Vengeance ruleset for Dungeons/Etc.

MSattrtand · 3:32PM

You're barking up the wrong tree, dawg.

You probably expected to get responses from trial score-pushers like "That's a completely different thing! Vengeance PvP is great, but Vengeance PvE will kill the game!". But in reality, they are much more likely to side with the anti-vengeance crowd, because losing options can't be a good thing, and that's one of the worst things of multiclassing - if HotT and Assassination are so good, there's not really a choice, if you should run them or not.

But from the PvE side of the game, support of Vengeance mostly comes from casuals. And they will be happy to see Vengeance PvE. You know, one-bar Oakensoul HA builds are so popular for a reason - they are trying to simplify the game. It doesn't matter whether it's a PvP or PvE side of it. They can already obtain easily accessible Vengeance gear in PvE in the form of 12 pieces of Shattered Fate, but they do not understand it because they're casuals. They do not understand that sets won't carry them through any content, no matter what it is, Vicious Death or Perfected Null Arca.

[snip] Trial folks can tell you a lot about the DSR memory leak, the need to reset the whole vRG after a few wipes on Oax to avoid lag, and more things. You have a right to be disappointed with Vengeance PvP, but at least try not to direct your anger towards the wrong targets.
[edited for baiting]

SneaK · 3:35PM

lostineternity wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

lostineternity wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

robwolf666 wrote: »

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

No I'm suggesting Vengeance ruleset for PvE since it’s THE SOLUTION to performance issues we currently face. Give me the option to load into a vengeance instance of dungeon XYZ or zone XYZ. Why not just TEST it at least.

To add, access to the templates would eliminate any need for CP or even crafting and the bank. These are places I often crash to the menu and get met with the error 307. It would likely solve that issue as well since I wouldn’t even have to deal with it.
[edited to remove quote]

aetherix8 · 3:41PM

MasterSpatula wrote: »

The levels of bad faith here are off the charts.

Indeed. Somehow it makes a hilarious reading though.

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.

Let them finish what they’ve started PvP wise, or we will get another half baked mode with crappy performance. We’ve already got enough of that.

SneaK · 3:46PM

MSattrtand wrote: »

You're barking up the wrong tree, dawg.

You probably expected to get responses from trial score-pushers like "That's a completely different thing! Vengeance PvP is great, but Vengeance PvE will kill the game!". But in reality, they are much more likely to side with the anti-vengeance crowd, because losing options can't be a good thing, and that's one of the worst things of multiclassing - if HotT and Assassination are so good, there's not really a choice, if you should run them or not.

But from the PvE side of the game, support of Vengeance mostly comes from casuals. And they will be happy to see Vengeance PvE. You know, one-bar Oakensoul HA builds are so popular for a reason - they are trying to simplify the game. It doesn't matter whether it's a PvP or PvE side of it. They can already obtain easily accessible Vengeance gear in PvE in the form of 12 pieces of Shattered Fate, but they do not understand it because they're casuals. They do not understand that sets won't carry them through any content, no matter what it is, Vicious Death or Perfected Null Arca.

[snip] Trial folks can tell you a lot about the DSR memory leak, the need to reset the whole vRG after a few wipes on Oax to avoid lag, and more things. You have a right to be disappointed with Vengeance PvP, but at least try not to direct your anger towards the wrong targets.

You got me all wrong. My experience in PvE suffers performance issues and I would like to see a similar ruleset test for it that they are doing with Cyrodiil. The template idea seems great for PvE too, it would increase performance and whittle down some barriers into certain DLC content many people have a hard time with.
[edited to remove quote]

twisttop138 · 3:54PM

SneaK wrote: »

MSattrtand wrote: »

You're barking up the wrong tree, dawg.

You probably expected to get responses from trial score-pushers like "That's a completely different thing! Vengeance PvP is great, but Vengeance PvE will kill the game!". But in reality, they are much more likely to side with the anti-vengeance crowd, because losing options can't be a good thing, and that's one of the worst things of multiclassing - if HotT and Assassination are so good, there's not really a choice, if you should run them or not.

