Is it time for ZOS to give us an official statement of intentions regarding future vengeance plans?

SneaK

Yes

They need to clarify their intent.

If they plan to forever change Cyro with forcing Vengeance, morally they should be transparent about that. Historically though, I don’t think we’ll hear anything.

As long as people keep spending money on plus, passes, or crates, combat design and PvP doesn’t matter one bit.

tomofhyrule

Yes

Muizer wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Vengeance is history repeating itself almost verbatim. At the onset, it was introduced as an anodyne "test" to help determine which sets of systems had the largest impact on PvP performance. Okay, fair enough. But re-writing every single class skill in the game definitely did not comport with its billing as a simple test. And thus the skepticism begins.

Are you sure your sense of betrayal does not stem from your assumptions about the meaning of the word "test" than with anything ZOS have actually, explicitly said or done? Perhaps based on experiences with earlier tests they ran?

Personally I've always taken the emphasis they put on it being a test (like putting in the orange sky and all) as their way of reassuring people Vengeance was in early stages of development: Test, as opposed to 'finished product'. And everything they have said and done seems perfectly consistent with it.

The problem is that the “test” was sold as “we’re going to strip Cyrodiil to bare bones and then add things back over time to get back to what it is now, and then we can see what exactly causes the performance issues to arise.” Then, once they found that, they would optimize it to make the current Cyrodiil campaigns run 95% the same but with the issue optimized.

I believed the special “Vengeance skills” were just quick remakes of the standards that they’d add to over time to get back up. It all made sense, and they spent a lot of time trying to stress this.

And now U48’s version is shattering that illusion. They’re adding “loadouts” and “perks”—tell me, where in current Cyrodiil do those exist now? It’s a way to customize builds by adding bonuses/penalties (e.g. focusing on damage at the expense of armor) and little CP- or passive-esque features that are mostly unique to Vengeance. It also has a complete UI and new icons for everything.

So… I’m to believe that they spent the time to make all of these assets, during which time they also did *zero* balancing on the rest of the game after Subclassing, only to toss it later since Cyrodiil doesn’t have that stuff? No, they’re 100% intending for Cyrodiil to get those things, and that suggests that current Cyrodiil is going to end up very different after these tests.

A lot of PvPers want a performant version of Grey Host. They don’t want something that barely resembles Grey Host to replace it. And to add insult to injury, Vengeance as a mode is less for the current PvP playerbase, and more for the casual I-only-do-Cyrodiil-during-MYM PvErs to get them in, since they don’t need to research and play the meta in order to have a small chance of success.

I know they said Vengeance 4 in December will run concurrent with Grey Host, so I believe the idea is that this eventual “permanent Vengeance” will have both Grey Host and Vengeance together. I can’t say the same for Blackreach, Ravenwatch, or Icereach. Furthermore, Vengeance 5 will work on balancing the Vengeance skills, so it is clear they intend to proceed with it.

All they need to say to stop the worrying is “we have gotten promising results from Vengeance and are considering making it a full mode in the future. But don’t worry, we intend to keep Grey Host as is for players who prefer to use all the build freedoms they want.”
…and they haven’t said that.

aetherix8

Yes

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Like I have already said, it would be very easy to put the suspicions to bed by announcing that the PvP of Grey Host that existing players enjoy will remain no matter what else happens with Vengeance. But the actions (rather than the words) are beginning to suggest that the rug might indeed be pulled out from underneath those players by a surprise announcement that Vengeance will be the only open-world PvP in the game once this whole episode is concluded.

What would happen if the current version of Cyrodiil cannot be fixed performance-wise without a major upheaval? Would it be wise to enable both, a PvP mode that is performant and delivers on large-scale battles, as originally advertised, and an older PvP mode plagued with lag and drastically reduced population caps?

I hope for more than just 2 more Vengeance test rounds; perhaps something more similar to the current Cyrodiil will emerge eventually. Right now we are between plague and cholera; a laggy and severely unbalanced Cyro, and another, far too oversimplified Cyro.

Having a statement from ZOS regarding their intentions would be appreciated, but I don't think it is coming anytime soon. It seems to me they will keep working on Vengeance, hoping to achieve a state of affairs that Cyro veterans will finally find enjoyable, and only then confirm officially that there is nothing they can do to fix what Cyrodiil is nowadays, and so they have to replace it with a different version.

