Honestly - Is Vengeance Viable?

lostineternity

For me the biggest downside of Vengeance is absence of any theory/build crafting.
The most fun I had with eso pvp was creating absolutely cursed builds with fun gameplay and non meta sets.
I understand that for some people funs is brainless running with zerg and only using heavy attack, I got it, but not for everyone.

SneaK

It’s not that complicated.

Vengeance is staying, they won’t abandon it no matter if it’s a smoking pile of ____.

GH is on the chopping block cause ZOS created an imbalance so bad they despise their own creation.

Doesn’t matter what we think, ZOS will ZOS. All we can do is play the mode we like and hope favorable unaltered data goes into that spreadsheet to support our preferred mode.

valenwood_vegan

I know the trendy thing is to pick one game mode and blame the players who like the other one, but regardless of Vengeance vs. Grey Host, they desperately need to find some way to not only stop the game's population from declining, but to bring back players who have left and most of all to bring in new players. Really neither mode is going to be viable with the current population trend. Running around a big, mostly-empty zone desperately looking for something to do is not fun.

I'm not personally a big fan of the current unbalanced pvp in Grey Host and I hardly ever participate, and imo it's clearly not bringing new players into pvp; but the population just is *not* there to support Vengeance and make it fun right now either.

Like a lot of people have talked about how Vengeance can provide an onramp to pvp and bring in new players (something I have brought up and that I do personally think it *could* be viable for), but these players aren't here - eso isn't attracting new players.

BardokRedSnow

xylena wrote: »

xR3ACTORx wrote: »

Endgame isn't probably for every average gamer.

The philosophy of a dead game.

This is literally the philosophy that kept eso alive

If a game doesn’t have an end game, it just ends. See every live service game ever that died out long before eso has.

BardokRedSnow

xylena wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Greyhost is back and populated in the evenings.

Vengeance has pretty much the same action during NA prime time. On average you pick either the 1 circle keep zerg brawl, or the 1 back keep PvDoor defense. GH is completely dead outside NA prime time, so is Vengeance. It will take time to rebuild critical mass regardless of format.

heaven13 wrote: »

I don't think most people are learning though.

They at least have a chance to learn. There is no chance to learn on full build mode. You will be deleted instantly if you don't already have the correct knowledge and prep. This may not be a big deal for a trifecta pro, but it's an absolute impasse for the average gamer.

Xylena we know you’re jaded with the game. The build you had that was good back in the day isn’t viable anymore, we’ve all been there, and eventually people get tired of the switch up.

But the majority of us still in PvP aren’t, that sort of thing is what drives and motivates the majority of us still in it. It is an mmo, not Overwatch.

And I’ve seen vengeance in “primetime” next to gh it’s totally dead. You can be jaded with the game, I certainly am but let’s not pretend.

Eso in general all over is pretty inactive during weekdays, when people are working. The last time it was super populated was during the Covid bump when everyone was home all day for a year or two. Too many of yall are confusing that population for an authentic one. Every game rn is like that except say, marvel rivals or helldivers with 70k and up active players or more at one time and even then they also have population dips.

GH is whatever you make it, you wanna pvdoor you pvdoor, you wanna Zerg you can Zerg, small man, ballgroup or solo tower hump. It is active, no one here can pretend it’s not, was locked out all evening last night even despite the video game awards being on.

BardokRedSnow

valenwood_vegan wrote: »

), but these players aren't here - eso isn't attracting new players.

This is the best point I’ve seen thus far. People blaming grey host for not bringing in new players to the game when it’s the rest of the game that’s having trouble bringing in new players in reality.

Grey host gets new players all the time, from the pool of pvers that get tired of pve. But it is end game for people who have access to gold, sets and high cp. it’s not supposed to be the focus it’s to keep the players who already are playing here. Without it I sure wouldn’t have spent money on crown crates or mounts.

Trying to make it a more casual mode when we already have places like raventwatch is the wrong move, if they’re upset these campaigns are dead they should stop with the battle passes and make something new players will actually want to play.

