Honestly - Is Vengeance Viable?

BardokRedSnow

Boy is this picture telling

imPDA

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Simple question, if its so irrelevant, why blur anything out in the first place?

These are screenshots from very old stream with Vengeance 1 test results, they were blurred in order do not disclosure actual numbers, and in new post, they decided to show these numbers, but they took old, blurred screenshots, probably because of laziness or internal problems (results deleted, or no specialists were available who could take this data and make new charts, etc., etc.). They really shoul make new ones in order not to raise these speculations.

It is very obvious what IF 360 and 900 are correct numbers, these charts are accurate (they have good fit with grid lines, etc.), BUT there is no way for us to know for sure. They really could make them proportionally bigger.

SneaK

Xbox is full of gamers, GH popping sorry not sorry.

LPapirius

LarsS wrote: »

First primetime, when both GH and Ven were up on PC/EU. GH were never locked on all alliances. Vengeance were on 2bars so about 300 on GH when it peaked, but it dropped relativiely fast to substantially less than that. Ven stayed over 300 during primetime (min for 2 bars on all alliances). So more played Ven, partly perhaps to double ap.

It's the opposite on PC NA prime time.

On PC NA 18:00 Grey Host is 4-3-4 population
On PC NA 18:00 Vengeance is 1-2-1 population

And bear in mind that vengeance is still giving double AP over Grey Host at this time. So more incentives to play vengeance, but more people actually playing Grey Host.

BardokRedSnow

This was telling in many ways, not just for vengeance but the kind of pvp ep on pc na enjoy.

You like what you like I guess lol vengeance is zerg heaven for ep.

xylena

Tells me the ball groupers and proc abusers are currently on yellow and blue, and the casual zergers are on red. This weird faction pop split is bad for the health of both campaigns and should be addressed by the devs, otherwise both will die.

Vengeance bars are also about 3x as many players as each Live bar, the granularity isn't very good, but you could approximate it in GH units as 4/3/4 for GH vs 3/6/3 for Ven.

BardokRedSnow

now they finally came to play lol so its zerglings and proc 'sploiters all together almost, one happy family.

Should put vengeance to bed and just let us have greyhost

im sure the numbers will get back to normal eventually, many people kept saying they didnt know greyhost was back and vengeance made them stop playing altogether.

amiiegee

It´s like many guessed and more people hoped. People dont like Vengeance and wont play it as soon Grey Host is back up.
And these who do like it will come back to GH because everyone else is playing there.
They are in a minority.

Zos should of not lied to us and pushed this path of destroying the own game or perhaps just spend the ressources somewhere else.

I can tell you exactly what´s gonna happen if you bring Vengeance as campaign but keep GH on. Nobody will play Vengeance.
And if you make it ''Vengeance only '' - see you at 5k daily players.

virtus753

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi all, thanks for the continued discussion here. We want to share a point of consideration as we are seeing some comments around population when talking about the in-game graphs. The in-game population bar is representative of the current participants in a campaign, relative to the max cap of that campaign. So for example, if Gray Host is at 360/360, but Vengeance is 450/900, the graph will show Gray Host as 100% capacity while Vengeance is at 50%, even though Vengeance has more players. We wanted to provide that as you continue your conversations about population overall.

Thank you for this.

Could you also please clarify how to interpret PC vs console UIs in terms of their different population bars for the same number of players?

I can switch back and forth between these modes on my pc in a campaign and see the population bars change. In one mode it says one amount in terms of bars and in the other it says another, and swapping modes changes that number of bars back and forth accordingly. (Dead is dead and locked is locked, but most of the middle pop values change based on UI mode in my experience.)

This has even caused arguments (plural, on several different occasions) in zone chat about what bars we’re at and it turned out to be people using the two different UIs, which don’t agree. For example, the latest argument I saw was someone claiming we were at 1 bar while another said 2 bars. They were both right, but they were looking at different UIs.

Which UI is accurate if they’re both meant to measure the same fraction of the same cap at the same time but don’t agree?

This has something I’ve wondered for a long time, so hoping for some insight on why this is. Especially since we have people showing the two different UIs here, and if those aren’t equivalent we’ll need to know how to compare them.

imPDA

virtus753 wrote: »

Could you also please clarify how to interpret PC vs console UIs in terms of their different population bars for the same number of players?