But from the PvE side of the game, support of Vengeance mostly comes from casuals. And they will be happy to see Vengeance PvE. You know, one-bar Oakensoul HA builds are so popular for a reason - they are trying to simplify the game. It doesn't matter whether it's a PvP or PvE side of it. They can already obtain easily accessible Vengeance gear in PvE in the form of 12 pieces of Shattered Fate, but they do not understand it because they're casuals. They do not understand that sets won't carry them through any content, no matter what it is, Vicious Death or Perfected Null Arca.

[snip] Trial folks can tell you a lot about the DSR memory leak, the need to reset the whole vRG after a few wipes on Oax to avoid lag, and more things. You have a right to be disappointed with Vengeance PvP, but at least try not to direct your anger towards the wrong targets.

You got me all wrong. My experience in PvE suffers performance issues and I would like to see a similar ruleset test for it that they are doing with Cyrodiil. The template idea seems great for PvE too, it would increase performance and whittle down some barriers into certain DLC content many people have a hard time with.

Man we get you. We don't want this to happen to you guys. I think you should vent but this just makes your argument look petulant. You have real actual arguments to stand on. No one buys your argument because it's see through. Argue on the merits. Not for something we all know will never happen.
[edited to remove quote]

SneaK · 4:02PM

twisttop138 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

MSattrtand wrote: »

You're barking up the wrong tree, dawg.

You probably expected to get responses from trial score-pushers like "That's a completely different thing! Vengeance PvP is great, but Vengeance PvE will kill the game!". But in reality, they are much more likely to side with the anti-vengeance crowd, because losing options can't be a good thing, and that's one of the worst things of multiclassing - if HotT and Assassination are so good, there's not really a choice, if you should run them or not.

But from the PvE side of the game, support of Vengeance mostly comes from casuals. And they will be happy to see Vengeance PvE. You know, one-bar Oakensoul HA builds are so popular for a reason - they are trying to simplify the game. It doesn't matter whether it's a PvP or PvE side of it. They can already obtain easily accessible Vengeance gear in PvE in the form of 12 pieces of Shattered Fate, but they do not understand it because they're casuals. They do not understand that sets won't carry them through any content, no matter what it is, Vicious Death or Perfected Null Arca.

[snip] Trial folks can tell you a lot about the DSR memory leak, the need to reset the whole vRG after a few wipes on Oax to avoid lag, and more things. You have a right to be disappointed with Vengeance PvP, but at least try not to direct your anger towards the wrong targets.

You got me all wrong. My experience in PvE suffers performance issues and I would like to see a similar ruleset test for it that they are doing with Cyrodiil. The template idea seems great for PvE too, it would increase performance and whittle down some barriers into certain DLC content many people have a hard time with.

Man we get you. We don't want this to happen to you guys. I think you should vent but this just makes your argument look petulant. You have real actual arguments to stand on. No one buys your argument because it's see through. Argue on the merits. Not for something we all know will never happen.

I’m not arguing though.. it seems like the game is heading in the right direction (finally!) and the devs have found a SOLUTION to our performance issues and in turn have made certain activities more accessible to everyone. I just think they should provide the PvE world with the same enhancements PvPers are (finally!) getting.

Also, the lag created by people spamming complicated skills hurts my immersion. I think it would help there too.
[edited to remove quote]

salander7 · 4:07PM

SneaK wrote: »

You got me all wrong. My experience in PvE suffers performance issues and I would like to see a similar ruleset test for it that they are doing with Cyrodiil. The template idea seems great for PvE too, it would increase performance and whittle down some barriers into certain DLC content many people have a hard time with.

Your performance issues in pve seem to be on your end. If the game was crashing every other day on normal activities, we would see a lot more complaints. Everywhere. Addons, wrong installation, settings, hardware issues... multiple possible causes, but it is definitely not a server wide thing.
And yeah, crowded events are crowded, which makes performance iffy, that's how ESO is oriented these days, increase user activity for a week, then back to normal, barking at the wrong issue.