Marto

No

tomofhyrule wrote: »

The problem is that the “test” was sold as “we’re going to strip Cyrodiil to bare bones and then add things back over time to get back to what it is now, and then we can see what exactly causes the performance issues to arise...

Correct.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

... Then, once they found that, they would optimize it to make the current Cyrodiil campaigns run 95% the same but with the issue optimized.

...Incorrect. Entirely so.

This is not something that was ever promised or implied. The design of the new Vengeance skills was obviously an attempt to simplify engagements. Not just for performance reasons, but for gameplay reasons. To make it more skill-based, more responsive.

And this is why it'd be kinda pointless for ZOS to make more and more official statements.

Instead of reading, listening, and believing what ZOS is saying, a lot of you are immediately assuming they're lying, and making up your own unreasonable expectations. And then get disappointed when these expectations don't get fulfilled.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

All they need to say to stop the worrying is “we have gotten promising results from Vengeance and are considering making it a full mode in the future. But don’t worry, we intend to keep Grey Host as is for players who prefer to use all the build freedoms they want.”
…and they haven’t said that.

And what if they don't intend to keep Grey Host?

I'm not saying they will. I'm not saying they should. I'm saying it's a possibility. There's pros and cons to either option.

The truth is that performance in standard Cyrodiil will likely never be fixed. Not for lack of trying. Because ZOS has certainly tried, for a long time. They have done everything they can reasonably do. They tested cooldowns, they tested skill caps, they tested new hardware, new software.

You're expecting the devs to make a promise they might not be able or willing to keep.

You don't actually want a statement on ZOS' intentions with Vengeance. You want a statement on ZOS' intentions with Grey Host. These are two different things.

And you likely won't get it. Because ZOS hasn't decided.
There's pros and cons to either option. It's be a bit silly to keep a low-performing version of Cyrodiil that will never get content updates, alongside a new, balanced, performant version that gets content and map updates.

The honest answer will very likely be "We haven't decided". And that doesn't make for much of an official statement.

reazea

Yes

Marto wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

The problem is that the “test” was sold as “we’re going to strip Cyrodiil to bare bones and then add things back over time to get back to what it is now, and then we can see what exactly causes the performance issues to arise...

Correct.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

... Then, once they found that, they would optimize it to make the current Cyrodiil campaigns run 95% the same but with the issue optimized.

...Incorrect. Entirely so.

This is not something that was ever promised or implied. The design of the new Vengeance skills was obviously an attempt to simplify engagements. Not just for performance reasons, but for gameplay reasons. To make it more skill-based, more responsive.

And this is why it'd be kinda pointless for ZOS to make more and more official statements.

Instead of reading, listening, and believing what ZOS is saying, a lot of you are immediately assuming they're lying, and making up your own unreasonable expectations. And then get disappointed when these expectations don't get fulfilled.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

All they need to say to stop the worrying is “we have gotten promising results from Vengeance and are considering making it a full mode in the future. But don’t worry, we intend to keep Grey Host as is for players who prefer to use all the build freedoms they want.”
…and they haven’t said that.

And what if they don't intend to keep Grey Host?

I'm not saying they will. I'm not saying they should. I'm saying it's a possibility. There's pros and cons to either option.

The truth is that performance in standard Cyrodiil will likely never be fixed. Not for lack of trying. Because ZOS has certainly tried, for a long time. They have done everything they can reasonably do. They tested cooldowns, they tested skill caps, they tested new hardware, new software.

You're expecting the devs to make a promise they might not be able or willing to keep.

You don't actually want a statement on ZOS' intentions with Vengeance. You want a statement on ZOS' intentions with Grey Host. These are two different things.

And you likely won't get it. Because ZOS hasn't decided.
There's pros and cons to either option. It's be a bit silly to keep a low-performing version of Cyrodiil that will never get content updates, alongside a new, balanced, performant version that gets content and map updates.

The honest answer will very likely be "We haven't decided". And that doesn't make for much of an official statement.

You're still believing the statements ZOS makes even when their words are in direct contradiction to their actions. It makes it seem like you haven't spent much time dealing with ZOS' press releases and seeing how different what actually happens so often is with ZOS.

And it's patently false to claim that ZOS has done everything they could reasonably do to improve live Cyrodiil. The fact is they've done exactly the opposite. ZOS has done virtually nothing what so ever to improve live cyrodiil performance. They haven't even tried capping heal and shield stacking yet, and we've been begging for that since at least 2019. ZOS does not give Cyrodiil the extra server resources it needs to run smoothly except right after they replaced their physical server hardware.

