Do you think Vengeance destroys the uniqueness of ESO PvP?

ShutUpitsRed

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

Sarannah

No

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

Uhhm, it seems everyone answered the question directly. Even I did, everyone else did. Though players may have a reasoning you do not like, does not mean they did not answer the poll question. (even their yes/no alone already did this)
This was my answer: "When there is a longterm vengeance campaign there will also be theorycrafting and meta builds for that mode. It is just that the tests were too short to get to that level of gameplay yet."
Basically this comes down to: It does not matter if the PvP is grey host or vengeance, ESO is a unique game and will always have it's own unique PvP regardless of the mode. ESO is and remains ESO. Gameplay-wise it does not matter if you lavawhip someone for 10k damage with 5 different sets/CP's/stats while ending up doing 10 damage due to their 9990 armor with 5 different sets/CP's/stats, or if the lavawhip does 10 damage directly. One stresses the server, the other does not. One is easily accessible for all players, the other is not.

The uniqueness stays the same regardless of the mode you play in.

spartaxoxo

Other (Comment below)

amiiegee wrote: »

I feel like some missunderstand the poll lmao.

People are voting no but literally writing basically that everything is the same with vengeance.

„I vote no because i like it but i am fully aware it’s destroying the uniqueness“

The argument seems to me moreso that it doesn't destroy the uniqueness because it was already destroyed. I'm not a no voter but stuff like complaining about getting one shot and not being able to use your build anyway sounds to me that some of the no votes are people who already felt pressured to give up their builds and class identity due to the way it was balanced before and are happy that now everyone will be on the same playing field.

fizzybeef

Yes

ssewallb14_ESO wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

ssewallb14_ESO wrote: »

At least Vengeance could hypothetically even the playing field.

So it is indeed destroying the uniqueness… wich is the question of the poll 🙄😵‍💫

You could read my other two sentences instead of just clipping the last line.

I read them and they dont change the statement.

ShadowMole25

No

I only played in the last Vengeance which had a different ruleset from the first 2, but I was perfectly able to recreate the build of my main character who is a pure nightblade. Now, I don't remember if abilities had morphs, but I had access to any skill from the nightblade skill lines, in addition to the weapon skills and the Assault and Support skill lines.

The only things missing were morphs, passives, item sets, CP, the guild, werewolf, and vamp skill lines, and subclassing. It felt a lot like playing back in Blackwater Blade ten years ago where I learned to PvP. So for me it felt great. I'm also sure that more things will be enabled with the upcoming test as each previous test has re-introduced more and more.

JustLovely

Yes

If I wanted to play a templated game I'd play one of the many other options that has better performance and customer support.

SneaK

Yes

ShadowMole25 wrote: »

I only played in the last Vengeance which had a different ruleset from the first 2, but I was perfectly able to recreate the build of my main character who is a pure nightblade. Now, I don't remember if abilities had morphs, but I had access to any skill from the nightblade skill lines, in addition to the weapon skills and the Assault and Support skill lines.

The only things missing were morphs, passives, item sets, CP, the guild, werewolf, and vamp skill lines, and subclassing. It felt a lot like playing back in Blackwater Blade ten years ago where I learned to PvP. So for me it felt great. I'm also sure that more things will be enabled with the upcoming test as each previous test has re-introduced more and more.

“The only things missing”

Lists 8 things

xDeusEJRx

No

Call me old school but I fell in love with eso because of the inherent combat, not because of gear.

I loved animation canceling skills, prior to ZOS making an effort to slash animation canceling from the game. My favorite thing to do were block canceling and I enjoyed watching tips and tricks on many ani cancelling sklls.

Players not from older ESO may not understand it, but for many players like me there was charm in that combat itself.

CalamityCat

ESO PvP is still unique even with Vengeance existing. If we have it alongside old style Cyro, PvPers still have the choice where they want to play. I'd prefer a full Cyro with much better performance, but the choice of both seems like a fair compromise if we can't have that.

I don't want Vengeance because I like zergs or "easy" PvP and all the other daft things I've seen mentioned on these forums. I just like it because I'm not too laggy to react to my enemy's attacks. Simple. I don't crash the whole game just as I arrive at a big battle and I can actually mount after a fight in Vengeance. I can focus on the fights instead of seeing a big battle and knowing I'll be too slow to hit anything before I freeze and die. I'm willing to lose a lot of complexity and "uniqueness" if it means I can actually just PvP. Vengeance is the first time Cyro felt like a genuine battlefield for me, because it could sustain so many players I genuinely thought I was running for my life vs the swarm of red or blue ahead! Then you always have the excuse of "I'd have beaten them if I was on my proper build" which is ideal if you're short of talent like me...