On the "The template idea seems great for PvE too", I'm just going to reply your user quote: IMO, or IYO, in your opinion. Countless pvpers have been all but excited about the feature, since it slashes the whole gameplay. I really can't see how it makes any sense for a game that has sold thousands based on the "Play how you want" trope, and earns millions in ESO+ subscriptions, to make characters a rigid template, and based on your ideas, eliminate the need for crafting and bank. Really, template chars and no need for a subscription, amazing marketing decision.

And sure, the people in favour of making everything easier will often cheer for anything that lets them get a hardmode with minimal effort, but if that's not arcanist or oakensoul at this point, I really don't know what is then.

SneaK · 4:12PM

salander7 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

You got me all wrong. My experience in PvE suffers performance issues and I would like to see a similar ruleset test for it that they are doing with Cyrodiil. The template idea seems great for PvE too, it would increase performance and whittle down some barriers into certain DLC content many people have a hard time with.

Your performance issues in pve seem to be on your end. If the game was crashing every other day on normal activities, we would see a lot more complaints. Everywhere. Addons, wrong installation, settings, hardware issues... multiple possible causes, but it is definitely not a server wide thing.
And yeah, crowded events are crowded, which makes performance iffy, that's how ESO is oriented these days, increase user activity for a week, then back to normal, barking at the wrong issue.

On the "The template idea seems great for PvE too", I'm just going to reply your user quote: IMO, or IYO, in your opinion. Countless pvpers have been all but excited about the feature, since it slashes the whole gameplay. I really can't see how it makes any sense for a game that has sold thousands based on the "Play how you want" trope, and earns millions in ESO+ subscriptions, to make characters a rigid template, and based on your ideas, eliminate the need for crafting and bank. Really, template chars and no need for a subscription, amazing marketing decision.

And sure, the people in favour of making everything easier will often cheer for anything that lets them get a hardmode with minimal effort, but if that's not arcanist or oakensoul at this point, I really don't know what is then.

Type in “crash” to the forum search and then say what you just said with a straight face.

Hopefully Oakensoul will be in one of the templates!

Erickson9610 · 4:15PM

SneaK wrote: »

Hopefully Oakensoul will be in one of the templates!

Vengeance should not have item sets at all. Save that for Gray Host, the more entertaining campaign.

salander7 · 4:20PM

SneaK wrote: »

salander7 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

You got me all wrong. My experience in PvE suffers performance issues and I would like to see a similar ruleset test for it that they are doing with Cyrodiil. The template idea seems great for PvE too, it would increase performance and whittle down some barriers into certain DLC content many people have a hard time with.

Your performance issues in pve seem to be on your end. If the game was crashing every other day on normal activities, we would see a lot more complaints. Everywhere. Addons, wrong installation, settings, hardware issues... multiple possible causes, but it is definitely not a server wide thing.
And yeah, crowded events are crowded, which makes performance iffy, that's how ESO is oriented these days, increase user activity for a week, then back to normal, barking at the wrong issue.

On the "The template idea seems great for PvE too", I'm just going to reply your user quote: IMO, or IYO, in your opinion. Countless pvpers have been all but excited about the feature, since it slashes the whole gameplay. I really can't see how it makes any sense for a game that has sold thousands based on the "Play how you want" trope, and earns millions in ESO+ subscriptions, to make characters a rigid template, and based on your ideas, eliminate the need for crafting and bank. Really, template chars and no need for a subscription, amazing marketing decision.

And sure, the people in favour of making everything easier will often cheer for anything that lets them get a hardmode with minimal effort, but if that's not arcanist or oakensoul at this point, I really don't know what is then.

Type in “crash” to the forum search and then say what you just said with a straight face.

Hopefully Oakensoul will be in one of the templates!

Typed it, 15 results in the last week including your message, it'll be 16 with this message since I'm quoting it. Others are using it in this context "I haven't had a crash there in over half a year and as long as you turn off ambient occlusion and turn shadow down to low", so not sure if that helps your point.
I can tell you with whatever face you want, crashes are not a common issue in pve nowadays. If you're suffering a lot of them, it's something wrong on your end. Signed: someone that progged tris when a reset bc someone DCed was as common as a group death.