Muizer

tomofhyrule wrote: »

All they need to say to stop the worrying is “we have gotten promising results from Vengeance and are considering making it a full mode in the future. But don’t worry, we intend to keep Grey Host as is for players who prefer to use all the build freedoms they want.”
…and they haven’t said that.

What do you think "as is" means? ZOS continuing to develop a single rule set for both PvE and PvP, where PvE is the leading concern and PvP an afterthought / nuisance at best? More years of people on Twitch streams being muted or banned for mentioning "pvp"?

YandereGirlfriend

Yes

I continue to read replies from folk who seem very content with taking away the game mode that many existing, dedicated players enjoy because they either do not play it or do not enjoy it themselves.

Joy_Division

JustLovely wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

They don;t know yet.

You actually think a AAA game producer like ZOS doesn't know what their plans are for a project they've sunk thousands of man hours and who knows how much money into is going to be? Let's try and be real here for a second, shall we?

Yes. They have plans. That doesn't mean these plans will not change depending on how these tests play out on the Live Servers, That's why they are testing. Because they don't have all the answers. ZOS can change and adopt as things develop and customers respond.

There are about a dozen people who constantly flood these forums with complaints and rants about Vengeance. They'll upload screenshots trying to convince ZOS it's a dead server, they deride the players in vengeance as PvE casuals, they claim to speak for all PvPers, they'll claim it's a laggy mess, insist that it will be an empty server because the Vengeance audience is flighty and uninterested in PvP, etc., they have done all of this in the past 6 months in an attempt to demonstrate to ZOS that Vengeance is not worth supporting, so as to ensure that the current ESO campaigns are kept at the least, and ideally the resources allotted for Vengeance would instead go to making a performant GH.

You and others are doing this because there is a belief that ZOS can be convinced. Because ZOS future plans are not set in stone. That even if they have every intention of going with Vengeance, that their mind could be changed if either support for Vengeance declined among the ESO community or the performance was poor. In short, ZOS could alter tomorrow what they might have intended on doing today.

Or, ZOS isn't sure yet.

AAA studios, including ZOS, change their minds all the time due to unforeseen circumstances. Go west of Dragonsreach and you'll see Cloud Ruler Temple. That was going to be a PvE Trial that could only be accessed by an alliance who controlled certain objectives in Cyrodiil, in accordance to this AAA's original vision the PvP and PvE were to be interlinked. ZOS changed it. Just like the old idea of Imperial City having to be accessed via Cyrodiil. Changed. Just like ZOS's intentions to alter heavy/light attacks. Changed. Just like the old 4v4v4 BGs. Changed. All those old maps and assets just discarded. All of these things were, like Vengeance, projects and systems in which real development resources were allotted. Like an AAA studio, ZOS will adjust according to how mechanically feasible something like Vengeance is and, more importantly, how much their paying customers respond to it. Again, something the people who hate Vengeance know full well considering how forcefully they are venting their frustrations to ZOS.

If people paid attention to ZOS's last Livestream about Vengeance, it is obvious they're not sure how Vengeance will be implemented. They got a question specifically about whether or not the Vengeance model was going coming to Battlegrounds and Brain Wheeler specifically said that was under consideration, meaning *ZOS doesn't know yet*.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee

Yes

Joy_Division wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

They don;t know yet.

You actually think a AAA game producer like ZOS doesn't know what their plans are for a project they've sunk thousands of man hours and who knows how much money into is going to be? Let's try and be real here for a second, shall we?

Yes. And so do you.

There are about a dozen people who constantly flood these forums with complaints and rants about Vengeance. They'll upload screenshots trying to convince ZOS it's a dead server, they deride the players in vengeance as PvE casuals, they claim to speak for all PvPers, they'll claim it's a laggy mess, insist that it will be an empty server because the Vengeance audience is flighty and uninterested in PvP, etc., they have done all of this in the past 6 months in an attempt to demonstrate to ZOS that Vengeance is not worth supporting, so as to ensure that the current ESO campaigns are kept at the least, and ideally the resources allotted for Vengeance would instead go to making a performant GH.

You and others are doing this because there is a belief that ZOS can be convinced. Because ZOS future plans are not set in stone. That even if they have every intention of going with Vengeance, that their mind could be changed if either support for Vengeance declined among the ESO community or the performance was poor. In short, ZOS could alter tomorrow what they might have intended on doing today.

