BardokRedSnow wrote: »

No, because I don't play it.

So all this hate and you've never even played it.

Before Vengeance came out I was a hater. I thought it sounded as dumb as No Proc Ravenwatch. But after playing it I saw the potential. Will it live up to that? Idk, it hasn't yet.

Its especially souring to hear "just try it bro" when they're stripping away the most popular game mode for these tests when we were already happy with lagfest greyhost and not given a choice to participate or not if we wanted pvp in cyrodiil.

Again if they gave us a choice I'd be more open to giving the mode a chance for the double AP if nothing else. Because we were not given a choice, I don't feel obligated to contribute, especially after they stated they were considering getting rid of greyhost, when before that was never a consideration. I will not trust them when they say it isn't going away when they repeatedly remove Greyhost for these tests and are not consistent on their statements about it and Vengeance.

Hard. Pass.

If the intent was to let new players learn the ins and outs of pvp in a build-neutral environment, then why change all the skills and seige? Equipment and maybe multiclassing should be the only variables locked down.

The way things are, if someone plays Vengeance for a while and then decides to give GH a try, they're going to feel like they're in a different game entirely.

For me vengence and GH are two different Games. When someone Starts which vengence and then Go to GH they dont know what will going on. Because they never Play "normal" PvP and starts again how unfair everything is

The other thing I think people are missing is just on live, even if a "zerg" comes anywhere close you can normally deal with it. But thats usually because on live a zerg guild is usually 24 players and rarely more, which you can just streak and walk away from at 200% movement speed. When back in the old day or in vengeance the dynamic makes most zerg groups upwards of 50-100 players sometimes more which will just run you down if you are not specifically built for speed sustain.

There's also the question of do we really rather ballgroups vs zergs holding control over the map? As an old 1vX smallman player I would much rather these 100man zergs running along the transitus. Then I can focus on pulling smaller groups off to the side or to resources. Its dumb to go stand in the middle of a transitus getting run over by 100 people and complaining "its just zergs"......Uh yeah thats how a 900 player server is like, there is going to be large groups. If I ran my old ballgroup even I would prefer zergs being an overwhelming force, its the only way they stay involved in the campaign and helps prevent population collapse.

That being said, veng doesn't have the right build elements in it to get build diversity to the point where we can tailor for specific content. I would much rather change the perk+loadout stat bonuses into a vengeance UI based stickerbook gear system. This way you can unlock veng gear and then drag and drop it onto your veng character which would be saved when you exit/enter pvp. This way we get the best of all worlds where we can make it quick and easy for players to jump in and out to play without hours of QoL issues sorting gear and messing up their pve loadouts. Start off with simple noproc gear and then SLOWLY introduce good performative proc stat sets like clever alch, avoiding sets with absurd proc conditions and over complications. Personally i think for pvp health you are better off sticking away from sets like viper that do an off GCD skill automatically for you, which can also cloud the visuals of pvp with overblown VFX.

BXR_Lonestar wrote: »

My suggestion: WHEN the devs bring back Blackreach, do the right thing. Make it alliance locked too. There is a reason Greyhost is the most popular server. Because it is alliance locked. So just make all servers alliance locked, and it'll reduce the stress in Greyhost and give you the same play experience in the alternative server. Hopefully the population will just spread out between the two servers.

Im guessing that since they are finally trying to make crossplatform playing a thing, they're getting rid of these for vengeance and the small cyrodiil map with one keep or whatever so that these will hold the population of players and almost always, in theory be full.

I suspect that at the very least with crossplat play, vengeance and greyhost will be a lot more active so they'll probably stick to this until this is incorporated.

At least I'm pretty sure I read something about them doing this soon. Though if Blackreach and Ravenwatch do remain, I do feel alliance locking is necessary absolutely to even have a hope of feeling like a real campaign and not siege simulation.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

Does your performance degrade when you come to Vengeance?.

No, because I don't play it.

My pvchat performance is optimal there though.

I have had lag spikes in Veng, yes. Is it as bad as GH - not even close.