Nice way answer to all the other things mentioned, though, really solid, it conceals a bit you haven't thought this through more than 30 seconds.

Gabriel_H · 4:24PM

SneaK wrote: »

You keep saying this, no, performance tanks in every aspect of the game and specifically in PvE instances more than PvP instances, for me. Again, I’m on new gen Xbox, I don’t see performance issues in Cyrodiil like I do in PvE, it’s far worse in PvE. Every example I give you say is an exception.. okay. At what point can we have a real discussion about the game running better and players options?

Cause IMO, ZOS has a fix for a real problem that would enhance our game, Vengeance ruleset in PvE. Why not? Cause you’ve determined that players who suffer lag outside of PvP don’t deserve the latest and greatest fix for a problem that clearly exists and has for a decade? That’s not your call.

Vengeance ruleset in PvE is the answer.

I'm on a very outdated PC. I have no issues with performance in PvE except in the two very specific cases I have already outlined. I don't know anyone who has performance issues in PvE beyond the occassional lag spikes that are inherant in MMOs.

If you are saying you have performance issues all the time in PvE, that very much sounds like a hardware issue or a problem with your ISP. I say that with confidence because there is no other reasonable explanation. The cause of the problems in PvP are because of the server load from the calcs needed to deal with so many complex skills firing at once from (at present) 360 players - that scenario simply does not exist in PvE.

SneaK · 5:18PM

salander7 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

salander7 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

You got me all wrong. My experience in PvE suffers performance issues and I would like to see a similar ruleset test for it that they are doing with Cyrodiil. The template idea seems great for PvE too, it would increase performance and whittle down some barriers into certain DLC content many people have a hard time with.

Your performance issues in pve seem to be on your end. If the game was crashing every other day on normal activities, we would see a lot more complaints. Everywhere. Addons, wrong installation, settings, hardware issues... multiple possible causes, but it is definitely not a server wide thing.
And yeah, crowded events are crowded, which makes performance iffy, that's how ESO is oriented these days, increase user activity for a week, then back to normal, barking at the wrong issue.

On the "The template idea seems great for PvE too", I'm just going to reply your user quote: IMO, or IYO, in your opinion. Countless pvpers have been all but excited about the feature, since it slashes the whole gameplay. I really can't see how it makes any sense for a game that has sold thousands based on the "Play how you want" trope, and earns millions in ESO+ subscriptions, to make characters a rigid template, and based on your ideas, eliminate the need for crafting and bank. Really, template chars and no need for a subscription, amazing marketing decision.

And sure, the people in favour of making everything easier will often cheer for anything that lets them get a hardmode with minimal effort, but if that's not arcanist or oakensoul at this point, I really don't know what is then.

Type in “crash” to the forum search and then say what you just said with a straight face.

Hopefully Oakensoul will be in one of the templates!

Typed it, 15 results in the last week including your message, it'll be 16 with this message since I'm quoting it. Others are using it in this context "I haven't had a crash there in over half a year and as long as you turn off ambient occlusion and turn shadow down to low", so not sure if that helps your point.
I can tell you with whatever face you want, crashes are not a common issue in pve nowadays. If you're suffering a lot of them, it's something wrong on your end. Signed: someone that progged tris when a reset bc someone DCed was as common as a group death.

Nice way answer to all the other things mentioned, though, really solid, it conceals a bit you haven't thought this through more than 30 seconds.

I don’t see how your ESO resume is relevant to performance issues. That’s nice, congrats on your achievements. What I’m tired of is hearing “because this isn’t my problem it isn’t a problem”. Which is exactly what a lot of you are doing.

Vengeance is sold as a performance solution with features that make things more accessible. Why is this such a hard concept to consider for PvE? Why can’t we entertain the thought? Cause people don’t think it’s a real solution or cause people don’t believe certain complaints are valid? Or both?

If ZOS has a SOLUTION to performance dips with the Vengeance ruleset why can’t I ask for it?

