Honestly - Is Vengeance Viable?

aetherix8

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

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.

PvP mains since beta are afraid that all the no skill zerglings will switch to Veng, and the days of ez farming of newbies will be over. Only true vet vs vet PvP will remain, ball groups and bombers (obsolete without zergs). I cannot find any other logical explanation for the staunch opposition to Vengeance.

Sarannah

Personally I hope vengeance is viable as a long term PvP mode, as it is a fun/fair PvP mode. But the vengeance mode seems to only mostly attract the more casual PvP players. The highest I have seen the bars go on PC EU/PC NA is to 2 bars(lowest 1 bar), whatever that means population-wise. Making it roughly the same as grey host.

Maybe if vengeance is a permanent campaign it will attract more players, as many will not participate in tests. But the fact that the grey host and vengeance populations are roughly the same, means vengeance could be used as a stepping stone into grey host.

Vengeance(permanent) would allow ZOS to advertise a new more casual/'light' massive scale PvP mode. Which in turn could grow the game's PvP population as a whole and could eventually also cause more players to flow into grey host. Growing both modes and the game's popularity amongst MMO PvPers.

PS: I think both the grey host and vengeance audiences are so different, that there would not be a problem with running them side-by-side. (despite all the panicking the grey host supporters are doing)
PPS: Some players call vengeance just zerging, but given some time even vengeance will have theorycrafting and meta builds. Though not to the extreme extend as is the case in grey host. (which I personally think is a good thing)

Lord_Hev

aetherix8 wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

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.

PvP mains since beta are afraid that all the no skill zerglings will switch to Veng, and the days of ez farming of newbies will be over. Only true vet vs vet PvP will remain, ball groups and bombers (obsolete without zergs). I cannot find any other logical explanation for the staunch opposition to Vengeance.

The vast majority of old-school-since-beta-pvp mains have either completely quit ESO, or do not regularly pvp anymore if they do still play eso(not all of them, I do still see a few of the old guard when I can stomache cyrodiil in it's current state) but they are few and far between. Most of the "pvp mains" you see today are either young blood or "vets" from 2016 and onward.


As for a more objective answer to the quoted question. The reason why vengeance as an option is being crusaded against is because eso does not have a vibrant population, and this is doubly-so in the pvp scene. This is coming from someone who can see the positives of both Vengeance, and Greyhost. And coming from someone who is a "since beta pvper": For all the positives Vengeance has going for it, it is entirely dependent on a consistently high population. The second the population is medium-grade and reduced to just small-scale fights, it starts to get stale. And when the population gets low, it becomes straight-up boring. And again, this is coming from someone whom is an eso boomer and refuses to subclass on straight stubborn self-jeopardizing principle. I would rather deal with the nonesense of Greyhost the second vengeance's population enters the medium stage.

Idk how it isn't brought up enough, more evidence that there really aren't that many of the old guard still around. People today talk like Cyrodiil was never the focus, and that vengeance's extremely high population during the first test were anomalous. I remember a time where there were two "greyhost" type campaigns... multiple "blackreach" type campaigns... And another set of campaigns that were "dead" scroll buff campaigns where if you took a scroll, the faction that dominated would immediately cease their trial and dungeons progs and storm the sweat group that dared to take that scroll... SURE, vengeance is "unique" in that it can field 900 people in -one- single campaign. But that is not indicative of a vibrant and booming population. Cyrodiil has not had a vibrant population since 1.5 and onwards. It was of course, afterwards where the number of total campaigns started to be cut.


Now, what I have noticed is that there -is- common ground to be found amongst both ends of the spectrum. Actual balance changes. Changes that for whatever reason are completely ignored no matter how many times it is brought up. Vengeance in it's rawest form is just another example of a defeatist "I give up" solution. I mean it is straight-up written that "We cannot make Greyhost performant enough for large-scale pvp."

However, people still pvp... and say hey: There's issues with ballgroups, pull sets, and meta sets having a massive gap and creating a barrier to entry. And we have people who -don't- pvp who say hey: There's issues with ballgroups, pull sets, and meta sets having a massive gap and creating a barrier to entry... It's so strange to see! Maybe there seems to be a problem with ballgroups, pull sets, and the meta having a massive gap... I even hear the meta gap is an issue in PvE too... very odd.

edward_frigidhands

amiiegee wrote: »

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: »

xR3ACTORx

[

LPapirius wrote: »

Ya, it's just not believable anymore that some of the pro vengeance comments are coming from a desire for good faith debates. They're just trying to create conflict and get these threads shut down and/or heavily edited.

That makes sense. Thank you for this enlightening explanation.