Or, ZOS isn't sure yet.

AAA studios, including ZOS, change their minds all the time due to unforeseen circumstances. Go west of Dragonsreach and you'll see Cloud Ruler Temple. That was going to be a PvE Trial that could only be accessed by an alliance who controlled certain objectives in Cyrodiil, in accordance to this AAA's original vision the PvP and PvE were to be interlinked. ZOS changed it. Just like the old idea of Imperial City having to be accessed via Cyrodiil. Changed. Just like ZOS's intentions to alter heavy/light attacks. Changed. Just like the old 4v4v4 BGs. Changed. All those old maps and assets just discarded. All of these things were, like Vengeance, projects and systems in which real development resources were allotted. Like an AAA studio, ZOS will adjust according to how mechanically feasible something like Vengeance is and, more importantly, how much their paying customers respond to it. Again, something the people who hate Vengeance know full well considering how forcefully they are venting their frustrations to ZOS.

If people paid attention to ZOS's last Livestream about Vengeance, it is obvious they're not sure how Vengeance will be implemented. They got a question specifically about whether or not the Vengeance model was going coming to Battlegrounds and Brain Wheeler specifically said that was under consideration, meaning *ZOS doesn't know yet*.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Triple-A companies, or really any serious company investing years of resources into a project, don’t just “wing it” with no clear direction or end goal. That’s simply not how large-scale development works.

So it’s one of two things. Either what you’re saying is true and ZOS really has been stumbling along aimlessly for years with no concrete plan for Vengeance, in which case they don’t deserve whatever respect or patience the PvP playerbase still has left. Or, more realistically, you’re just talking out of your depth, because anyone who’s worked on a serious project in a professional environment knows that milestones, deliverables, and end goals are decided well in advance.

Trying to paint ZOS as if they’re still figuring it out as they go, after all this time, all these tests, and all the resources poured in, is either admitting total incompetence on their part or showing you’ve never actually been involved in real project development.

Ingenon

No

It looks to me that with Vengeance testing, ZOS is iteratively developing a solution to a problem that they do not currently know how to solve. Develop Test Code, Run Test, Gather Test Data, Evaluate Results, Plan Next Step. While regularly reviewing progress with Management. Rinse, repeat.There is an End Goal. ZOS does not know at the start of the Vengeance project how to get to the End Goal.

TL;DR: I agree with @Joy_Division

Joy_Division

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

They don;t know yet.

You actually think a AAA game producer like ZOS doesn't know what their plans are for a project they've sunk thousands of man hours and who knows how much money into is going to be? Let's try and be real here for a second, shall we?

Yes. And so do you.

There are about a dozen people who constantly flood these forums with complaints and rants about Vengeance. They'll upload screenshots trying to convince ZOS it's a dead server, they deride the players in vengeance as PvE casuals, they claim to speak for all PvPers, they'll claim it's a laggy mess, insist that it will be an empty server because the Vengeance audience is flighty and uninterested in PvP, etc., they have done all of this in the past 6 months in an attempt to demonstrate to ZOS that Vengeance is not worth supporting, so as to ensure that the current ESO campaigns are kept at the least, and ideally the resources allotted for Vengeance would instead go to making a performant GH.

You and others are doing this because there is a belief that ZOS can be convinced. Because ZOS future plans are not set in stone. That even if they have every intention of going with Vengeance, that their mind could be changed if either support for Vengeance declined among the ESO community or the performance was poor. In short, ZOS could alter tomorrow what they might have intended on doing today.

Or, ZOS isn't sure yet.

AAA studios, including ZOS, change their minds all the time due to unforeseen circumstances. Go west of Dragonsreach and you'll see Cloud Ruler Temple. That was going to be a PvE Trial that could only be accessed by an alliance who controlled certain objectives in Cyrodiil, in accordance to this AAA's original vision the PvP and PvE were to be interlinked. ZOS changed it. Just like the old idea of Imperial City having to be accessed via Cyrodiil. Changed. Just like ZOS's intentions to alter heavy/light attacks. Changed. Just like the old 4v4v4 BGs. Changed. All those old maps and assets just discarded. All of these things were, like Vengeance, projects and systems in which real development resources were allotted. Like an AAA studio, ZOS will adjust according to how mechanically feasible something like Vengeance is and, more importantly, how much their paying customers respond to it. Again, something the people who hate Vengeance know full well considering how forcefully they are venting their frustrations to ZOS.