JustLovely · 5:21PM

It's funny how the PvE community pushes so hard for vengeance but when the same system is proposed for PvE zones they freak out and throw down all kinds of reasons why the template mode is no good or not needed.

JustLovely · 5:24PM

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.

Performance issues in ESO are hardware related only in the sense that ZOS' server hardware is outdated. Performance issues are almost never hardware related on the client side.

JustLovely · 5:26PM

Gabriel_H wrote: »

edward_frigidhands wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

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.

Vengeance is looking to increase the player cap while also improving performance, by removing a lot of additional skill complexities.

If this can benefit PvP then why can't it benefit PvE? It honestly seems like a better fit in PvE because of all the complex PvE mechanics we already have to contend with. It would make PvE more performant, approachable and amazing.

Because PvE doesn't have performance issues, with the sole exceptions of 100 players attacking a world boss or milling around a wayshrine.

Dungeons, Trials, Delves, Outlaw refuges, Public Dungeons, Quest zones, anything indoors are instance capped. It's only outdoors in overland that has problems, and that can be solved by simply lowering the instance cap.

Cyro has already had it's cap lowered and it still suffers, and feels empty.

Edit: Individual players suffering poor performance in PvE is either a momentary issue with the servers, their ISP, or their hardware. It isn't due to skills causing excessive server calcs like it is in PvP - with the exceptions outlined above. Vengeance is specifically about reducing the number of server calcs to improve performance.

There is extreme performance issues in trials. Same as there is in heavy PvP battles.

Soarora · 5:31PM

JustLovely wrote: »

It's funny how the PvE community pushes so hard for vengeance but when the same system is proposed for PvE zones they freak out and throw down all kinds of reasons why the template mode is no good or not needed.

No one in the PvE community is pushing for Vengence. We need to stop scapegoating each other, it’s not healthy for the overall community and distracts us from our common enemy. From what I saw, the people pro-Vengence were PvPers who are anti-proc set and pro-skill and even then I only saw that opinion posted during the first test.

Edit: I’ll also note that I started doing PvP by using my PvE build and changing it based on what I saw. If peoples PvE build is too bad to even remotely have fun in PvP then they’re probably not good PvErs either. Can’t even blame the casuals overall because at least some casuals have defensive builds.

JustLovely · 5:35PM

Soarora wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

It's funny how the PvE community pushes so hard for vengeance but when the same system is proposed for PvE zones they freak out and throw down all kinds of reasons why the template mode is no good or not needed.

No one in the PvE community is pushing for Vengence. We need to stop scapegoating each other, it’s not healthy for the overall community and distracts us from our common enemy. From what I saw, the people pro-Vengence were PvPers who are anti-proc set and pro-skill and even then I only saw that opinion posted during the first test.

It's PvE mains that are making the vast majority of posts promoting vengeance. Not only that, it tends to be the same 5 to 8 PvE mains making these posts.

SneaK · 5:39PM

JustLovely wrote: »

Soarora wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

It's funny how the PvE community pushes so hard for vengeance but when the same system is proposed for PvE zones they freak out and throw down all kinds of reasons why the template mode is no good or not needed.

No one in the PvE community is pushing for Vengence. We need to stop scapegoating each other, it’s not healthy for the overall community and distracts us from our common enemy. From what I saw, the people pro-Vengence were PvPers who are anti-proc set and pro-skill and even then I only saw that opinion posted during the first test.

It's PvE mains that are making the vast majority of posts promoting vengeance. Not only that, it tends to be the same 5 to 8 PvE mains making these posts.

I would imagine they would agree a PvE Vengeance ruleset would be a great thing to have.

spartaxoxo · 5:51PM

JustLovely wrote: »

It's PvE mains that are making the vast majority of posts promoting vengeance. Not only that, it tends to be the same 5 to 8 PvE mains making these posts.

I have seen very few posts arguing that Grey Host should be removed. Most people don't like the idea of that. That some people enjoyed Vengeance and want it to be an option isn't and shouldn't be an issue. Trying to blame a small amount of PvE players for ZOS throwing in the towel after trying and failing to fix PvP for years doesn't make sense. They tried removing proc sets. They tried making groups smaller. Etc. etc.

