Muizer wrote: »

reazea wrote: »

Vengeance 1 was sold to us as being a test system so they could gather data and improve normal live Cyrodiil.

Was it? I've never heard or read anything about that. Please show proof.

It's literally everywhere. Lol

I know they've said it's a test.

What I want to see proof of is that it was a test to gather data to improve normal live Cyrodiil. Where are people getting this bold bit from?

There was an extensive QandA about Vengeance 1 and at every turn it is perfectly clear they stressed it was a test to reassure people it wasn't a definitive product but something they would iterate upon. Everything said in the stream @edward_frigidhands points to this also. I'd invite everyone to go reread and rewatch it with this in mind and then come back and tell me they are not talking about a new game mode. If they ever suggested otherwise I'd like to hear where, because this wasn't it.

I'm sorry it makes no sense. I think that whole interpretation is just wishful thinking. The only thing one can really accuse ZOS of is not disabusing people of this evident misinterpretation. But even there, it's always been ZOS way of communicating to not be definite about anything until it is near completion. So silence about player speculation is par for the course.

Muizer wrote: »

reazea wrote: »

Vengeance 1 was sold to us as being a test system so they could gather data and improve normal live Cyrodiil.

Was it? I've never heard or read anything about that. Please show proof.

This was your question.

Several posters have now linked you proof that it was sold as a test.

You are moving the goal posts at this point.

AngryPenguin wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

I know they've said it's a test.

What I want to see proof of is that it was a test to gather data to improve normal live Cyrodiil. Where are people getting this bold bit from?

There was an extensive QandA about Vengeance 1 and at every turn it is perfectly clear they stressed it was a test to reassure people it wasn't a definitive product but something they would iterate upon. Everything said in the stream @edward_frigidhands points to this also. I'd invite everyone to go reread and rewatch it with this in mind and then come back and tell me they are not talking about a new game mode. If they ever suggested otherwise I'd like to hear where, because this wasn't it.

I'm sorry it makes no sense. I think that whole interpretation is just wishful thinking. The only thing one can really accuse ZOS of is not disabusing people of this evident misinterpretation. But even there, it's always been ZOS way of communicating to not be definite about anything until it is near completion. So that's par for the course.

Multiple people have linked to the proof. It's ZOS that repeatedly stated vengeance was a test to get information they could use to improve live Cyrodiil. Either you're way out of touch with current events or you're being deliberately obsequious.

We know now our suspicions that they weren't being honest about it being just a test were completely justified.

reazea wrote: »

This statement from ZOS makes it clear those of us who despise vengeance and will never play any version of vengeance have only one option now:

We have to boycott participation in all vengeance going forward and hope ZOS figures out vengeance is a fail in every way.

This is absolutely the correct course of action at this point.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

StihlReign wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

So you wanna stop trying to fix GH Cyrodiil, because we cant archive 900 people? Why not just trying to adjust it to 600 for example and keep trying?

Not sure they really care about Cyrodiil - it feels more like they don't want to 'fix' (change) combat.

Nothing we do to NPCs is a problem except killing them too fast enmasse. Sets in this category are nerfed, typically with a note and some reference to the server. PvPers then complain because the same sets initially killed Cyrodiil's more oppressive groups, meanwhile the groups become efficient with those nerfed sets and kill the server through relentless farming. Subclassing, no tuning.

The devs have been receptive to a few PvP changes but that tends to taper off if they impact PvE groups.

To improve Cyrodiil, healing and damage would need to change, which affects PvE. If PvE combat is perfect without PvPs influence, and ESO is essentially a solo RP MMO, we're probably seeing the end of ESO PvP without some pretty directed changes to base game combat. The devs built Template PvP to solve the PvP problem. Play how you want PvP => template.

PvE, no more worries. Beeeam

I'm guessing BGs will be on the chopping block shortly, it feels like the devs have moved on...

Implying that PvE balance is in a good state, though...

A lot of PvErs are just as interested in them screwing their heads back on and working on balance since they were like "here's Subclassing ghlf!" back in June. A lot of us don't want to have the all-beam-all-the-time meta either.

They seriously need to do that thing that everyone's been suggesting where they don't let HoTs of the same type stack. Someone else throws a Radiating on you? Fine, it replaces the one you have, not adds to it. Done.