If people paid attention to ZOS's last Livestream about Vengeance, it is obvious they're not sure how Vengeance will be implemented. They got a question specifically about whether or not the Vengeance model was going coming to Battlegrounds and Brain Wheeler specifically said that was under consideration, meaning *ZOS doesn't know yet*.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Triple-A companies, or really any serious company investing years of resources into a project, don’t just “wing it” with no clear direction or end goal. That’s simply not how large-scale development works.

So it’s one of two things. Either what you’re saying is true and ZOS really has been stumbling along aimlessly for years with no concrete plan for Vengeance, in which case they don’t deserve whatever respect or patience the PvP playerbase still has left. Or, more realistically, you’re just talking out of your depth, because anyone who’s worked on a serious project in a professional environment knows that milestones, deliverables, and end goals are decided well in advance.

Trying to paint ZOS as if they’re still figuring it out as they go, after all this time, all these tests, and all the resources poured in, is either admitting total incompetence on their part or showing you’ve never actually been involved in real project development.

ZOS isn't stumbling along and they aren't winging it. They have devoted resources and there is a developed plan to work on Vengeance. All of this is true and they said so much on Livestream.

What I said is that ZOS isn't sure how or when they are going to implement Vengeance. They haven't made up their minds on that. Brian said so on Livestream about Battlegrounds. That's not incompetence. That doesn't mean they aren't serious about vengeance or don';t have a development plan. That's acknowledging that after two tests they don;t have the data to provide a set in stone determination about vengeance's future implementation. They don;t have all the variables. That's why they are having these tests because even with all the development they aren't sure how things will play out on a Live server under stressful conditions.

reazea

Yes

Ingenon wrote: »

It looks to me that with Vengeance testing, ZOS is iteratively developing a solution to a problem that they do not currently know how to solve. Develop Test Code, Run Test, Gather Test Data, Evaluate Results, Plan Next Step. While regularly reviewing progress with Management. Rinse, repeat.There is an End Goal. ZOS does not know at the start of the Vengeance project how to get to the End Goal.

TL;DR: I agree with @Joy_Division

Vengeance isn't a test. It's a new system to be implemented alongside of or in place of normal live cyrodiil.

reazea

Yes

Joy_Division wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

They don;t know yet.

You actually think a AAA game producer like ZOS doesn't know what their plans are for a project they've sunk thousands of man hours and who knows how much money into is going to be? Let's try and be real here for a second, shall we?

Yes. And so do you.

There are about a dozen people who constantly flood these forums with complaints and rants about Vengeance. They'll upload screenshots trying to convince ZOS it's a dead server, they deride the players in vengeance as PvE casuals, they claim to speak for all PvPers, they'll claim it's a laggy mess, insist that it will be an empty server because the Vengeance audience is flighty and uninterested in PvP, etc., they have done all of this in the past 6 months in an attempt to demonstrate to ZOS that Vengeance is not worth supporting, so as to ensure that the current ESO campaigns are kept at the least, and ideally the resources allotted for Vengeance would instead go to making a performant GH.

You and others are doing this because there is a belief that ZOS can be convinced. Because ZOS future plans are not set in stone. That even if they have every intention of going with Vengeance, that their mind could be changed if either support for Vengeance declined among the ESO community or the performance was poor. In short, ZOS could alter tomorrow what they might have intended on doing today.

Or, ZOS isn't sure yet.

AAA studios, including ZOS, change their minds all the time due to unforeseen circumstances. Go west of Dragonsreach and you'll see Cloud Ruler Temple. That was going to be a PvE Trial that could only be accessed by an alliance who controlled certain objectives in Cyrodiil, in accordance to this AAA's original vision the PvP and PvE were to be interlinked. ZOS changed it. Just like the old idea of Imperial City having to be accessed via Cyrodiil. Changed. Just like ZOS's intentions to alter heavy/light attacks. Changed. Just like the old 4v4v4 BGs. Changed. All those old maps and assets just discarded. All of these things were, like Vengeance, projects and systems in which real development resources were allotted. Like an AAA studio, ZOS will adjust according to how mechanically feasible something like Vengeance is and, more importantly, how much their paying customers respond to it. Again, something the people who hate Vengeance know full well considering how forcefully they are venting their frustrations to ZOS.