This is not a good solution for PvP, which has much more widespread issues than PvE and it's obviously a worse idea to put into PvE.

Soarora · 5:55PM

JustLovely wrote: »

Soarora wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

It's funny how the PvE community pushes so hard for vengeance but when the same system is proposed for PvE zones they freak out and throw down all kinds of reasons why the template mode is no good or not needed.

No one in the PvE community is pushing for Vengence. We need to stop scapegoating each other, it’s not healthy for the overall community and distracts us from our common enemy. From what I saw, the people pro-Vengence were PvPers who are anti-proc set and pro-skill and even then I only saw that opinion posted during the first test.

It's PvE mains that are making the vast majority of posts promoting vengeance. Not only that, it tends to be the same 5 to 8 PvE mains making these posts.

I mean, there are the people saying “this wouldn’t affect me so I’m cool with the change” or “anything goes if it’s optional” but those people post that kind of opinion on like… everything. Sometimes people need to realize when it’s not their battle to throw their cents into. Vengence is between PvPers and ZOS, PvErs don’t get a say in this IMO. Even if they think they’ll play Vengence. I like PvP and I hardly do it anyways as a PvE main… so… only thing I comment on is BGs since the team imbalance in 4v4s and 8v8s made me stop doing BGs again.

SneaK · 5:58PM

spartaxoxo wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

It's PvE mains that are making the vast majority of posts promoting vengeance. Not only that, it tends to be the same 5 to 8 PvE mains making these posts.

I have seen very few posts arguing that Grey Host should be removed. Most people don't like the idea of that. That some people enjoyed Vengeance and want it to be an option isn't and shouldn't be an issue. Trying to blame a small amount of PvE players for ZOS throwing in the towel after trying and failing to fix PvP for years doesn't make sense. They tried removing proc sets. They tried making groups smaller. Etc. etc.

This is not a good solution for PvP, which has much more widespread issues than PvE and it's obviously a worse idea to put into PvE.

Why is it a worse idea for PvE? If it resolves performance problems, what are the downsides in PvE that are greater concerns than what they’ve already measured risk wise with PvP?

To me it seems simple, if the ruleset is doing what it’s intended to do, give us the option just like they are giving the option to PvPers.

valenwood_vegan · 6:08PM

Yeah there are always some loud people on the forums with loud opinions, but I have my doubts that they represent some alleged community-wide "promoting of vengeance". I've never seen this, outside of a few forum posters. The attitudes I've encountered in the pve community mostly range from "well vengenace was interesting but it would get boring after a bit, maybe it should be an option geared toward new players" to "i don't really care strongly since I don't pvp" to "what's vengeance?".

I'm not a serious pvp'er myself, but I'm upset that it sounds like zos doesn't seem willing to continue to try and improve the regular Cyro experience but like, stop looking for other players to blame and take that up with the developers? We've seen countless times that zos does what *they* want and player opinions and feedback are not an important factor (except in the sense that they are used to deflect blame when a decision is anticipated to be / proves to be unpopular).

Anyway, that's about all I've got. Hope they find a solution here that's acceptable to serious pvp'ers.

spartaxoxo · 6:09PM

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

It's PvE mains that are making the vast majority of posts promoting vengeance. Not only that, it tends to be the same 5 to 8 PvE mains making these posts.

I have seen very few posts arguing that Grey Host should be removed. Most people don't like the idea of that. That some people enjoyed Vengeance and want it to be an option isn't and shouldn't be an issue. Trying to blame a small amount of PvE players for ZOS throwing in the towel after trying and failing to fix PvP for years doesn't make sense. They tried removing proc sets. They tried making groups smaller. Etc. etc.

This is not a good solution for PvP, which has much more widespread issues than PvE and it's obviously a worse idea to put into PvE.

Why is it a worse idea for PvE? If it resolves performance problems, what are the downsides in PvE that are greater concerns than what they’ve already measured risk wise with PvP?

To me it seems simple, if the ruleset is doing what it’s intended to do, give us the option just like they are giving the option to PvPers.