While I like the complexity in ESO, some of the combat complexity isn't adding anything fun IMO. I've PvP'd in far simpler games and still had a great time. Having hundreds of sets, mythics, skill lines and scribing just isn't necessary to make PvP good or enjoyable. I know I don't need all this stuff to get kills in a game, so I really don't have any attachment to it.

Also...I'm not a great PvPer yet, so I know how frustrating it is to be trying to remember 300 things at once while trying to follow your raid lead, then when you think you're doing it right you get obliterated by some subclassed mutant That complexity is a big old barrier when you're starting in 2025 and you don't get years to gradually learn new classes, gear, scribing and subclass. You get it all in your face from day 1. I'm sure a lot of good PvPers would be raging if they had to start ESO PvP today without the knowledge they've built up gradually.

Feljax

Yes

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

There's a lot of better balanced, better-running, and honestly overall better-handled PvP games out there than ESO. What makes PvP in ESO special is using the character you've built, including their skills and sets and everything that makes them "them," throughout the whole game.

I get to get on Red, my main, who I dragged through Coldharbour for far too long because I didn't understand quest markers, who got spat up onto the shores of Khenarthi's Roost and met Raz, who I played and built and learned all the way through the main story, meeting people NPC and real, getting pwned by world bosses, etc etc... and then I get to take her into Cyrodiil and test her mettle against other players in the story-relevant alliance war, as a soldier for my alliance, alongside whom I'd been playing all along. For the queen, and so on. There's a personal investment there. My personal build isn't meta, but it works for me because it's built on the skills (and skill bars), sets, and patterns I learned playing the rest of the game. It means something to me. It feels good to play. It feels like I'm actually playing my character.

I have a lot of characters now, and all of them were built with RP-PvP in mind. They all have a theme, a little story, and builds to match. They're fun to play because they're my characters and builds, all unique and enjoyable to me personally. I've thrown a LOT of time, effort, and passion into putting them together and endlessly fiddling around with their builds, just to get them *just right* for the kind of gameplay experience I'm after with them. They cannot be reduced to templates.

With Vengeance, there's no meaningful difference between my characters. Everybody has the same access to everything, and anything accomplished prior to queuing in means nothing. They might as well just have us all play as color-coded polymorphs. I can pull something together and get kills as well as anybody else in Vengeance, but why bother? Again, there are plenty of better-run PvP games, or even just games with PvP out there. None of them allow for the level of immersion and characterization of ESO, but if ESO is to remove all but your cosmetics (and base class/race, probably) the moment you step into a PvP zone... might as well go play something else.


At the very least, something else that doesn't drop something like "hey we're thinking of removing your favorite part of the game lol, happy holiday we're on break" and leaving the fallout to the longsuffering community manager, again.
Seriously, I hope that guy has a steady supply of ibuprofen and a good support system.

This is exactly how I feel about PvP in an MMO. I play ESO with PvP being a big part of my enjoyment of the game. Take away my character's unique value to me and there's just no reason to PvP.

Yudo

Yes

We already have well established alternatives if we wanted zerg fest pvp elsewhere. Why would I stay to play this new barebones release? In the event of cyro being even lower pop, isolated or absorbed by Vengance, yes uniqueness is gone and with that much more.

spartaxoxo

Other (Comment below)

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP. You can claim it's endgame content all you want to justify that but it's no excuse for the balance being some of the worst in the entire genre.

ShutUpitsRed

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Erickson9610

What is the purpose of this poll? It's like asking "Is Vengeance different from Gray Host?" The only correct answer is yes.

spartaxoxo

Other (Comment below)

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

xDeusEJRx

No

Erickson9610 wrote: »

What is the purpose of this poll? It's like asking "Is Vengeance different from Gray Host?" The only correct answer is yes.

I heavily disagree with that notion. Not everyone plays pvp for the same reason. I started in 2017 and I can't imagine people starting in 2025 view pvp in the same way I do.

I loved the combat and the feel of the mechanics, especially animation canceling and how much variety there was in the base mechanics of the game. Builds were always an accessory to the combat, not the combat itself, when I played, in my opinion.

However, I do not imagine someone starting in 2025 views it the same way I do, because they never experienced that. Newer players may have started during hybridization, subclassing, or even during the vengeance tests.

Not all players are the same or have the same interests.
Not to mention when you break down into different rulesets, there's even more to discuss. I personally prefer NO CP to gray host (especially because of faction lock), but no cp now is dead, so you have no choice but to play GH or not play in cyrodiil. But it was very big when I started playing and NO Cp was my first campaign when I hit CP level.

