lostineternity wrote: »

3 team bg is in DNA of ESO

look at the game logo
go and watch any cinematic of the game, there are always 3 side in this story
thats unique thing about ESO, this is what distinguishes ESO from other games

2 team bg are just generic and boring like in any other game with PVP mode

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

I mean a link to show the original intent for Vengeance was to discover and fix some elusive issue in existing Cyrodiil.

It's pretty obvious right from the start that the intent was to rebuild Cyrodiil PvP in a way that would allow large populations.

We might have hoped they'd gotten a lot closer to what is live right now before performance started to degrade, but evidently that's not the case.

If they conclude that Vengeance is now about as complicated as they can make the game, that just means over the past 10 years what they added to the game vastly exceeded capacity of the infrastructure.

If anyone wants to be angry with ZOS over something, that would be it. Not that they're finally stop promising what they cannot deliver.

That is not entirely accurate. After around the second test, it started becoming clear that the intent may have been to replace live Cyrodiil with Vengeance, but before that, most of the PvP playerbase understood these tests very differently. A lot of people genuinely believed they were being run to help fix Gray Host and give the devs data on what was actually causing the lag there.

Even by the third test, plenty of players still thought these were just performance tests and not the groundwork for a separate replacement mode. ZOS never clearly presented Vengeance as an entirely different game mode early on. That only really became explicit during the December tests, when Brian confirmed it on the livestream.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Why should I as a paying customer have to cater to the developers and what they want, it is supposed to be the other way around. I would rather they abandon greyhost and pvp entirely than be forced to play Vengeance, it is garbage pvp and doing so would amount to just about the same thing, me quitting this game entirely.

L_Nici wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

CalamityCat wrote: »

If they've abandoned GH, it's partly due to the community's attitude and refusal to help test stuff on Vengeance. Sorry to say it, but why should the devs try again?

If the devs made a version of GH that performed well, it would have to be a bit different from GH given that GH doesn't perform well. Is the PvP community going to bother testing it though? Or will we have another round of players refusing to engage constructively? I'm betting on the latter. Even if the new GH was as close to the old one as possible, I think most of the GH PvPers will still reject it. So why should ZOS put more money into fixing GH at this point?

I understand the reasons players don't like Vengeance, I really do. It absolutely isn't a satisfactory conclusion to the testing that was done. BUT I've never seen a game where devs put in this kind of effort to understand PvP problems and test on this scale. To see such a petulant response from players is just frustrating. Vengeance is now "PvErs and players who can't PvP" from what I've heard lol.

I don’t know the answer to the poll question, but I have participated in all of the tests on console so far and I have yet to hear what was learned from all of them. They have also not addressed many concerns about certain sets in GH yet or the effect of grouping on healing and shielding to my knowledge. The last Vengeance test didn’t even have gear sets in them. If they have not learned anything from Vengeance at this point, then it is time to stop testing. GH performance is not bad on my original PS5 (Vengeance was much worse) so maybe the ones having problems are on old PCs or something.

I will be in the Vengeance campaign when it is up basically because I have no choice since it will be the only Cyrodiil campaign. It’s not horrible, but it is not busy enough to do much. It gets boring when there are no battles and GH is busy now.

They had several livestreams talking about vengeance already. One in particular to go over the numbers engineering side of things for the first test. I have not seen a similar stream with the following tests, but likely because not much has been added or changed which significantly affected performance. Zos has mainly been trying to add elements back in to make more people happier while staying within their restrictions.

Heres a basic recap

• Veng 1 was able to hold 900 players without lag compared to the greyhost 300 player cap with lag. They did try and go up to 1200 players, but started getting lag. They did show graphs and data comparing GH and veng pop vs lag.
• Veng 2 added more group tools and weapon skills because there wasn't enough variety. Primetime PCNA only saw a few stutter instances of serverside lag during full pop lock which either was from the aoe heal spam mechanics now introduced, or zos could have been fiddling in the background during peak server load.
• Veng 3 was guild skills and armor skills(useless) and more seige options because people were complaining about not having anti breach tools like catapults. I dont remember seeing pop lock, but i only got to play on the last day
• Veng 4 I believe was the one which happened alongside greyhost and during the undaunted event where they also introduced perks and loadouts. Which data wise basically useless since zos was incentivizing other content. At best they could make a list of vengeance diehard players. The intent here was to mimic basic stat gear combinations. However its like bowling with the gutter rails on. You are forced to pick stat pools. IMO zos could have just made a fake build editor I will describe below.
• Veng 5 is ongoing and I assume they are doing background testing of systems while the only change noted was increasing aoe damage vs aoe healing to help prevent zerg combat from stagnating. Unlike test 4 being dead completely the test last night PCNA was nearing pop locked again. I also dont remember hearing anything about rewards or incentives.

Really the main takeaway is that they cut out all the event call functions that happen during combat code wise and the server is monumentally better off. Their goal with having no gear sets and just using a UI based perk system was so you only have "sets" that modify your character sheet without having to constantly be updated and checked. At the same time we dont have many proc events from item set bonuses, enchants, poisons, passives, morphs, racial passives, armor passives, cp, etc. all trying to make checks every millisecond from each player.

IMO if I was to design it I would replace the perk and loadout stat layouts with a UI based build editor concept. In the veng menu just give me a dropdown for what mundus bonus, or food, or armor enchants. Make a vengeance item set stickerbook with UI based gear sets I can drag and drop on my character..........The slippery slope is what proc effect do you allow? Maybe something longterm and not intensive like clever alchemist would be fine compared to proc events like status effects trying to roll the dice every damage tick? Maybe item sets like bloodspawn trying to check every damage received tick is a bad idea? These are things that are fine in a single player game, but when multiplied on a server 1000x the same designs start to have runaway issues. You could design in a limited fashion, like maybe if they reintroduce passives each class only gets one proc passive? Maybe keep a 3-6 player aoe cap on skills, but ultimates and seige have no aoe cap.

It also seems very clear that PvE players and newer players in general are way more prone to try pvp when it is easy to get into and not a gated hurdle to jump over. Having the veng UI based system swap over to pvp kit saves them an hour+ each day changing over gear on their character. Regardless of vengeance, splitting pve and pvp inventory setups doesn't seem like a bad idea.

For test 4 as you said there was an alternative. During Test 4 the other campaigns stayed online, which is probably why Vengeance was as dead as it was. Now with test 5 they closed all other campaigns again, (I wonder why) so people have no choice.

xR3ACTORx wrote: »

I got over ZOS lying to the players when they said "it's just a test"

Silaf wrote: »

No, defeating world bosses with a companion doesn't count. I tried it yesterday.