Well, for starters, PvE does not have multiple campaigns.

SneaK · 6:10PM

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

It's PvE mains that are making the vast majority of posts promoting vengeance. Not only that, it tends to be the same 5 to 8 PvE mains making these posts.

I have seen very few posts arguing that Grey Host should be removed. Most people don't like the idea of that. That some people enjoyed Vengeance and want it to be an option isn't and shouldn't be an issue. Trying to blame a small amount of PvE players for ZOS throwing in the towel after trying and failing to fix PvP for years doesn't make sense. They tried removing proc sets. They tried making groups smaller. Etc. etc.

This is not a good solution for PvP, which has much more widespread issues than PvE and it's obviously a worse idea to put into PvE.

Why is it a worse idea for PvE? If it resolves performance problems, what are the downsides in PvE that are greater concerns than what they’ve already measured risk wise with PvP?

To me it seems simple, if the ruleset is doing what it’s intended to do, give us the option just like they are giving the option to PvPers.

Well, for starters, PvE does not have multiple campaigns.

It has many many different instances. That is completely irrelevant though.

spartaxoxo · 6:15PM

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

It's PvE mains that are making the vast majority of posts promoting vengeance. Not only that, it tends to be the same 5 to 8 PvE mains making these posts.

I have seen very few posts arguing that Grey Host should be removed. Most people don't like the idea of that. That some people enjoyed Vengeance and want it to be an option isn't and shouldn't be an issue. Trying to blame a small amount of PvE players for ZOS throwing in the towel after trying and failing to fix PvP for years doesn't make sense. They tried removing proc sets. They tried making groups smaller. Etc. etc.

This is not a good solution for PvP, which has much more widespread issues than PvE and it's obviously a worse idea to put into PvE.

Why is it a worse idea for PvE? If it resolves performance problems, what are the downsides in PvE that are greater concerns than what they’ve already measured risk wise with PvP?

To me it seems simple, if the ruleset is doing what it’s intended to do, give us the option just like they are giving the option to PvPers.

Well, for starters, PvE does not have multiple campaigns.

It has many many different instances. That is completely irrelevant though.

No. It isn't irrelevant.

This thread is defacto pushing for PvE to be forced into scenario 2 (not in good faith) because you don't believe ZOS's explicitly stated goal that scenario 1 (Normal Cyrodiil and Vengeance co-existing) is the goal for PvP.

Scenario 2 is a total disaster for any of the game modes. We all know that. I don't wish that on PvP. I don't wish that on PvE. I don't think this game survives as Vengeance only.

fizzybeef · 6:21PM

Vengeance for dungeons please

Gabriel_H · 6:23PM

SneaK wrote: »

I don’t see how your ESO resume is relevant to performance issues. That’s nice, congrats on your achievements. What I’m tired of is hearing “because this isn’t my problem it isn’t a problem”. Which is exactly what a lot of you are doing.

No, we aren't saying the problem does not exist.

What we are saying is this sounds very specific to you, therefore it isn't ESO that is the problem but something your end. What performance issues are you having? What's the nature of the issues? How often do they occur?*

*caveated with the issues of outside overland when there are many players in a given area. i.e. Town hubs and World Bosses/Dolmens.

What other areas are you getting these issues? What are your graphic settings?

BardokRedSnow · 6:23PM

Also if pvp is so dead, why the hell do p

salander7 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

salander7 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

You got me all wrong. My experience in PvE suffers performance issues and I would like to see a similar ruleset test for it that they are doing with Cyrodiil. The template idea seems great for PvE too, it would increase performance and whittle down some barriers into certain DLC content many people have a hard time with.

Your performance issues in pve seem to be on your end. If the game was crashing every other day on normal activities, we would see a lot more complaints. Everywhere. Addons, wrong installation, settings, hardware issues... multiple possible causes, but it is definitely not a server wide thing.
And yeah, crowded events are crowded, which makes performance iffy, that's how ESO is oriented these days, increase user activity for a week, then back to normal, barking at the wrong issue.