I feel like you are eliminating any nuance. There is value in variety in this game. I feel like we got to this point because we eliminated variety from this game and simplified the mechanics(or sometimes completely got rid of them), rather than enhancing them.

SneaK

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

Yet none of these arguments have to do with performance…..

And the youth team is wearing the same uniform but just complaining about the Lakers being bigger.

spartaxoxo

Other (Comment below)

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

Yet none of these arguments have to do with performance…..

And the youth team is wearing the same uniform but just complaining about the Lakers being bigger.

They aren't wearing the same uniforms. The gap between the builds is enormous. This thread is not about performance. It's about build uniqueness. If you'd like to discuss how vengeance impacts performance, you're free to do it on a thread for that. There's a lot of them.

SneaK

Yes

Sarannah wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

Uhhm, it seems everyone answered the question directly. Even I did, everyone else did. Though players may have a reasoning you do not like, does not mean they did not answer the poll question. (even their yes/no alone already did this)
This was my answer: "When there is a longterm vengeance campaign there will also be theorycrafting and meta builds for that mode. It is just that the tests were too short to get to that level of gameplay yet."
Basically this comes down to: It does not matter if the PvP is grey host or vengeance, ESO is a unique game and will always have it's own unique PvP regardless of the mode. ESO is and remains ESO. Gameplay-wise it does not matter if you lavawhip someone for 10k damage with 5 different sets/CP's/stats while ending up doing 10 damage due to their 9990 armor with 5 different sets/CP's/stats, or if the lavawhip does 10 damage directly. One stresses the server, the other does not. One is easily accessible for all players, the other is not.

The uniqueness stays the same regardless of the mode you play in.

You keep countering your own argument. Sets/builds in ESO (especially in PvP) make the experience unique. You can’t bring up sets when saying Vengeance doesn’t take away the uniqueness of Cyrodiil.

Timmy wants to run Deaths Wind and Twin Sisters and be a stun bleed/blocker. Timmy has found a unique PLAYSTYLE Timmy enjoys PvPing with. Timmy cannot do that in Vengeance.

@xDeusEJRx had the only real take so far, they enjoyed unique PvP for the core combat skills and Vengeance hasn’t changed those, yet.

ShutUpitsRed

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

All competitors do have a chance to win, if they build and practice for it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use subpar builds or tactics. Nerfing yourself and then complaining you lose is the opposite of fair. If you go to try to play basketball in a snowsuit, you deserve to lose lol, duh?

You didn't answer my question.

SneaK

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

Yet none of these arguments have to do with performance…..

And the youth team is wearing the same uniform but just complaining about the Lakers being bigger.

They aren't wearing the same uniforms. The gap between the builds is enormous. This thread is not about performance. It's about build uniqueness. If you'd like to discuss how vengeance impacts performance, you're free to do it on a thread for that. There's a lot of them.

Right, but Vengeance Cyro was created solely for performance, which is the issue it should address rather than saying we should just be okay with them giving up on balance.

And my bad, the youth team decided to wear snowsuits cause their coaches told them to, even though the arena personnel hung up uniforms in their lockers.

spartaxoxo

Other (Comment below)

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

All competitors do have a chance to win, if they build and practice for it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use subpar builds or tactics. Nerfing yourself and then complaining you lose is the opposite of fair. If you go to try to play basketball in a snowsuit, you deserve to lose lol, duh?

You didn't answer my question.

Again, "everyone can use the overpowered thing," is not balance. There shouldn't be builds that are so subpar that you automatically lose because you used them. This game is widely mocked for its pvp balance. It's a number one factor in why people don't join tin pvp that do play this game. And it's one of the biggest cons that people explain when they tell people not to play this game. This game has a bad reputation when it comes to PvP.

SneaK

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

All competitors do have a chance to win, if they build and practice for it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use subpar builds or tactics. Nerfing yourself and then complaining you lose is the opposite of fair. If you go to try to play basketball in a snowsuit, you deserve to lose lol, duh?

You didn't answer my question.

Again, "everyone can use the overpowered thing," is not balance. There shouldn't be builds that are so subpar that you automatically lose because you used them. This game is widely mocked for its pvp balance. It's a number one factor in why people don't join that do play this game. And it's one of the biggest cons that people explain when they tell people not to play this game. This game has a bad reputation when it comes to PvP.