And vengeance does nothing to get them ready for end game, it’s a side show they should’ve at best used for a mym side campaign not a full game mode. Ravenwatch on the other hand was great for teaching new players the basics. Same with the 50 and under campaign.

aetherix8

manukartofanu wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

and then Vengeance comes along and makes them stop playing for a week... it is a VERY convenient time to simply step away for good.

I only play this game when Vengeance is up, so I only get 1 week every 3 months.

The 100 or so GH regulars could all quit forever with zero impact on the game as a whole.

If you're still holding hope that they'll "fix" GH after 12 directionless years... lol.

Actually, if those who log in once every three months stop playing, no one will even notice.
But if the entire PvP community leaves—that’s minus 200–500 players from the current online population. Along with them, part of the economy will collapse, which will lead to further player loss.

If you keep making changes that reduce online numbers or push players away, eventually there will be no players left. And those who played once every three months will keep doing exactly that - playing once every three months.

What we have already: a guaranteed event page drop for people who want rewards for five minutes of gameplay. The result? A ruined event economy and zero reason to farm boxes, which led, surprise, surprise, to lower online numbers.

Arcanist: letting in newcomers and people who don’t want to spend time learning how to play. The result? Players with no skill can easily clear all the content they previously couldn’t, and then they leave.

And the list of concessions and pandering to those who don’t actually want to play the game can go on and on.
The outcome: a game made for people who don’t want to play it.

That is not entirely true. Sure, it is less evident when players leave one by one as opposed to the entire base at once, but the effects are still noticeable. Population is shrinking and PvPers are aware of it. Also, those who left took their wallet with them so there’s that impact too.

Some of the people who plan to move to other games should Veng be permanent (alongside GH) will be replaced by others coming back (and some will bring their friends).

Time will tell if we’re indeed witnessing the death of ESO PvP, or a new beginning.

The thesis you highlighted has nothing to do with what you're refuting. People who log in once every three months are basically people who have already stopped playing. That has nothing to do with the fact that PvE players are leaving the game in a thin trickle. PvP players also probably wouldn’t all quit at once if GH were shut down — some would still try playing Vengeance until they finally got disappointed. And that too would be the same one-by-one departure.

Just because rn I log in every 3 months (I actually log in daily since V3, for WW event, now V4, but I will be gone after New Life and back for next Vengeance), it doesn’t mean I stopped playing already. I might be back to active playing if I have a good enough reason to do so.

Anyways, I mostly answered to your post because everyone is talking about players leaving, but nobody talks about players who might be coming back, like there is no such thing.

Durham

At this stage in the game’s life, you don’t need massive systems overhauls. What you need is experienced voices at the table—people who actively play their classes, understand the nuances, and actually care about how these changes feel in real gameplay.

WE NEED BALANCE. REAL BALANCE. The current level of power creep is game-breaking, plain and simple. Healing, speed, enchants, sets, and shields all need ongoing adjustments—and those adjustments have to happen as players experiment and discover new builds. That constant tuning is not a weakness; it’s what keeps the game healthy. When balance evolves alongside player creativity, the game stays fresh, competitive, and engaging, because it’s never solved and never stagnant.

This doesn’t have to mean huge costs.

As the game gets older and budgets naturally tighten, relying more on your existing player base makes sense. PvP and PvE community leads, class-focused volunteers, or advisory groups could provide meaningful feedback before changes go live. Players who are invested will help you keep the game healthy—and it costs very little compared to rebuilding systems after they fail.

We’re not asking for perfection.
We’re asking for choice, consistency, and balance that respects how people actually play the game.

Darkmage1337

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.

Honestly, the current design should do away with the faction bar graphs and simply show the current campaign population numbers, like you pointed out above.

For example, I would rather see Grey Host at 200/360 (or whatever value) as opposed to a bar-chart of 1 faction at 3 bars, 1 faction at 2 bars, and 1 faction at 1 bar. Players of the lesser-populated faction (at any given time) are less likely to engage with Cyrodiil if they can clearly see that they are outnumbered by 5 to 1 — in the example of 1 3-bar faction, 1 2-bar faction, and 1 1-bar faction. Why would any additional players of the 1-bar faction join Cyrodiil at that time?