It does make me sad that they're really pushing ESO into being a solo game. We've pretty well lost a lot of the things that made this an MMO, and now the big push is to take out the RPG elements and make it so you never have to make choices and can get everything all at once with no downsides.

So when the MMORPG loses its MMO and its RPG aspects... what are you left with?

Not a good state for players and many PvPers, but the devs stance has been everything is perfectly fine with subclass balance. No Adjustments. Get rid of PvP and you remove a large portion of sub-class complaints. Get that to a dull roar, easier to manage and ignore? I think they've moved on.

It's probably fair to say at this point, many of the better known ESO community managers and devs don't share positive views of PvP. The recent record of ignoring PTS is borderline legendary and almost no one is shocked the devs are proposing a plan to shutter the zone (the players figured it out months ago). Everything is trending towards a long, planned effort to eliminate PvP in ESO, most of what we see they've planned and built out 3-9 months ago.

Hello Template PvP = Goodbye combat complaints. PvE is saved = No adjustments needed. Think about where we are: The devs broke combat, combat timing and animations during the largest event of the year, hotfixed some of it, went silent on the rest, then went on vacation...meanwhile the reports stack up while we suffer with poor gameplay for another extended period.

Not sure what happens when the MMORPG loses its MMO and its RPG aspects...but I bet there's a ton of folks who will miss the PvP buyers.

Wonder how low the price of Columbine, Roe, dragon rheum and dreugh wax will get?

Some more questions:
-What will happen to the other Cyrodiil campaigns in both scenario 1 and scenario 2? Will they keep existing, be removed, something else?
-How many resources have been spent over the years to try and get Cyrodiil working as intended? And will these resources now get allocated to more content/features, or will you still try to fix Cyrodiil going forward?
-Could a cause of the lag in Cyrodiil be the Imperial City still being linked to Cyrodiil? In the IC we still get messages about the scrolls/gates/etc in Cyrodiil there, even though the two should no longer be linked.
-What will happen in scenario 1 if due to playernumbers both vengeance and grey host end up with unhealthy/unsustainable populations? basically showing neither PvP mode was populair enough to begin with. (asking as some players are expressing boycotts for certain modes)
-You stated that in survey test 1 many players expressed their like for vengeance, was vengeance liked by enough players to have a healthy permanent/sustainable population for that mode?

JohnRingo wrote: »

reazea wrote: »

This statement from ZOS makes it clear those of us who despise vengeance and will never play any version of vengeance have only one option now:

We have to boycott participation in all vengeance going forward and hope ZOS figures out vengeance is a fail in every way.

This is absolutely the correct course of action at this point.

There are players who enjoy vengeance, and you are actively trying to keep vengeance from them/have ZOS remove vengeance from the game. Which is just as bad as players who want your beloved Cyrodiil closed/removed! The more options for gameplay, the more players who can happily play what they want, and the more players who can play the modes that they want to play. Growing both the game and it's population.

Besides that, boycotting vengeance will actually have the opposite effect. If enough grey host players go to vengeance, causing both vengeance and grey host to have unhealthy/unsustainable populations, the entire future of PvP in this game will be at risk. Making it seem like neither vengeance nor grey host have a place in this game's future, and I'm guessing you do not want that either.

PTS Update 45 - Feedback Thread for Cyrodiil Champions (Vengeance Campaign)

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

i11ionward wrote: »

Is the team going to look at feedback about how balanced the skills and classes are?

I really liked the overall idea of the campaign, but I wish there were more build options. Adding weapon skills would definitely help with that.

So the goal here in PTS is to test performance. We understand everyone is looking at skill/class balance. While that is important, it's jumping several steps ahead of what we are trying to accomplish with the test. Before we can realistically look at balance, we need to make sure things are working as intended for performance. It is why we are stressing the importance of answering the questions in the first post. If we can't get in info needed to make things work properly, then balancing means nothing anyway. This isn't to ignore thoughts on balance, but rather to make sure we are clear about the objective of this test on PTS.

I'd forgotten about this interchange during the early days of Vengeance testing on PTS. Now that I look at things again, in retrospect this probably speaks to the current approach to subclassing balance (if there is an intent to balance subclassing, not certain there's any will to change the status quo), and could answer why balance in GH is given so little importance or attention beyond anything egregiously broken...