This is literally what I’ve been saying, but the difference in our stances is that I don’t think it’s acceptable for ZOS to pitch Vengeance as a performance activity rather than what it is. Which is a way to not have to balance the game. It’s not right. They have pushed update after update that has destroyed balance, and they refuse to deal with those mistakes.

xDeusEJRx

No

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

All competitors do have a chance to win, if they build and practice for it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use subpar builds or tactics. Nerfing yourself and then complaining you lose is the opposite of fair. If you go to try to play basketball in a snowsuit, you deserve to lose lol, duh?

You didn't answer my question.

Again, "everyone can use the overpowered thing," is not balance. There shouldn't be builds that are so subpar that you automatically lose because you used them. This game is widely mocked for its pvp balance. It's a number one factor in why people don't join that do play this game. And it's one of the biggest cons that people explain when they tell people not to play this game. This game has a bad reputation when it comes to PvP.

This is literally what I’ve been saying, but the difference in our stances is that I don’t think it’s acceptable for ZOS to pitch Vengeance as a performance activity rather than what it is. Which is a way to not have to balance the game. It’s not right. They have pushed update after update that has destroyed balance, and they refuse to deal with those mistakes.

I feel like most people have the same conclusion in mind, but the differences are minor in nature. Everyone wants there to be balance, so they might like vengeance. Everyone wants there to be game variety, so they might prefer both. Everyone wants a thriving population, so they might prefer Gray host's status quo.

Generally. I think most players wish for the same things with pvp but the way that zos treats players make us think we have to pick and choose, when we should be getting all of these things. And it's inexcusable that zos is giving players the short end of the stick for this.

ShutUpitsRed

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

All competitors do have a chance to win, if they build and practice for it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use subpar builds or tactics. Nerfing yourself and then complaining you lose is the opposite of fair. If you go to try to play basketball in a snowsuit, you deserve to lose lol, duh?

You didn't answer my question.

Again, "everyone can use the overpowered thing," is not balance. There shouldn't be builds that are so subpar that you automatically lose because you used them. This game is widely mocked for its pvp balance. It's a number one factor in why people don't join tin pvp that do play this game. And it's one of the biggest cons that people explain when they tell people not to play this game. This game has a bad reputation when it comes to PvP.

If you're not even going to answer my question, I don't see a productive conversation moving forward, thank you.

DenverRalphy

amiiegee wrote: »

I feel like some missunderstand the poll lmao.

People are voting no but literally writing basically that everything is the same with vengeance.

„I vote no because i like it but i am fully aware it’s destroying the uniqueness“

?? But you voted yes. Or did I misread that?

spartaxoxo

Other (Comment below)

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

All competitors do have a chance to win, if they build and practice for it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use subpar builds or tactics. Nerfing yourself and then complaining you lose is the opposite of fair. If you go to try to play basketball in a snowsuit, you deserve to lose lol, duh?

You didn't answer my question.

Again, "everyone can use the overpowered thing," is not balance. There shouldn't be builds that are so subpar that you automatically lose because you used them. This game is widely mocked for its pvp balance. It's a number one factor in why people don't join that do play this game. And it's one of the biggest cons that people explain when they tell people not to play this game. This game has a bad reputation when it comes to PvP.

This is literally what I’ve been saying, but the difference in our stances is that I don’t think it’s acceptable for ZOS to pitch Vengeance as a performance activity rather than what it is. Which is a way to not have to balance the game. It’s not right. They have pushed update after update that has destroyed balance, and they refuse to deal with those mistakes.

There can be more than one reason for a thing. ZOS said that both the improved performance and the positive feedback are what drove them to make it a permanent mode. We know that a lot of that positive feedback was from PvE players and casuals who enjoyed that Vengeance offered them an even playing field build wise. It also had better performance than traditional Cyrodiil. Performance has been complained about for years. They've done test after test for years. None of it worked. It doesn't surprise me when they saw the test showed the abilities were the problem that they decided to throw in the towel.

I agree with you about the updates. I don't personally think PvP has ever been balanced as well as it should have been.

Lord_Hev

No

"Coming up with your own unique build and testing it on the field" If this was written in the timespan of 2014 - 2017, I'd believe it. There is nothing remotely unique about Cyrodiil anymore. You cannot do off-meta. You can only do hyper-optimized specific "off-meta" which is just meta that is slightly deviant from meta, but still hyper specialized and min-max'd.

Vengeance at least forces you to play your class and therefore people I run into in a vengeance campaign feel somewhat different.

spartaxoxo

Other (Comment below)

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

All competitors do have a chance to win, if they build and practice for it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use subpar builds or tactics. Nerfing yourself and then complaining you lose is the opposite of fair. If you go to try to play basketball in a snowsuit, you deserve to lose lol, duh?

You didn't answer my question.