If players see a campaign at 300/360 or 700/900 (or whatever), they are more likely to join a campaign as they can clearly see that the campaign is healthy and active, and that their is room for them and their group/guild.

You already provided the campaign population capacity (and adjust the limit as needed); so why not just show the actual total population? In addition, By showing 200/360 or 700/900 (or whatever), players are lead to believe that these is even-distribution. But, when they see a 1-bar versus 3-bar bar graph, players of the 1-bar faction are less likely to join at that time.

TL;DR:
Get rid of the bar graphs and show us actual numbers.
Show us the current population out of total population.
Do not provide the faction-specific population values.

SneaK

Durham wrote: »

At this stage in the game’s life, you don’t need massive systems overhauls. What you need is experienced voices at the table—people who actively play their classes, understand the nuances, and actually care about how these changes feel in real gameplay.

WE NEED BALANCE. REAL BALANCE. The current level of power creep is game-breaking, plain and simple. Healing, speed, enchants, sets, and shields all need ongoing adjustments—and those adjustments have to happen as players experiment and discover new builds. That constant tuning is not a weakness; it’s what keeps the game healthy. When balance evolves alongside player creativity, the game stays fresh, competitive, and engaging, because it’s never solved and never stagnant.

This doesn’t have to mean huge costs.

As the game gets older and budgets naturally tighten, relying more on your existing player base makes sense. PvP and PvE community leads, class-focused volunteers, or advisory groups could provide meaningful feedback before changes go live. Players who are invested will help you keep the game healthy—and it costs very little compared to rebuilding systems after they fail.

We’re not asking for perfection.
We’re asking for choice, consistency, and balance that respects how people actually play the game.

No no no, players don’t know what they want that’s crazy talk.

ZOS_Kevin

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

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.

Honestly, the current design should do away with the faction bar graphs and simply show the current campaign population numbers, like you pointed out above.

For example, I would rather see Grey Host at 200/360 (or whatever value) as opposed to a bar-chart of 1 faction at 3 bars, 1 faction at 2 bars, and 1 faction at 1 bar. Players of the lesser-populated faction (at any given time) are less likely to engage with Cyrodiil if they can clearly see that they are outnumbered by 5 to 1 — in the example of 1 3-bar faction, 1 2-bar faction, and 1 1-bar faction. Why would any additional players of the 1-bar faction join Cyrodiil at that time?

If players see a campaign at 300/360 or 700/900 (or whatever), they are more likely to join a campaign as they can clearly see that the campaign is healthy and active, and that their is room for them and their group/guild.

You already provided the campaign population capacity (and adjust the limit as needed); so why not just show the actual total population? In addition, By showing 200/360 or 700/900 (or whatever), players are lead to believe that these is even-distribution. But, when they see a 1-bar versus 3-bar bar graph, players of the 1-bar faction are less likely to join at that time.

TL;DR:
Get rid of the bar graphs and show us actual numbers.
Show us the current population out of total population.
Do not provide the faction-specific population values.

We have talked about this internally and it is up for consideration. We'll share this with folks to show community support as we continue those conversations.

xylena

Lord_Hev wrote: »

They would settle for craftable and more easily accessible options, as it had been. This also goes into this whole "equal-playing field" argument, and I believe that sentiment actually ruined the game. And I will use my anecdotal experience with you Xylena. I have fond memories of squaring off against your DK: completely off-meta, a stamdk. And you were a nightmare to fight against.

In 2014 I was running purple Seducer because I could still beat the super sweats despite them having gold Warlock. Meta sets weren't overpowered. Now if you go in with purple Seducer against someone with gold Wretched Vitality, you're getting absolutely ruined in throughput.

Even though Wretched is highly accessible, there's still a brutal opaque knowledge barrier to gatekeep new players. The problem isn't that overpowered sets are accessible, it's that they're overpowered, and if you don't know what's overpowered ahead of time, you're dead.

There's also busted meta sets like Kjalnar and Null Arca that are extremely inaccessible to casuals. DLC dungeons are painful even for super sweats. I flat refuse to ever grind PvE trials.