There are 4 population steps, for PC UI they are 1 bar, 2 bars, 3 bars, lock.
For console - 0 bars, 1 bar, 2 bars, 3 bars with lock.

So, on console you always see 1 bar less,

1 bar (PC) = 0 bars (console) -> (900 / 3 / 3) -> from 0 to 100 players
2 bars (PC) = 1 bar (console) -> 101 to 200 players
3 bars (PC) = 2 bars (console) -> 201 to 300 players
lock (PC) = 3 bars and lock (console) -> 300 players (full, you will be placed into queue)

At least, it is what logically it should be with linear steps. Btw they can be not linear And I am pretty sure we were never told the real numbers b4 and this question stayed always unanswered.

YandereGirlfriend

imPDA wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

Could you also please clarify how to interpret PC vs console UIs in terms of their different population bars for the same number of players?

There are 4 population steps, for PC UI they are 1 bar, 2 bars, 3 bars, lock.
For console - 0 bars, 1 bar, 2 bars, 3 bars with lock.

So, on console you always see 1 bar less,

1 bar (PC) = 0 bars (console) -> (900 / 3 / 3) -> from 0 to 100 players
2 bars (PC) = 1 bar (console) -> 101 to 200 players
3 bars (PC) = 2 bars (console) -> 201 to 300 players
lock (PC) = 3 bars and lock (console) -> 300 players (full, you will be placed into queue)

At least, it is what logically it should be with linear steps. Btw they can be not linear And I am pretty sure we were never told the real numbers b4 and this question stayed always unanswered.

It's beyond strange that there's so much mystery around the UI after over a decade of development.

Why not just unify the UI and tell players precisely how many bars maps to how many players?

edward_frigidhands

Marto wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

First of all, i cant believe people are still arguing with that person who thinks they are always right and act as if they have some insider knowledge we dont have, while want to become a dev.

Second : Vengeange is not viable, thats exactly what happened as soon gh was back on pc eu and in the next days more people will leave vengeance because its less populated




On PS EU vengeance never had a single bar, people are either boycotting it or just despiting to play it.

Either way. Its a fail.

It's already been established 1 bar in Vengeance = 3 bars in Greyhost

In your screenshot, Vengeance has more players.

1 bar in Vengeance could mean either 30 or 300 players. Going to take a wild guess here it's not 300 lol.

edward_frigidhands

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi all, thanks for the continued discussion here. We want to share a point of consideration as we are seeing some comments around population when talking about the in-game graphs. The in-game population bar is representative of the current participants in a campaign, relative to the max cap of that campaign. So for example, if Gray Host is at 360/360, but Vengeance is 450/900, the graph will show Gray Host as 100% capacity while Vengeance is at 50%, even though Vengeance has more players. We wanted to provide that as you continue your conversations about population overall.

What is the lowest each bar represents?

imPDA

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

It's beyond strange that there's so much mystery around the UI after over a decade of development.

Why not just unify the UI and tell players precisely how many bars maps to how many players?

Well, it is probably time to do so with their new "transparency", we will probably finally see this, but it was asked multiple multiple times, and I personally never saw the answer nor friends of mine who are also were very interested in this and who tried to make an estimation.

There are also several periods when population cap was reduced silently, so that is why probably there is no numbers. I can't recall particular updates, but it was pretty obvious couple of times. I estimated population limit as 600 initially when I started playing Cyrodiil actively, I saw 3-4 keeps under attack at the same time while leading 24 ppl group of pugs, and now you barely can see 3 groups of 12 people and 1-2 keeps lit simultaneously.

edward_frigidhands

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

now they finally came to play lol so its zerglings and proc 'sploiters all together almost, one happy family.

Should put vengeance to bed and just let us have greyhost

im sure the numbers will get back to normal eventually, many people kept saying they didnt know greyhost was back and vengeance made them stop playing altogether.

Lol

aetherix8

Yes, it is viable, but we need more character movement speed, more customization options and better balance between classes.
Also dynamic queue locks.

amiiegee wrote: »

It´s like many guessed and more people hoped. People dont like Vengeance and wont play it as soon Grey Host is back up.
And these who do like it will come back to GH because everyone else is playing there.
They are in a minority.

