Gray Host to play in. Variety is nice, and I can always switch between campaigns whenever I feel like playing under a different ruleset.

Also, if we're getting Gray Host and Vengeance at the same time, can we please get 2-team and 3-team Battleground queues simultaneously? It's been too long.

This isn’t about balance or ease, it’s about lag, just like the Vengeance test was for in Cyrodiil.

Morvan wrote: »

MasterSpatula wrote: »

The levels of bad faith here are off the charts.

Can you blame them though?

Yes. The petulance is embarrassing.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Bad faith argument is made in bad faith.

That said, I absolutely see why. PvP has been gaslit for so long about so many things, and despite the PvP pretty unanimously coming to the same conclusions (heal stacking is a huge issue, ball groups should be strong but not that strong and beed a counter other than expecting a faction stack to zerg them down, balance is in the toilet and hybridization/Subclassing just made it so much worse), the team is addressing none of those things. Instead, the idea is to remake PvP for the only-here-for-MYM-tickets crowd.

PvP does need an on ramp. The U50 campaign (and Ravenwatch, and Blackreach) was supposed to be that, allowing people to go into Grey Host later. I can understand the desire to replace the non-GH campaigns with a Vengeance ruleset to try to bring new people into PvP to be that on ramp.
But it’s too late for that now.

If the team spreads out the minimal PvP base further, then nothing will be populated. The first thing they need to do is get people back in, and that requires them to address the issues the PvP community has, not ignore them and wait for casuals to beg for more uniformity to take the RPG out of their MMORPG.

ESO is known for having a large base of “never PvPers,” along with a lot of “ew, get these other people out of my MMO” players. You won’t convert them into PvPers by giving them Vengeance. You may be able to bring back lapsed players by addressing balance though. But if the idea is that you’re going to try to make the casuals into PvPers by adding Vengeance? Well, the fact that Vengeance 3 wasn’t able to get many people because of the lack of a Golden Pursuit and a competing event should show how effective that is at getting people into the mode…

The problem with your argument, something we should all already know but many of us overlook, is that the loudest voices in the pro-Vengeance crowd aren't PVE casuals (unworthy of having a PVP opinion, apparently) but former PVPers who walked away due to the issues you listed. "This is like the old days when PVP was good" was the constant refrain. ZOS wants them back in PVP. The "PVP community"'s utter dismissal of them is very telling.

Hapexamendios wrote: »

Only if it's optional. Don't want it myself.

Well yea obviously you should be able to have the option to participate or not.

SneaK wrote: »

MasterSpatula wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

MasterSpatula wrote: »

The levels of bad faith here are off the charts.

Can you blame them though?

Yes. The petulance is embarrassing.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Bad faith argument is made in bad faith.

That said, I absolutely see why. PvP has been gaslit for so long about so many things, and despite the PvP pretty unanimously coming to the same conclusions (heal stacking is a huge issue, ball groups should be strong but not that strong and beed a counter other than expecting a faction stack to zerg them down, balance is in the toilet and hybridization/Subclassing just made it so much worse), the team is addressing none of those things. Instead, the idea is to remake PvP for the only-here-for-MYM-tickets crowd.

PvP does need an on ramp. The U50 campaign (and Ravenwatch, and Blackreach) was supposed to be that, allowing people to go into Grey Host later. I can understand the desire to replace the non-GH campaigns with a Vengeance ruleset to try to bring new people into PvP to be that on ramp.
But it’s too late for that now.

If the team spreads out the minimal PvP base further, then nothing will be populated. The first thing they need to do is get people back in, and that requires them to address the issues the PvP community has, not ignore them and wait for casuals to beg for more uniformity to take the RPG out of their MMORPG.