React

xylena wrote: »

Lord_Hev wrote: »

They would settle for craftable and more easily accessible options, as it had been. This also goes into this whole "equal-playing field" argument, and I believe that sentiment actually ruined the game. And I will use my anecdotal experience with you Xylena. I have fond memories of squaring off against your DK: completely off-meta, a stamdk. And you were a nightmare to fight against.

Even though Wretched is highly accessible, there's still a brutal opaque knowledge barrier to gatekeep new players. The problem isn't that overpowered sets are accessible, it's that they're overpowered, and if you don't know what's overpowered ahead of time, you're dead.

So we should remove all theorycrafting and buildcrafting from the game to cater to people who can't be bothered to spend some time researching what they should use in a pvp environment? It's just such a bizarre argument to me; shaft the loyal playerbase who have stuck through thick and thin for a decade to cater to people who don't care enough to put the bare minimum effort in to get properly set up. Do you really think people who care so little for PVP are even going to stick around if the switch to vengeance is made? Based on the population numbers we've seen, I certainly do not.

It isn't like any of this info is hard to come by. You can type in "OP PVP BUILD (update X)" and find things within minutes. It really is akin to a PVP main wanting to be able to join into trifecta progs in their rallying cry/wretched build because they can't be bothered to read skinnycheek's website or practice a rotation. Just a ridiculous level of entitlement to endgame content in a progression-based mmo setting.

ToddIngram

Poss wrote: »

Lucasl402 wrote: »

Grey Host has been part of the game since inception (maybe not with same name). ZOS should fix the game they created not waste time creating something new that won't help their business in any capacity.

ESO was originally marketed as a PvP game too, Cyrodiil was literally the endgame.

In hindsight, even though I log in to PvP in Cyrodiil, looking at the current state of PvP and how things have gone over the last decade, I'm kinda wondering why they made PvP part of the game to begin with. I can't remember a time when ZOS put much time or effort into supporting the PvP community. I mean, if they weren't ever going to support the game mode, why did they include it?

ToddIngram

xylena wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

and then Vengeance comes along and makes them stop playing for a week... it is a VERY convenient time to simply step away for good.

I only play this game when Vengeance is up, so I only get 1 week every 3 months.

The 100 or so GH regulars could all quit forever with zero impact on the game as a whole.

If you're still holding hope that they'll "fix" GH after 12 directionless years... lol.

Yet in your post you appear to be saying that vengeance is a viable fix for GH. (it's the opposite of a fix, of course)

And why should someone who admits to only playing one week/month have a louder voice in the direction for the game than those of us who still play daily?

xylena

React wrote: »

You can type in "OP PVP BUILD (update X)" and find things within minutes.

Oh you'll find "things" alright, like the decade old Alcast builds with Shacklebreaker that noobs still bring into GH. Do it yourself, behold the dead internet. That'll take me way off topic though.

Do you yourself still find any meaningful theorycrafting within the GH meta? Felt like it was solved the first week of subclassing PTS last summer and has stayed static since.

At least on Vengeance you can still debate Scout vs Vanguard or DW vs Frost. There would be infinitely more room for innovation on both Ven and GH if they gutted NB/Assassination.

xylena

ToddIngram wrote: »

And why should someone who admits to only playing one week/month have a louder voice in the direction for the game than those of us who still play daily?

You really wanna compare the size of our uh, playtimes? Good luck

BardokRedSnow

xylena wrote: »

ToddIngram wrote: »

And why should someone who admits to only playing one week/month have a louder voice in the direction for the game than those of us who still play daily?

You really wanna compare the size of our uh, playtimes? Good luck

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

JohnRingo

xylena wrote: »

React wrote: »

You can type in "OP PVP BUILD (update X)" and find things within minutes.

Oh you'll find "things" alright, like the decade old Alcast builds with Shacklebreaker that noobs still bring into GH. Do it yourself, behold the dead internet. That'll take me way off topic though.

Do you yourself still find any meaningful theorycrafting within the GH meta? Felt like it was solved the first week of subclassing PTS last summer and has stayed static since.

