alternatelder wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

Having spent the last few hours in Vengeance today, I can say, it actually isn't as dead as the few loud people here are saying, decent sized fights. This is PS/NA, btw. All I can say is that the sets seem to bring the lag, the bar swap issues (well, actually that was still prevalent since the first test) and skills not firing. I must have hit my ult 3 times each time I wanted to use it (beserker, if that helps). Slightly enjoyable up until I ran into our first DC, RoA player. I immediately left. All in all, it's the longest I've stayed in Vengeance.

I don’t think many people are claiming that this Vengeance test is literally dead. The point is that it is failing to reach the population levels Zenimax clearly wants these tests to achieve.

On PC NA, the campaign has barely reached three bars on a single faction—EP—once. During prime time, it has generally remained at two bars across the board, dropping to one bar for most of the rest of the day.

With every possible incentive being thrown at it, and with Vengeance being the only campaign available, of course it is unlikely to be completely empty. But that is an incredibly low standard. Zenimax wants to test the campaign under massive-battle conditions, yet it is not even reaching half the population it was designed to hold. The tests are failing to attract enough players to create the conditions they are supposedly meant to evaluate, making the resulting data far less valuable.

When the only available campaign still cannot consistently reach three bars during prime time, the sentiment from the playerbase could not be clearer.

Just bring Gray Host back already.

Plenty of people are repeating "it's dead" over and over. We haven't hit primetime days/hours. You're one of the few making these remarks before it even went live. And as a reminder, again, nearly 3 bars on one faction is close to GH pop cap. Give it a rest already.

demonology89 wrote: »

I'm only here to tell ZOS, you guys really need to do the internal testing yourselves and provide us a list of what item sets work!!! Also, unleashed fury under Vanguard is doing horrendous amounts of damage with the 2H ultimate.

Unleashed Fury - Why have an AoE skill that does damage after 2 seconds? Tanks should not be doing crazy AoE damage. We already have destruction staff ult for that. This just seems like an unfun skill that is only usable in a zerg. I would prefer an AoE CC instead, since some classes are missing AoE CC options.

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

demonology89 wrote: »

I'm only here to tell ZOS, you guys really need to do the internal testing yourselves and provide us a list of what item sets work!!! Also, unleashed fury under Vanguard is doing horrendous amounts of damage with the 2H ultimate.

Yes Unleashed Fury is a stupid skill but I don't know if the balance team follows proper constraints or balancing philosophies. Tanks should not get a dps skill that does more damage and burst than DPS setups. It's an AoE that tooltips for 11k on a Vanguard versus standard AoEs doing around 7.8k. Really great balance.

I've mentioned it being a problem back on the PTS Feedback thread, but alas ZOS does balance patches with 3 month lead times where it's really too late.

Unleashed Fury - Why have an AoE skill that does damage after 2 seconds? Tanks should not be doing crazy AoE damage. We already have destruction staff ult for that. This just seems like an unfun skill that is only usable in a zerg. I would prefer an AoE CC instead, since some classes are missing AoE CC options.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/691103/u50-feedback-thread-for-vengeance-campaign/p3

If ZOS can't make GH work better they can't make vengeance work any better either. How are people not seeing this obvious reality?

albertberku wrote: »

I have tried it once but this iteration just doesnt make any sense at all. You have all the carrry build aspects some of the item sets are bringing but you dont have any possibility for countering them by just having some working setup yourself since you cant put up builds. I dont know anymore for whom this Vengeance is planned.

It looked like a good idea when it looked like Vengeance is about balance but not really anymore.

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

We want to acknowledge all of the questions on why we're continuing to do these tests. Ultimately, we're still answering questions that will inform the future of PvP that can only be answered with a concentrated player population in a live environment.

Throughout Vengeance testing, we've been isolating different parts of ESO's combat systems to better understand what has the biggest impact on server performance during large-scale battles. What we've consistently seen is that reducing overall combat complexity allows Cyrodiil to support significantly more players with much better performance. Every ability in ESO can interact with passives, Champion Points, Item Sets, status effects, buffs, debuffs, and other systems. Each of those interactions requires additional server processing, and in large-scale PvP those checks add up quickly. That's why we're continuing these tests. We're testing and proving hypotheses in the environment that counts the most: the live game. Vengeance is still a testing environment, and to answer those questions with confidence, we need players participating in the same testing environment rather than split across multiple campaigns.

For those of you asking for Item Sets and to have more build options, this next round of testing is designed to answer exactly that question. Previous tests helped us establish a stable baseline. Now we're evaluating whether Item Sets can be reintroduced while preserving the performance improvements we've seen. If the data shows they don't meaningfully impact performance, that's a path we can explore further.

We also know there are players who enjoy Vengeance specifically because it offers a different gameplay experience than traditional Cyrodiil campaigns. Many of you have shared concerns about gameplay patterns associated with Item Sets and those concerns are just as important to this process. The goal isn't simply to restore systems because players asked for them. It's to understand what can be added back while preserving both the gameplay identity and the performance improvements that many of you have come to enjoy.

Whatever the outcome, this testing helps us make informed decisions about the future of PvP. If Item Sets prove to be compatible with those goals, that's something we'll be able to explore further. If they don't, that tells us something equally valuable and helps us evaluate other ways to expand build customization while maintaining the strengths Vengeance has demonstrated.

We know these temporary changes aren't how everyone wants to play, and we sincerely appreciate everyone who participates, shares feedback and helps us gather the data that will shape what comes next.

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

Hi All, we've seen some folks asking for clarification in the thread and wondering if these Vengeance tests are an indication that we might permanently close Gray Host in the future.

To be clear, there are no plans to do that.

JonesHeathen wrote: »

We don't want Vengeance, I think you could get that from running any report of how many people played it.

Accept it, it was a bad idea and total fail.

Now, I understand that some exec wants to review it and you need numbers in report to show that people play it.
Just break the ice, blame in on someone who was already fired, better then a fake report by forcing people to play it.