If people paid attention to ZOS's last Livestream about Vengeance, it is obvious they're not sure how Vengeance will be implemented. They got a question specifically about whether or not the Vengeance model was going coming to Battlegrounds and Brain Wheeler specifically said that was under consideration, meaning *ZOS doesn't know yet*.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Triple-A companies, or really any serious company investing years of resources into a project, don’t just “wing it” with no clear direction or end goal. That’s simply not how large-scale development works.

So it’s one of two things. Either what you’re saying is true and ZOS really has been stumbling along aimlessly for years with no concrete plan for Vengeance, in which case they don’t deserve whatever respect or patience the PvP playerbase still has left. Or, more realistically, you’re just talking out of your depth, because anyone who’s worked on a serious project in a professional environment knows that milestones, deliverables, and end goals are decided well in advance.

Trying to paint ZOS as if they’re still figuring it out as they go, after all this time, all these tests, and all the resources poured in, is either admitting total incompetence on their part or showing you’ve never actually been involved in real project development.

ZOS isn't stumbling along and they aren't winging it. They have devoted resources and there is a developed plan to work on Vengeance. All of this is true and they said so much on Livestream.

What I said is that ZOS isn't sure how or when they are going to implement Vengeance. They haven't made up their minds on that. Brian said so on Livestream about Battlegrounds. That's not incompetence. That doesn't mean they aren't serious about vengeance or don';t have a development plan. That's acknowledging that after two tests they don;t have the data to provide a set in stone determination about vengeance's future implementation. They don;t have all the variables. That's why they are having these tests because even with all the development they aren't sure how things will play out on a Live server under stressful conditions.

Ok, so what's the problem with ZOS telling us what their plans are then?

Joy_Division

reazea wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

They don;t know yet.

You actually think a AAA game producer like ZOS doesn't know what their plans are for a project they've sunk thousands of man hours and who knows how much money into is going to be? Let's try and be real here for a second, shall we?

Yes. And so do you.

There are about a dozen people who constantly flood these forums with complaints and rants about Vengeance. They'll upload screenshots trying to convince ZOS it's a dead server, they deride the players in vengeance as PvE casuals, they claim to speak for all PvPers, they'll claim it's a laggy mess, insist that it will be an empty server because the Vengeance audience is flighty and uninterested in PvP, etc., they have done all of this in the past 6 months in an attempt to demonstrate to ZOS that Vengeance is not worth supporting, so as to ensure that the current ESO campaigns are kept at the least, and ideally the resources allotted for Vengeance would instead go to making a performant GH.

You and others are doing this because there is a belief that ZOS can be convinced. Because ZOS future plans are not set in stone. That even if they have every intention of going with Vengeance, that their mind could be changed if either support for Vengeance declined among the ESO community or the performance was poor. In short, ZOS could alter tomorrow what they might have intended on doing today.

Or, ZOS isn't sure yet.

AAA studios, including ZOS, change their minds all the time due to unforeseen circumstances. Go west of Dragonsreach and you'll see Cloud Ruler Temple. That was going to be a PvE Trial that could only be accessed by an alliance who controlled certain objectives in Cyrodiil, in accordance to this AAA's original vision the PvP and PvE were to be interlinked. ZOS changed it. Just like the old idea of Imperial City having to be accessed via Cyrodiil. Changed. Just like ZOS's intentions to alter heavy/light attacks. Changed. Just like the old 4v4v4 BGs. Changed. All those old maps and assets just discarded. All of these things were, like Vengeance, projects and systems in which real development resources were allotted. Like an AAA studio, ZOS will adjust according to how mechanically feasible something like Vengeance is and, more importantly, how much their paying customers respond to it. Again, something the people who hate Vengeance know full well considering how forcefully they are venting their frustrations to ZOS.

If people paid attention to ZOS's last Livestream about Vengeance, it is obvious they're not sure how Vengeance will be implemented. They got a question specifically about whether or not the Vengeance model was going coming to Battlegrounds and Brain Wheeler specifically said that was under consideration, meaning *ZOS doesn't know yet*.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Triple-A companies, or really any serious company investing years of resources into a project, don’t just “wing it” with no clear direction or end goal. That’s simply not how large-scale development works.

So it’s one of two things. Either what you’re saying is true and ZOS really has been stumbling along aimlessly for years with no concrete plan for Vengeance, in which case they don’t deserve whatever respect or patience the PvP playerbase still has left. Or, more realistically, you’re just talking out of your depth, because anyone who’s worked on a serious project in a professional environment knows that milestones, deliverables, and end goals are decided well in advance.