At least on Vengeance you can still debate Scout vs Vanguard or DW vs Frost. There would be infinitely more room for innovation on both Ven and GH if they gutted NB/Assassination.

Perhaps, sort by date when searching?

I spent a few hours last night optimizing my jewelry traits and glyphs so yes of course GH PvP players continue to theory craft.

xylena

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type.

Because the core audience for GH is like 100-300 people and going nowhere but down. Alienating those players doesn't move the line in a game of thousands. Most of them will still log into Vengeance to get their fix, even if they complain and threaten to quit on the forums.

Vengeance offers potential for growth. Some GH players will quit but there will still be 100-300 experienced regulars to build a new PvP community on. I kill inexperienced players from full in 4-5 seconds on Vengeance, way more fair than the instant death of GH.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

The build you had that was good back in the day isn’t viable anymore, we’ve all been there, and eventually people get tired of the switch up.

So did you give up SnB DK for Assassin/Animals/Storm? Do you enjoy turtle/burst meta?

BardokRedSnow

xylena wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type.

Because the core audience for GH is like 100-300 people and going nowhere but down. Alienating those players doesn't move the line in a game of thousands. Most of them will still log into Vengeance to get their fix, even if they complain and threaten to quit on the forums.

Vengeance offers potential for growth. Some GH players will quit but there will still be 100-300 experienced regulars to build a new PvP community on. I kill inexperienced players from full in 4-5 seconds on Vengeance, way more fair than the instant death of GH.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

The build you had that was good back in the day isn’t viable anymore, we’ve all been there, and eventually people get tired of the switch up.

So did you give up SnB DK for Assassin/Animals/Storm? Do you enjoy turtle/burst meta?

I have not and never will give up on SnB Two hander DK lol, all I did was go one skill line warden, I enjoy it, and some sweats get mad on stream they can’t burst me down like the rest of the cannon fodder alone lol

As for the rest, vengeance offers zero growth simply by the fact that there’s no sets in vengeance. It’s the same game mode again and again, nothing else to offer unless Zos changes it. This argument makes no sense.

Greyhost is the opposite, it changes every time the core game itself changes. As long as Zos improves the core game, so too will Greyhost improve. Whether it does or not is the question but with Greyhost there is a chance for growth, Vengeance same as no proc ravenwatch next to Greyhost does not and will be dead well before the next dlc cycle. Already is.

xylena

JohnRingo wrote: »

I spent a few hours last night optimizing my jewelry traits and glyphs so yes of course GH PvP players continue to theory craft.

Is this innovation, or catching up on a solved puzzle? I did all my trait and glyph testing on subclass PTS and haven't seen anything change. I guess you can still debate the X when considering what to use in Assassin/Storm/X builds? They all do the same thing though.

JohnRingo

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type.

Because the core audience for GH is like 100-300 people and going nowhere but down. Alienating those players doesn't move the line in a game of thousands. Most of them will still log into Vengeance to get their fix, even if they complain and threaten to quit on the forums.

Vengeance offers potential for growth. Some GH players will quit but there will still be 100-300 experienced regulars to build a new PvP community on. I kill inexperienced players from full in 4-5 seconds on Vengeance, way more fair than the instant death of GH.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

The build you had that was good back in the day isn’t viable anymore, we’ve all been there, and eventually people get tired of the switch up.

So did you give up SnB DK for Assassin/Animals/Storm? Do you enjoy turtle/burst meta?

I have not and never will give up on SnB Two hander DK lol, all I did was go one skill line warden, I enjoy it, and some sweats get mad on stream they can’t burst me down like the rest of the cannon fodder alone lol

As for the rest, vengeance offers zero growth simply by the fact that there’s no sets in vengeance. It’s the same game mode again and again, nothing else to offer unless Zos changes it. This argument makes no sense.

Greyhost is the opposite, it changes every time the core game itself changes. As long as Zos improves the core game, so too will Greyhost improve. Whether it does or not is the question but with Greyhost there is a chance for growth, Vengeance same as no proc ravenwatch next to Greyhost does not and will be dead well before the next dlc cycle. Already is.