Zos should of not lied to us and pushed this path of destroying the own game or perhaps just spend the ressources somewhere else.

I can tell you exactly what´s gonna happen if you bring Vengeance as campaign but keep GH on. Nobody will play Vengeance.
And if you make it ''Vengeance only '' - see you at 5k daily players.

Some who like Vengeance won’t go to GH even if Veng does not succeed - they will just keep staying away from Cyro entirely.

amiiegee

aetherix8 wrote: »

Yes, it is viable, but we need more character movement speed, more customization options and better balance between classes.
Also dynamic queue locks.

amiiegee wrote: »

It´s like many guessed and more people hoped. People dont like Vengeance and wont play it as soon Grey Host is back up.
And these who do like it will come back to GH because everyone else is playing there.
They are in a minority.

Zos should of not lied to us and pushed this path of destroying the own game or perhaps just spend the ressources somewhere else.

I can tell you exactly what´s gonna happen if you bring Vengeance as campaign but keep GH on. Nobody will play Vengeance.
And if you make it ''Vengeance only '' - see you at 5k daily players.

Some who like Vengeance won’t go to GH even if Veng does not succeed - they will just keep staying away from Cyro entirely.

I strongly disagree to your hot take, because the most people did not start cyrodiil because of vengeance.
And the three people who maybe decide to not play cyro because there is no vengeance, a system wich was announced as a ''test'' before and never was meaned to be implemented permanently before, are perhaps no loss to the pvp community.

LennaTheRussian

aetherix8 wrote: »

Yes, it is viable, but we need more character movement speed, more customization options and better balance between classes.
Also dynamic queue locks.

amiiegee wrote: »

It´s like many guessed and more people hoped. People dont like Vengeance and wont play it as soon Grey Host is back up.
And these who do like it will come back to GH because everyone else is playing there.
They are in a minority.

Zos should of not lied to us and pushed this path of destroying the own game or perhaps just spend the ressources somewhere else.

I can tell you exactly what´s gonna happen if you bring Vengeance as campaign but keep GH on. Nobody will play Vengeance.
And if you make it ''Vengeance only '' - see you at 5k daily players.

Some who like Vengeance won’t go to GH even if Veng does not succeed - they will just keep staying away from Cyro entirely.

I am one of those people, I strongly dislike GH and cyro in general. But Vengeance is fun (when there is population) and just less annoying to play.

amiiegee

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

Yes, it is viable, but we need more character movement speed, more customization options and better balance between classes.
Also dynamic queue locks.

amiiegee wrote: »

It´s like many guessed and more people hoped. People dont like Vengeance and wont play it as soon Grey Host is back up.
And these who do like it will come back to GH because everyone else is playing there.
They are in a minority.

Zos should of not lied to us and pushed this path of destroying the own game or perhaps just spend the ressources somewhere else.

I can tell you exactly what´s gonna happen if you bring Vengeance as campaign but keep GH on. Nobody will play Vengeance.
And if you make it ''Vengeance only '' - see you at 5k daily players.

Some who like Vengeance won’t go to GH even if Veng does not succeed - they will just keep staying away from Cyro entirely.

I am one of those people, I strongly dislike GH and cyro in general. But Vengeance is fun (when there is population) and just less annoying to play.

Sorry but point proven.

amiiegee wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

Yes, it is viable, but we need more character movement speed, more customization options and better balance between classes.
Also dynamic queue locks.

amiiegee wrote: »

It´s like many guessed and more people hoped. People dont like Vengeance and wont play it as soon Grey Host is back up.
And these who do like it will come back to GH because everyone else is playing there.
They are in a minority.

Zos should of not lied to us and pushed this path of destroying the own game or perhaps just spend the ressources somewhere else.

I can tell you exactly what´s gonna happen if you bring Vengeance as campaign but keep GH on. Nobody will play Vengeance.
And if you make it ''Vengeance only '' - see you at 5k daily players.

Some who like Vengeance won’t go to GH even if Veng does not succeed - they will just keep staying away from Cyro entirely.

I strongly disagree to your hot take, because the most people did not start cyrodiil because of vengeance.
And the three people who maybe decide to not play cyro because there is no vengeance, a system wich was announced as a ''test'' before and never was meaned to be implemented permanently before, are perhaps no loss to the pvp community.