Trying to paint ZOS as if they’re still figuring it out as they go, after all this time, all these tests, and all the resources poured in, is either admitting total incompetence on their part or showing you’ve never actually been involved in real project development.

ZOS isn't stumbling along and they aren't winging it. They have devoted resources and there is a developed plan to work on Vengeance. All of this is true and they said so much on Livestream.

What I said is that ZOS isn't sure how or when they are going to implement Vengeance. They haven't made up their minds on that. Brian said so on Livestream about Battlegrounds. That's not incompetence. That doesn't mean they aren't serious about vengeance or don';t have a development plan. That's acknowledging that after two tests they don;t have the data to provide a set in stone determination about vengeance's future implementation. They don;t have all the variables. That's why they are having these tests because even with all the development they aren't sure how things will play out on a Live server under stressful conditions.

Ok, so what's the problem with ZOS telling us what their plans are then?

I don;t know. I've been on record here telling ZOS it is a mistake not to tell us what their plans are, even if they are subject to change.

Muizer

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

I continue to read replies from folk who seem very content with taking away the game mode that many existing, dedicated players enjoy because they either do not play it or do not enjoy it themselves.

Ok, this is all speculative. I have some experience in development, but I cannot look in ZOS' heads. I just don't think ZOS would have embarked on creating a PvP game mode separated from PvE just for the sake of performance. I don't think ZOS are that generous with their resources at this point. Splitting PvP and PvE is something they have never wanted to do. If they're going to do it now, they'll want to maximize whatever benefits it can bring in terms of development. Being freed of the limitation of having to balance all additions to the game for both PvE and PvP is one of those benefits. "Just" keeping GH as is would negate that.

Ingenon

No

reazea wrote: »

Ingenon wrote: »

It looks to me that with Vengeance testing, ZOS is iteratively developing a solution to a problem that they do not currently know how to solve. Develop Test Code, Run Test, Gather Test Data, Evaluate Results, Plan Next Step. While regularly reviewing progress with Management. Rinse, repeat.There is an End Goal. ZOS does not know at the start of the Vengeance project how to get to the End Goal.

TL;DR: I agree with @Joy_Division

Vengeance isn't a test. It's a new system to be implemented alongside of or in place of normal live cyrodiil.

I believe that the result of Vengeance testing (iterative problem solving approach) will be a Cyrodiil campaign that is different than what we have now. I do not know if it will be implemented alongside or in place of the current Cyrodiil campaigns.

Mrnetch3211

Yes

Well it seemed to be a big failure so I think they should just leave cyrodil alone tbh. I only really lag when it's a massive 3 way last emp keep battle other then that I play a one bar build in pvp and get plenty of kills against the meta. Everyone dies in pvp and the fact is you can't expect to jump into pvp especially when you rarely pvp and stack kills. This is an old game people have had a long time to master it.

Marto

No

reazea wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

They don;t know yet.

You actually think a AAA game producer like ZOS doesn't know what their plans are for a project they've sunk thousands of man hours and who knows how much money into is going to be? Let's try and be real here for a second, shall we?

Yes. And so do you.

There are about a dozen people who constantly flood these forums with complaints and rants about Vengeance. They'll upload screenshots trying to convince ZOS it's a dead server, they deride the players in vengeance as PvE casuals, they claim to speak for all PvPers, they'll claim it's a laggy mess, insist that it will be an empty server because the Vengeance audience is flighty and uninterested in PvP, etc., they have done all of this in the past 6 months in an attempt to demonstrate to ZOS that Vengeance is not worth supporting, so as to ensure that the current ESO campaigns are kept at the least, and ideally the resources allotted for Vengeance would instead go to making a performant GH.

You and others are doing this because there is a belief that ZOS can be convinced. Because ZOS future plans are not set in stone. That even if they have every intention of going with Vengeance, that their mind could be changed if either support for Vengeance declined among the ESO community or the performance was poor. In short, ZOS could alter tomorrow what they might have intended on doing today.

Or, ZOS isn't sure yet.