ESO is known for having a large base of “never PvPers,” along with a lot of “ew, get these other people out of my MMO” players. You won’t convert them into PvPers by giving them Vengeance. You may be able to bring back lapsed players by addressing balance though. But if the idea is that you’re going to try to make the casuals into PvPers by adding Vengeance? Well, the fact that Vengeance 3 wasn’t able to get many people because of the lack of a Golden Pursuit and a competing event should show how effective that is at getting people into the mode…

The problem with your argument, something we should all already know but many of us overlook, is that the loudest voices in the pro-Vengeance crowd aren't PVE casuals (unworthy of having a PVP opinion, apparently) but former PVPers who walked away due to the issues you listed. "This is like the old days when PVP was good" was the constant refrain. ZOS wants them back in PVP. The "PVP community"'s utter dismissal of them is very telling.

The topic is Vengeance in PvE and lag, you guys are talking about Vengeance balancing in PvP. I don’t know what your conversation has to do with the topic here. Vengeance is obviously to make performance better, which is needed in PvE.

Let's stop the charade. Everyone knows that "I have performance issues in PvE so give us Vengeance in PvE" is not your point.

Your point is that you are opposed to Vengeance being mandated in PvP. That is a valid point by itself.
Trying to smokescreen it by pretending you really care about PvE (despite your sig showing off your PvP stats and that you only play one alliance and not mentioning anything else) is not going to convince anyone with a functioning brain, particularly since we can see that this grand idea of yours just came up right after the big "Future of Vengeance" post from the devs (and again, we can read that thread and see your comments throughout as well).

ZOS sold Vengeance as "just a test," and at some point it turned into "new Cyrodiil mode." We can all see that Vengeance did not do as well without a Golden Pursuit and an AP bonus bribing people in there, and the excuse reason of "oh, there was a conflicting event" doesn't fly since a permanent Vengeance will compete with all events, and it will lose to them. I expect that having Grey Host and Vengeance run concurrently (with no other conflicting events) will probably have both campaigns about equal in population since casuals will not feel like they need to go in after the first day and PvPers will just wait for Grey Host to open back up. The fear that their entire goal is to remove Cyrodiil entirely is valid, and - for all the talk that they don't want to, and all of the talk they did at the beginning about how that wasn't the goal at all - they did admit it isn't completely off the table.

Whatever this "new mode" entails is going to be the judgement though: if it's good, it'll start to depopulate Grey Host and then they'll have a good claim to eventually close it if it continues in that direction. If it goes as well as the new BGs, then people will favor Grey Host and the new mode will suffer.

I fear the team is looking for an easy answer, and there isn't one. The Combat Team has made some decisions that were... questionable at best, and they're not going to be able to magically put in a new mode and get it to stick.

valenwood_vegan wrote: »

Well, I don't know about pve vengenace, but yeah I would definitely agree that zos should shift their focus back to pve.

ZOS never took their focus off PvE. PvP is first, middle and last to be ignored by ZOS. That's why it's in such a sorry state right now.

MasterSpatula wrote: »

Morvan wrote: »

MasterSpatula wrote: »

The levels of bad faith here are off the charts.

Can you blame them though?

Yes. The petulance is embarrassing.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Bad faith argument is made in bad faith.

That said, I absolutely see why. PvP has been gaslit for so long about so many things, and despite the PvP pretty unanimously coming to the same conclusions (heal stacking is a huge issue, ball groups should be strong but not that strong and beed a counter other than expecting a faction stack to zerg them down, balance is in the toilet and hybridization/Subclassing just made it so much worse), the team is addressing none of those things. Instead, the idea is to remake PvP for the only-here-for-MYM-tickets crowd.

PvP does need an on ramp. The U50 campaign (and Ravenwatch, and Blackreach) was supposed to be that, allowing people to go into Grey Host later. I can understand the desire to replace the non-GH campaigns with a Vengeance ruleset to try to bring new people into PvP to be that on ramp.
But it’s too late for that now.

If the team spreads out the minimal PvP base further, then nothing will be populated. The first thing they need to do is get people back in, and that requires them to address the issues the PvP community has, not ignore them and wait for casuals to beg for more uniformity to take the RPG out of their MMORPG.