The game mode cyrodiil existed since launch. It has a huge playerbase and audience. Ofc they sticking to the etablished and liekd system, even when it´s worth to be overworked rather then this ripped off pvp.
You said yourself you dont like cyro, so you have not been part of the pvp community and are in the minority of the vengeance enjoyers.

Estin

I'm not a fan of cyrodiil because I prefer smaller engagements like BGs, but I popped into GH so I could help out with data collection to show that ZOS's scenario 2 shouldn't even be considered. Was 3 bars across all factions on PC/NA even at 12am EST. Some factions were also pop locked during the time. I don't know how many bars were on vengeance since I don't play with a controller, but I think it's pretty evident that players prefer GH over Vengeance. Performance was fine, even when there were 3 factions at one keep. Not as smooth as Vengeance is with the same amount of players, but it was still completely fine to play. Even with all of its current issues, GH is still better than Vengeance. Vengeance has a LONG way to go to even become something worth playing daily, and I really do suspect that Vengeance is only ever going to see activity during Mayhem because it's more convenient for the questers in PvE builds. The rest of the year I believe it's going to be empty like Ravenwatch with maybe 1 or 2 groups at a time PvDooring for AP boosting.

aetherix8

amiiegee wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

Yes, it is viable, but we need more character movement speed, more customization options and better balance between classes.
Also dynamic queue locks.

amiiegee wrote: »

It´s like many guessed and more people hoped. People dont like Vengeance and wont play it as soon Grey Host is back up.
And these who do like it will come back to GH because everyone else is playing there.
They are in a minority.

Zos should of not lied to us and pushed this path of destroying the own game or perhaps just spend the ressources somewhere else.

I can tell you exactly what´s gonna happen if you bring Vengeance as campaign but keep GH on. Nobody will play Vengeance.
And if you make it ''Vengeance only '' - see you at 5k daily players.

Some who like Vengeance won’t go to GH even if Veng does not succeed - they will just keep staying away from Cyro entirely.

I strongly disagree to your hot take, because the most people did not start cyrodiil because of vengeance.
And the three people who maybe decide to not play cyro because there is no vengeance, a system wich was announced as a ''test'' before and never was meaned to be implemented permanently before, are perhaps no loss to the pvp community.

You miss the point. Some of us quit Cyro before Vengeance was even announced.

aetherix8

Estin wrote: »

I'm not a fan of cyrodiil because I prefer smaller engagements like BGs, but I popped into GH so I could help out with data collection to show that ZOS's scenario 2 shouldn't even be considered. Was 3 bars across all factions on PC/NA even at 12am EST. Some factions were also pop locked during the time. I don't know how many bars were on vengeance since I don't play with a controller, but I think it's pretty evident that players prefer GH over Vengeance. Performance was fine, even when there were 3 factions at one keep. Not as smooth as Vengeance is with the same amount of players, but it was still completely fine to play. Even with all of its current issues, GH is still better than Vengeance. Vengeance has a LONG way to go to even become something worth playing daily, and I really do suspect that Vengeance is only ever going to see activity during Mayhem because it's more convenient for the questers in PvE builds. The rest of the year I believe it's going to be empty like Ravenwatch with maybe 1 or 2 groups at a time PvDooring for AP boosting.

Judging from the last WSM participation, I wouldn’t count on it to boost any campaign numbers.

Estin

aetherix8 wrote: »

Estin wrote: »

I'm not a fan of cyrodiil because I prefer smaller engagements like BGs, but I popped into GH so I could help out with data collection to show that ZOS's scenario 2 shouldn't even be considered. Was 3 bars across all factions on PC/NA even at 12am EST. Some factions were also pop locked during the time. I don't know how many bars were on vengeance since I don't play with a controller, but I think it's pretty evident that players prefer GH over Vengeance. Performance was fine, even when there were 3 factions at one keep. Not as smooth as Vengeance is with the same amount of players, but it was still completely fine to play. Even with all of its current issues, GH is still better than Vengeance. Vengeance has a LONG way to go to even become something worth playing daily, and I really do suspect that Vengeance is only ever going to see activity during Mayhem because it's more convenient for the questers in PvE builds. The rest of the year I believe it's going to be empty like Ravenwatch with maybe 1 or 2 groups at a time PvDooring for AP boosting.