AAA studios, including ZOS, change their minds all the time due to unforeseen circumstances. Go west of Dragonsreach and you'll see Cloud Ruler Temple. That was going to be a PvE Trial that could only be accessed by an alliance who controlled certain objectives in Cyrodiil, in accordance to this AAA's original vision the PvP and PvE were to be interlinked. ZOS changed it. Just like the old idea of Imperial City having to be accessed via Cyrodiil. Changed. Just like ZOS's intentions to alter heavy/light attacks. Changed. Just like the old 4v4v4 BGs. Changed. All those old maps and assets just discarded. All of these things were, like Vengeance, projects and systems in which real development resources were allotted. Like an AAA studio, ZOS will adjust according to how mechanically feasible something like Vengeance is and, more importantly, how much their paying customers respond to it. Again, something the people who hate Vengeance know full well considering how forcefully they are venting their frustrations to ZOS.

If people paid attention to ZOS's last Livestream about Vengeance, it is obvious they're not sure how Vengeance will be implemented. They got a question specifically about whether or not the Vengeance model was going coming to Battlegrounds and Brain Wheeler specifically said that was under consideration, meaning *ZOS doesn't know yet*.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Triple-A companies, or really any serious company investing years of resources into a project, don’t just “wing it” with no clear direction or end goal. That’s simply not how large-scale development works.

So it’s one of two things. Either what you’re saying is true and ZOS really has been stumbling along aimlessly for years with no concrete plan for Vengeance, in which case they don’t deserve whatever respect or patience the PvP playerbase still has left. Or, more realistically, you’re just talking out of your depth, because anyone who’s worked on a serious project in a professional environment knows that milestones, deliverables, and end goals are decided well in advance.

Trying to paint ZOS as if they’re still figuring it out as they go, after all this time, all these tests, and all the resources poured in, is either admitting total incompetence on their part or showing you’ve never actually been involved in real project development.

ZOS isn't stumbling along and they aren't winging it. They have devoted resources and there is a developed plan to work on Vengeance. All of this is true and they said so much on Livestream.

What I said is that ZOS isn't sure how or when they are going to implement Vengeance. They haven't made up their minds on that. Brian said so on Livestream about Battlegrounds. That's not incompetence. That doesn't mean they aren't serious about vengeance or don';t have a development plan. That's acknowledging that after two tests they don;t have the data to provide a set in stone determination about vengeance's future implementation. They don;t have all the variables. That's why they are having these tests because even with all the development they aren't sure how things will play out on a Live server under stressful conditions.

Ok, so what's the problem with ZOS telling us what their plans are then?

They have. Here's the PTS patch notes talking about Vengeance.
This is the 3-month plan. It's right there. You can read it.

But if you're asking why they don't share their 6-month plan? Or their 12-month plan? Even if it's just a WIP and still subject to change?

Because players willingly misread every word that comes out of their mouths.

If ZOS told us all of their current long-term plans, there's many users in this thread that would treat those words as a promise. And if ZOS ever stumbles into an issue, adjusts their plans, tries something different, or implement changes based on feedback, these same users will treat it like them breaking promises.

They're saying it this is all a WIP, and the final plan hasn't been determined. You're acting as if the final plan has been determined.

In short, ZOS is not talking because you're not listening.

This thread has probably make it very clear to ZOS that the ESO community is not mature and reasonable enough to be told this sort of stuff in an open discussion. And that is damn shame because I want ZOS to communicate more. But a communication has go both ways.

YandereGirlfriend

Yes

Muizer wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

I continue to read replies from folk who seem very content with taking away the game mode that many existing, dedicated players enjoy because they either do not play it or do not enjoy it themselves.

Ok, this is all speculative. I have some experience in development, but I cannot look in ZOS' heads. I just don't think ZOS would have embarked on creating a PvP game mode separated from PvE just for the sake of performance. I don't think ZOS are that generous with their resources at this point. Splitting PvP and PvE is something they have never wanted to do. If they're going to do it now, they'll want to maximize whatever benefits it can bring in terms of development. Being freed of the limitation of having to balance all additions to the game for both PvE and PvP is one of those benefits. "Just" keeping GH as is would negate that.

Which is precisely why some actual clarity about those intentions would be welcome, nay, necessary to either dispel the current suspicions or make it clear to existing Grey Host players that it's time for them to pull the ripcord and move on to other games.

Muizer

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Which is precisely why some actual clarity about those intentions would be welcome, nay, necessary to either dispel the current suspicions or make it clear to existing Grey Host players that it's time for them to pull the ripcord and move on to other games.

I'm sure ZOS will respond if they see too many people leaving because of inaccurate speculation.