Again, "everyone can use the overpowered thing," is not balance. There shouldn't be builds that are so subpar that you automatically lose because you used them. This game is widely mocked for its pvp balance. It's a number one factor in why people don't join tin pvp that do play this game. And it's one of the biggest cons that people explain when they tell people not to play this game. This game has a bad reputation when it comes to PvP.

If you're not even going to answer my question, I don't see a productive conversation moving forward, thank you.

I don't even know what question you're talking about??? I answered them afaik.

SneaK

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

Not a single "No" comment answers the actual question in the poll. Fascinating.

robwolf666 wrote: »

No... I think PvP as it is now locks out people who don't understand builds and how to make them effective, so they get one-hit-killed whenever they try to go in to Cyrodiil/IC. Vengeance sounds like it evens the playing field for PvP.

Straight from the horse's mouth lol. PvP as it is now locks out people who don't know how to play the game and can't be bothered to learn, and so it's bad. It's frustrating as all get out that PvP is treated the way it is by the devs, but comments like this just make me so sad. Why is it ok for PvE to have standards and an actual skill/effort curve and an endgame, but PvP is expected to cater to the lowest common denominator?

PvP doesn't have a normal mode and competitions are supposed to be fair. PvP is not supposed to be a situation where the outcome was already determined at login regardless of the skill of the players. PvP should never have been allowed to be that imbalanced for so long and it's a big reason that it's in such bad shape.

If Vengeance doesn't replace the regular PvP but instead functions as a "PvP normal mode," while CP Cyrodiil is allowed to remain as is in a sorry of "PvP vet mode," then that would probably be good a thing although it may be too late and too poorly communicated to work out.

Because then there would be an actual curve, like in PvP, instead of a situation where vet players are allowed to completely kill the game mode for new and casual players.

PvP, as it is, is already fair. We're all playing the same game. You get out what you put in, and putting together sets/builds/etc is putting in the work. It's a part of the PvP and the game overall. The comparison to "normal mode" is invalid, as in PvP you're playing against human beings, not AI. A Vengeance meta WILL emerge, and it will also feel unfair to those who don't put in the time and effort to find and implement it.

PvP is endgame content. Prepare accordingly.

No. It's not already fair. The gap between the best builds and the worst are the most astronomical that I have seen of any game. Balance isn't everyone can use the overpowered thing. ESO is barely talked about but one of the most widely cited talking points is the absurdity of the balance in PvP.

Is endgame PvE scoring unfair because you have to use certain builds/skills to hit the highest numbers? I'm not talking about balance, I'm talking about fairness. We're all playing the same game.

Fairness is all competitors having a chance to win. It's not a handful of builds being an automatic win. You can't talk about balance as separate from fairness. You can't pit the Los Angeles Lakers against the LA Youth Recreational League, allow the Lakers to wear basketball equipment while the Youth League has to wear snowsuits and then claim the match was fair because we're all using the same baseketball and hoop.

There always needed to either be a separate game mode or more parity between the builds.

All competitors do have a chance to win, if they build and practice for it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use subpar builds or tactics. Nerfing yourself and then complaining you lose is the opposite of fair. If you go to try to play basketball in a snowsuit, you deserve to lose lol, duh?

You didn't answer my question.

Again, "everyone can use the overpowered thing," is not balance. There shouldn't be builds that are so subpar that you automatically lose because you used them. This game is widely mocked for its pvp balance. It's a number one factor in why people don't join that do play this game. And it's one of the biggest cons that people explain when they tell people not to play this game. This game has a bad reputation when it comes to PvP.

This is literally what I’ve been saying, but the difference in our stances is that I don’t think it’s acceptable for ZOS to pitch Vengeance as a performance activity rather than what it is. Which is a way to not have to balance the game. It’s not right. They have pushed update after update that has destroyed balance, and they refuse to deal with those mistakes.

There can be more than one reason for a thing. ZOS said that both the improved performance and the positive feedback are what drove them to make it a permanent mode. We know that a lot of that positive feedback was from PvE players and casuals who enjoyed that Vengeance offered them an even playing field build wise. It also had better performance than traditional Cyrodiil. Performance has been complained about for years. They've done test after test for years. None of it worked. It doesn't surprise me when they saw the test showed the abilities were the problem that they decided to throw in the towel.

I agree with you about the updates. I don't personally think PvP has ever been balanced as well as it should have been.

Well now that they’re redoing classes we’ll see if that makes its way into PvP/Greyhost, which if so that would be at least working on balancing PvP. Or, they just roll these out alongside Vengeance as “tests” and use the positive feedback/exclusive participation as fuel to delete our game.