Judging from the last WSM participation, I wouldn’t count on it to boost any campaign numbers.

I skipped out on the 2nd Mayhem this year for the same reason everyone else did. Subclassing. Vengeance doesn't have subclassing, though, so that's why I think it's only ever going to see players during it.

amiiegee

aetherix8 wrote: »

amiiegee wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

Yes, it is viable, but we need more character movement speed, more customization options and better balance between classes.
Also dynamic queue locks.

amiiegee wrote: »

It´s like many guessed and more people hoped. People dont like Vengeance and wont play it as soon Grey Host is back up.
And these who do like it will come back to GH because everyone else is playing there.
They are in a minority.

Zos should of not lied to us and pushed this path of destroying the own game or perhaps just spend the ressources somewhere else.

I can tell you exactly what´s gonna happen if you bring Vengeance as campaign but keep GH on. Nobody will play Vengeance.
And if you make it ''Vengeance only '' - see you at 5k daily players.

Some who like Vengeance won’t go to GH even if Veng does not succeed - they will just keep staying away from Cyro entirely.

I strongly disagree to your hot take, because the most people did not start cyrodiil because of vengeance.
And the three people who maybe decide to not play cyro because there is no vengeance, a system wich was announced as a ''test'' before and never was meaned to be implemented permanently before, are perhaps no loss to the pvp community.

You miss the point. Some of us quit Cyro before Vengeance was even announced.

Okay but as you can see the majority of the pvp community is still playing, but not Vengeance - unless they are forced too

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Major_Mangle

The way I see it, Vengeance is the PvP tool to allow crossplay further down the line, makes sense if you also consider the extensive resources they've put into animations recently as well. Wouldn't surprise me either if the class rework (that was recently announced) is part of the same project: Rework anything that causes too much stress so that crossplay can be supported (or rather ancient console support). Sure it's just a theory from my end but logically it's the explanation that makes the most sense to me. Vengeance was always "too much effort/resources" to just be a test.

Would've preferred for ZOS to cut support for older console/pc systems instead of doing what they're doing right now...

LennaTheRussian

amiiegee wrote: »

The game mode cyrodiil existed since launch. It has a huge playerbase and audience. Ofc they sticking to the etablished and liekd system, even when it´s worth to be overworked rather then this ripped off pvp.
You said yourself you dont like cyro, so you have not been part of the pvp community and are in the minority of the vengeance enjoyers.

Saying "I am not a part of the pvp community" just because I don't like GH is dumb. GH is nothing but a bunch of ball groups and bombers. Half the time, it's dead or heavily one- or two-sided.

I play pvp all the time in BGs and IC. GH is just insufferable to even walk into. As someone who doesn't keep up with speed mount training everyday, it takes too long to get anywhere in normal Cyro, even with rapids. At least vengeance has everyone at the same speed.

I seriously don't get some of the pvp community. There's nothing wrong with having Vengeance as an option. A lot of people like it, just because most of the pvp community doesn't mean anything. Why are you so opposed to the rest of the ESO community actually jumping into an accessible pvp environment? Sorry to say, but GH is a terrible first impression, and the below level 50 campaign is completely dead and would still face the same issues as GH.

amiiegee

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

amiiegee wrote: »

The game mode cyrodiil existed since launch. It has a huge playerbase and audience. Ofc they sticking to the etablished and liekd system, even when it´s worth to be overworked rather then this ripped off pvp.
You said yourself you dont like cyro, so you have not been part of the pvp community and are in the minority of the vengeance enjoyers.

Saying "I am not a part of the pvp community" just because I don't like GH is dumb. GH is nothing but a bunch of ball groups and bombers. Half the time, it's dead or heavily one- or two-sided.

I play pvp all the time in BGs and IC. GH is just insufferable to even walk into. As someone who doesn't keep up with speed mount training everyday, it takes too long to get anywhere in normal Cyro, even with rapids. At least vengeance has everyone at the same speed.

I seriously don't get some of the pvp community. There's nothing wrong with having Vengeance as an option. A lot of people like it, just because most of the pvp community doesn't mean anything. Why are you so opposed to the rest of the ESO community actually jumping into an accessible pvp environment? Sorry to say, but GH is a terrible first impression, and the below level 50 campaign is completely dead and would still face the same issues as GH.