ESO is known for having a large base of “never PvPers,” along with a lot of “ew, get these other people out of my MMO” players. You won’t convert them into PvPers by giving them Vengeance. You may be able to bring back lapsed players by addressing balance though. But if the idea is that you’re going to try to make the casuals into PvPers by adding Vengeance? Well, the fact that Vengeance 3 wasn’t able to get many people because of the lack of a Golden Pursuit and a competing event should show how effective that is at getting people into the mode…

The problem with your argument, something we should all already know but many of us overlook, is that the loudest voices in the pro-Vengeance crowd aren't PVE casuals (unworthy of having a PVP opinion, apparently) but former PVPers who walked away due to the issues you listed. "This is like the old days when PVP was good" was the constant refrain. ZOS wants them back in PVP. The "PVP community"'s utter dismissal of them is very telling.

Actually it's been shown over and over again that it is the PvE casuals pushing for vengeance. The PvP community will never play a game mode where we can't create our own builds using the equipment we've spent years farming.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

The fear that their entire goal is to remove Cyrodiil entirely is valid, and - for all the talk that they don't want to, and all of the talk they did at the beginning about how that wasn't the goal at all - they did admit it isn't completely off the table.

Not necessarily doubting you, but if you could provide a source for this, I would appreciate it seeing it straight from their proverbial mouths. Not that I have much faith in the dev team anymore, but even that is such a low. It's just too pessimistic even for my pessimisical standards.

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Vengeance is designed to test the performance of removing a host of HoTs, DoTs and procs from 900 players all fighting each other.

4 or 12 people in a dungeon or trial do not face the same issues. Are there lag spikes? Yes, on occassion, but that is a server issue, not a game code issue.

What about the siege camps? Or riding your mount from the shrine to the enclave grahtwood primetime?

SneaK wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Vengeance is designed to test the performance of removing a host of HoTs, DoTs and procs from 900 players all fighting each other.

4 or 12 people in a dungeon or trial do not face the same issues. Are there lag spikes? Yes, on occassion, but that is a server issue, not a game code issue.

What about the siege camps? Or riding your mount from the shrine to the enclave grahtwood primetime?

In part, that is a your hardware issue (I get the same problems); and in part, too high a player cap in instances. While I agree annoying, it's still not the same issue that vengeance seeks to address.

I won't comment on the PvP side of things since I do not PvP, but let's not pretend that this thread is anything other than a "we might suffer so they should too" type of thread.

As was mentioned in one of the posts above, this is a direct response to the recent Vengeance thread and to the concern that Scenario #2 is the future of PvP.

Gabriel_H wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Vengeance is designed to test the performance of removing a host of HoTs, DoTs and procs from 900 players all fighting each other.

4 or 12 people in a dungeon or trial do not face the same issues. Are there lag spikes? Yes, on occassion, but that is a server issue, not a game code issue.

What about the siege camps? Or riding your mount from the shrine to the enclave grahtwood primetime?

In part, that is a your hardware issue (I get the same problems); and in part, too high a player cap in instances. While I agree annoying, it's still not the same issue that vengeance seeks to address.

How so? Performance tanks in PvE because of XYZ abilities overloading the server, but vengeance was only created to solve this issue for skills ABC?

My “hardware” is fine.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ESO_player123 wrote: »

I won't comment on the PvP side of things since I do not PvP, but let's not pretend that this thread is anything other than a "we might suffer so they should too" type of thread.

As was mentioned in one of the posts above, this is a direct response to the recent Vengeance thread and to the concern that Scenario #2 is the future of PvP.

Bingo. It's a non-starter anyway because PvE does not have anywhere close to the performance issues of Cyrodiil. And PvP players have been making it clear for years that fixing performance should be their top priority. They tried for years to do just that so it's not surprising that their tests revealed that certain solutions simply aren't feasible.

Suffer? I’d like the option to have access to a better performing game in PvE and ZOS has the answer.