To be fair I believe Xylena meant performance in the sense of PvP skill in Vengeance

However, that could not be more irrelevant to me in a game mode where there is no such thing as build diversity, not even the illusion of it. It is boring, it’s about the same reaction I’d give to someone asking me what my parse is in pve.

xylena wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

You have said in other threads you aren’t even playing this iteration of Vengeance. All this championing and you don’t even play it.

Sorry still not excited for meaningless preseason exhibition.

And I doubt the starting TB is either, probably just worried about blowing out his knee.

More analogies, you’d be the one on the team stating how good the team is despite not playing a down, and meanwhile the team is getting blown out in every preseason game.

Is what it is though, we’ll see what happens in June. Really just wish ZOS would stop shoving it down our throats though cause there’s a pretty obvious resistance from a not so small part of the community.

BXR_Lonestar wrote: »

Vengeance Only on XBOX NA is mostly empty whenever I'm playing. Few fights, no BIG fights that make vengeance worthwhile, and the fights are all small-scale and boring.

I don't know how they think this is going to be a good prime-time alternative mode that should go live.

I can foresee Greyhost que's being 100+ all the time, Vengeance being empty, and them bringing back Blackreach within 90 days.

My suggestion: WHEN the devs bring back Blackreach, do the right thing. Make it alliance locked too. There is a reason Greyhost is the most popular server. Because it is alliance locked. So just make all servers alliance locked, and it'll reduce the stress in Greyhost and give you the same play experience in the alternative server. Hopefully the population will just spread out between the two servers.

Faction lock has little to do with GH being the most popular one, stop pretending faction lock has anything to do with it. There has been times where GH hasn´t been locked and still been the most populated campaign. People go where they predict the action will be, faction locked or not. '

Edit: On PCEU there was a times where Ravenwatch (NOCP) used to be more populated than GH (pre no proc), and it wasn´t faction locked. There has also been times on PCEU where Blackreach > GH in terms on popularity because of the fact that the majority of the population moved to a different campaign. Players move to the campaign where they expect the action to happen, not because of the campaign having faction locks or not (some might do, but not the majority, that´s just major delulu cope)

SneaK wrote: »

No no no, I’ll just point at the scoreboard.

I wouldn't brag about the condition of the GH scoreboard.

Unless your attachment is that you're one of those off hours PvDoor guys.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Having thousands of points every day over the other factions because of a population disparity, that's pvdoor.

GH players know best!

Seriously though nothing is gonna change for GH, it'll be the same hundred guys in June, it'll be the same hundred guys still waiting for their "simple fix" in another 12 years. You have nothing to worry about, though I'm not sure how GH performance is gonna handle Crossplay...

xylena wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

No no no, I’ll just point at the scoreboard.

I wouldn't brag about the condition of the GH scoreboard.

Unless your attachment is that you're one of those off hours PvDoor guys.

If I were that type of person, I’d be championing Vengeance of course.

xylena wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

You should try logging in and playing

I played when U49 hit to try DK. Around 5-6pm EST. Short fight at Alessia with like 20 guys total. Then nothing between Alessia and Sej for like 20 minutes. Then I logged out.

I reiterate you should try actually playing the game, I played more than you in both modes judging from this comment. You're not even playing vengeance but giving it your best defense.

JohnRingo wrote: »

It reduces variables to artificially compress outcomes. That does make the environment more accessible, but it does so by stripping away layers of decision-making and build diversity.

That's exactly what it does, but stripping away extreme degenerate minmaxing is a good thing. The game will be better off at all skill levels without players/groups being either seemingly unkillable, or instantly dead 100-0. It also strips away all the countless unviable garbage setups that serve only to confuse and frustrate new, casual, or sandbox builders.

That decision making and diversity doesn't disappear though, instead of being funneled into gear sets, you instead put that into your class and weapons, loadout and skill bars, tactics and combat prowess. On GH you can win by outbuilding your opponent to the point where their fighting skill don't even matter. Never so on Vengeance.

Of course a major problem on Vengeance (and also GH) is that stacked group healing does largely remove skill and agency from the game, turning it into a brainless player count.