Not trying to argue, you said yourself you dont like cyro or gh.
This is the main pvp in ESO.

But i admit i forgot about IC and BG´s wich are funny too, if they are populated – wich they are not, most oft he time.
People can like what they want. But im claiming vengeance wont be populated if it becomes a option and this will make the most vengeance enthusiasts play GH.

xR3ACTORx

aetherix8 wrote: »

You miss the point. Some of us quit Cyro before Vengeance was even announced.

On Xbox EU many people left from cyro to other games, during the second vengeance "test". The Midyears Mayhem after the second test on console was already much less populated.

LennaTheRussian

amiiegee wrote: »

But im claiming vengeance wont be populated if it becomes a option and this will make the most vengeance enthusiasts play GH.

This is wrong, most of the players in Vengeance are casuals. The pvp player base is very small in comparison. Today was proof you're wrong on this. Both GH and Vengeance were open and Vengeance still had plenty of zergs on all sides (PCNA). I don't know why people are obsessed with comparing bars when it's already been established that the max player count is way higher than GH.

And no the bonuses are not the only reason it's still popular currently. When a new player joins cyro and they first join GH (because that's the only one that ever has players normally) they will be stomped with zero chance of winning. But if they join Vengeance they'll actually be able to play the game and experience pvp and not die in two seconds to some max CP player running meta gear and skills or a ball group.

Yes a dead campaign = no new players. But that is because they're all the same campaigns. The only difference is one no cp campaign and one below level 50. But the below level 50 one is dead because there's not enough players to sustain it and people don't bother making new toons just to rejoin it unless it's to troll real new players.

With Vengeance at least it's a different way to play pvp that is easier for the casual or new player to play. Believe me when I say a casual looks at GH and wants to stay far away from it. It's just not good pvp for them because pve and pvp are vastly different.

Currently the only way as a new player to enjoy pvp is BG's because they at least have a below level 50 version that is populated some of the time.

So yeah keeping Vengeance is fine and not going to be a problem for GH, as you said most hardcore pvp players will stay in GH. It could sustain itself if the pvp community would stop being so toxic towards the idea, the unique part of Cyro is the siege and capturing stuff, not the pvp gameplay. And Vengeance allows a way bigger player cap due to the reduction of sets and problematic calculations. Which in turns allows for better attacking and defending moments.

amiiegee

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

amiiegee wrote: »

But im claiming vengeance wont be populated if it becomes a option and this will make the most vengeance enthusiasts play GH.

This is wrong, most of the players in Vengeance are casuals. The pvp player base is very small in comparison. Today was proof you're wrong on this. Both GH and Vengeance were open and Vengeance still had plenty of zergs on all sides (PCNA). I don't know why people are obsessed with comparing bars when it's already been established that the max player count is way higher than GH.

And no the bonuses are not the only reason it's still popular currently. When a new player joins cyro and they first join GH (because that's the only one that ever has players normally) they will be stomped with zero chance of winning. But if they join Vengeance they'll actually be able to play the game and experience pvp and not die in two seconds to some max CP player running meta gear and skills or a ball group.

Yes a dead campaign = no new players. But that is because they're all the same campaigns. The only difference is one no cp campaign and one below level 50. But the below level 50 one is dead because there's not enough players to sustain it and people don't bother making new toons just to rejoin it unless it's to troll real new players.

With Vengeance at least it's a different way to play pvp that is easier for the casual or new player to play. Believe me when I say a casual looks at GH and wants to stay far away from it. It's just not good pvp for them because pve and pvp are vastly different.

Currently the only way as a new player to enjoy pvp is BG's because they at least have a below level 50 version that is populated some of the time.

So yeah keeping Vengeance is fine and not going to be a problem for GH, as you said most hardcore pvp players will stay in GH. It could sustain itself if the pvp community would stop being so toxic towards the idea, the unique part of Cyro is the siege and capturing stuff, not the pvp gameplay. And Vengeance allows a way bigger player cap due to the reduction of sets and problematic calculations. Which in turns allows for better attacking and defending moments.

Time will show who is right, im just saying 11 years people who began to play pvp started in GH and adapted instead of playing training wheel pvp.
I believe this will continue.