Agree on everything including the SnB load out on my PvP Main (definitely not Meta). Only borrowed one skill line via subclassing as well.

fizzybeef

haha rip vengeance ( pc eu)

Iriidius

JohnRingo wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

React wrote: »

You can type in "OP PVP BUILD (update X)" and find things within minutes.

Oh you'll find "things" alright, like the decade old Alcast builds with Shacklebreaker that noobs still bring into GH. Do it yourself, behold the dead internet. That'll take me way off topic though.

Do you yourself still find any meaningful theorycrafting within the GH meta? Felt like it was solved the first week of subclassing PTS last summer and has stayed static since.

At least on Vengeance you can still debate Scout vs Vanguard or DW vs Frost. There would be infinitely more room for innovation on both Ven and GH if they gutted NB/Assassination.

Perhaps, sort by date when searching?

I spent a few hours last night optimizing my jewelry traits and glyphs so yes of course GH PvP players continue to theory craft.

And you will still see Alcast build as first when searching „eso PvP warden“ even when limiting results to last year because Alcast updates the number of update build got updated last every update so a Stamden from 2020 using rally instead of polarwind or healing soul and a Magden using harness magicka from 2018 are both shown as being last updated for update 48 without having a mythic.
Very few build websites have subclassed PvP builds.
Number of build videos also decreased after subclassing and some are questionable or garbage.
You need to understand builds yourself to know if the builds you find online are good or trash.

Artisian0001

Just wanted to note, there has not been a single prime time period where Vengeance has had a higher population than GH since both have been playable at the same time. I am counting for the actual population not just bar representation.

I don't know why the devs want to add vengeance, I assume just because they are not interested in finding an option to actually increase reliable performance, but introducing a whole new system that's vastly unpopular doesn't make much sense to me either. I hope one day the people working on the game can have an actual honest conversation about why they do the things they do. It is very evident the people that frequent the forums and have the most comments and complain/make every thread they can relate to some issue they have with PvP are not an actual representation of the PvP community.

ToddIngram

xylena wrote: »

ToddIngram wrote: »

And why should someone who admits to only playing one week/month have a louder voice in the direction for the game than those of us who still play daily?

You really wanna compare the size of our uh, playtimes? Good luck

Sure. I for sure have more time in game than you have. You basically haven't played for the last year and you missed a few months before that while moving to the east coast etc. You've been playing less and less since about 2022. I know who I'm talking to, and I for sure have more time in game than you. You'd think I'd be better at the game for someone who has so much time invested, but that's a different discussion.

My main account has over 3000 CP. And my two other accounts I created when faction lock was implemented so I could play with friends on any faction at any time both have over 2100 CP. No need for faction change tokens for me. I have an account for each faction.

I doubt I have more time in game than anyone else, but I'm definitely in the running.

ToddIngram

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Just wanted to note, there has not been a single prime time period where Vengeance has had a higher population than GH since both have been playable at the same time. I am counting for the actual population not just bar representation.

I don't know why the devs want to add vengeance, I assume just because they are not interested in finding an option to actually increase reliable performance, but introducing a whole new system that's vastly unpopular doesn't make much sense to me either. I hope one day the people working on the game can have an actual honest conversation about why they do the things they do. It is very evident the people that frequent the forums and have the most comments and complain/make every thread they can relate to some issue they have with PvP are not an actual representation of the PvP community.

Tonight is the third night in a row that Grey Host has been pop locked while vengeance only has one bar. Not sure how ZOS is going to be able to spin the side by side comparison at this point. The vast majority of people will play Grey Host when given the choice between Grey Host and vengeance.

xylena

ToddIngram wrote: »

You basically haven't played for the last year and you missed a few months before that while moving to the east coast etc. You've been playing less and less since about 2022. I know who I'm talking to.

ToddIngram wrote: »

And why should someone who admits to only playing one week/month have a louder voice in the direction for the game than those of us who still play daily?

Looks like you answered your own question. Other players remember more about my ESO career than I do. Dunno who you are though, sorry.