On the "The template idea seems great for PvE too", I'm just going to reply your user quote: IMO, or IYO, in your opinion. Countless pvpers have been all but excited about the feature, since it slashes the whole gameplay. I really can't see how it makes any sense for a game that has sold thousands based on the "Play how you want" trope, and earns millions in ESO+ subscriptions, to make characters a rigid template, and based on your ideas, eliminate the need for crafting and bank. Really, template chars and no need for a subscription, amazing marketing decision.

And sure, the people in favour of making everything easier will often cheer for anything that lets them get a hardmode with minimal effort, but if that's not arcanist or oakensoul at this point, I really don't know what is then.

Type in “crash” to the forum search and then say what you just said with a straight face.

Hopefully Oakensoul will be in one of the templates!

Typed it, 15 results in the last week including your message, it'll be 16 with this message since I'm quoting it. Others are using it in this context "I haven't had a crash there in over half a year and as long as you turn off ambient occlusion and turn shadow down to low", so not sure if that helps your point.
I can tell you with whatever face you want, crashes are not a common issue in pve nowadays. If you're suffering a lot of them, it's something wrong on your end. Signed: someone that progged tris when a reset bc someone DCed was as common as a group death.

Nice way answer to all the other things mentioned, though, really solid, it conceals a bit you haven't thought this through more than 30 seconds.

To be fair that result about ambient occlusion and no crashes was from me about Cyrodiil lol

That said, I don’t suffer from crashes almost at all anymore, just janky stiff gameplay from time to time which I realize now in Cyrodiil is due to the global skill cooldown. Can’t remember when they incorporated that, or if it’s always been a thing but I’m painfully aware of it in primetime PvP right now

Now what’s the excuse for high ping in pve instances, no idea probably their bad coding

SneaK · 6:24PM

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

It's PvE mains that are making the vast majority of posts promoting vengeance. Not only that, it tends to be the same 5 to 8 PvE mains making these posts.

I have seen very few posts arguing that Grey Host should be removed. Most people don't like the idea of that. That some people enjoyed Vengeance and want it to be an option isn't and shouldn't be an issue. Trying to blame a small amount of PvE players for ZOS throwing in the towel after trying and failing to fix PvP for years doesn't make sense. They tried removing proc sets. They tried making groups smaller. Etc. etc.

This is not a good solution for PvP, which has much more widespread issues than PvE and it's obviously a worse idea to put into PvE.

Why is it a worse idea for PvE? If it resolves performance problems, what are the downsides in PvE that are greater concerns than what they’ve already measured risk wise with PvP?

To me it seems simple, if the ruleset is doing what it’s intended to do, give us the option just like they are giving the option to PvPers.

Well, for starters, PvE does not have multiple campaigns.

It has many many different instances. That is completely irrelevant though.

No. It isn't irrelevant.

You're defacto pushing for PvE to be forced into scenario 2 (not in good faith) because you don't believe ZOS's explicitly stated goal that scenario 1 (Normal Cyrodiil and Vengeance co-existing) is the goal for PvP.

Scenario 2 is a total disaster for any of the game modes.

Explain how it’s relevant for me then please. I don’t understand.

I’m not defacto pushing anything, I am asking for inclusion because they are only giving this new ruleset to PvP while it could also great benefit people in PvE too.

Melivar · 6:25PM

There are no real PVE performance issues in 4 or 12 player instanced content that are game related. Mostly those would be addon or hardware related issues.

While these same things are also a hinderance in PVP it is a much wider issue overall in Cyro.

Case in point I never had any issues with instanced PVE but did have several issues with overland PVE and all PVP on an older laptop. When it died and I upgraded I still had no issues in instanced PVE or overland PVE and much less in PVP outside of larger scale battles.

Now i have a failing hard drive and the Overland PVE and PVP issues are back again but still have had no real issues in instanced PVE. I know it is a hardware issue and not an internet or addon issue because if I log into my stream deck I am back to just having problems in PVP related content only and yes I have all the same addon for the steam deck.

For everyone sake I hope that the stick to having both Gray Host and Vengeance as play options and they continue to work on balancing things for the Gray Host campaign.