YandereGirlfriend

Lord_Hev wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

because you like mindless template PvP

It’s a time sink, when it’s not, guess what, people won’t sink their time into it and it’ll die out.

Come fight me on Vengeance and see if that holds true.

Players sink time into what they find fun. Not homework. There's good reason ESO, WoW, and FF14 have all been relaxing grind requirements in favor of accessibility. If you want 00s era competitive grind, you're on the wrong game. Maybe try some K-MMOs.

Surely you remember the golden days of pvp? It was ironically during a time when ESO -was- a hardcore grind game. I think the concept of a grind has been misconstrued. The way I see it, it has been the casualification of a lot of the "grind" systems that actually turned pvp into the sweat-fest it is now. Consider the ease of building all the hyper-specialized min-max set-ups. The only time sink is transmute crystals, but all gear is now universally accessible. I'd argue that a hardcore grind mechanic-philosophy actually casualifies the game more.

Now of course, there is also the issue that this was a timeframe where the only established meta was centered around stat balance due to the limit of proc sets amongst several other factors. And right now, there is a plethora of these sets that have in their own vacuum caused and continue to cause issues. But what if transmutation never existed? What if reconstruction never existed? What if people had to actually grind all these ridiculous hyper min-max'd soulless builds that have zero personalization and creativity? I'd wager the playing field right now would be more level.

The super sweats would be the ones that have the energy and time-sink to grind them out, as it has always been. But for the rest? They would settle for craftable and more easily accessible options, as it had been. This also goes into this whole "equal-playing field" argument, and I believe that sentiment actually ruined the game. And I will use my anecdotal experience with you Xylena. I have fond memories of squaring off against your DK: completely off-meta, a stamdk. And you were a nightmare to fight against. Again, this was delicate balance as the most "meta" one could go largely revolved around "stat balance" the game under-the-hood was also very different, but I hope the point I'm making, makes sense. A hardcore grind isn't inherently bad if it's done within reason. The vast plethora of sets now, the "bloat" all the other under-the-hood decisions in conjunction with transmutes allowing "build however you want, ultimate casual freedom" has enabled some of the most sweat-fest hyper min-max'd metas of all of eso's time. These have all "added up" over time.

HARD disagree that things like Transmutation and Reconstruction have been bad additions to the game. That's a wild take!

Don't overthink it, the answer is staring everyone in the face - it's balance, it's always been balance, it always will be balance. We have had basically an AFK approach to combat balance, especially in PvP, for the last 3+ years, maybe even longer.

I remember joining the game back in Summerset and the patch notes were PHAT and loaded with thoughtful tweaks and comments. Nowadays, we have patch notes and they contain like 6 combat tweaks, most of which are changing magic numbers from round numbers to weird spreadsheet-ified values (e.g. 600 to 613 or some such) that just completely miss the forest for the trees.

ZOS drew the wrong conclusions from the disastrous Scalebreaker patch. Players are fine with changes provided that those changes are thoughtful and being done for an accepted purpose. Scalebreaker itself was rejected because the changes were massive and completely nonsensical. We had a few more out-of-touch, whiplash patches after that, with seemingly no goal for what was being done apart from pleasing the master spreadsheet. Then they just threw up their hands and said, okay, it is what it is now and we are making only minor alterations.

We will never have balance as long as the spreadsheet is this strange deity that constantly needs pleasing. Because the spreadsheet, and the ratios defined within it, are wrong and incorrectly set. Thus, anything work product that flows from the spreadsheet is wrong and incorrectly set. Anyone who plays the game at a reasonable level knows this. In some alternate dimension where SkinnyCheeks is driving the bus on balance we wouldn't be having this conversation at all because this issue would already have been solved.

In any case, for all the folk blaming systems that they don't like or whatever - that ain't it. We simply need to ask the combat team to step it up with the quantity and quality of their work product. And they... seemingly are? Sometimes leadership does matter and the new guy seems to understand that the ways of the past need to change. So, IMO, there's finally a reason for optimism after a fairly bleak spree of years. Hopefully they will deliver.