Love Vengeance, ideas without breaking performance

Nihilr

I love Vengeance, so does my husband.

But we discussed what seems lacking (and shouldn't hurt server performance):

• We should be able to place up to 2 wall/door siege. IE: 2 trebs, 2 ballistae, or 1 treb and 1 ballista like we have currently. Maybe include the Ram in this calc. This way it's not more siege placed, but is more useful for which inanimate-destroying siege that a player prefers?
• Player caps should be "smart" if the cap is going to be as high as 200 per alliance. So here's an example of flex-population needed (in order to keep the fights balanced like more like BG's) -- Ok so each alliance has 20 players on. The next player to queue has to wait until 1 player from the other alliance also queue before being let in. 1 too specific? Then make it +/- 2 player intervals. Basically the main problem anyone really has in Vengeance is that players can have 6x the population of other alliances and it kills the PvP experience. Right now, in Vengeance, the 1V1 and 1V2/2V1 experience is fairly balanced based on players roles/class. It's when it's 3V1 where it shows who is more or less experienced. Expand this concept to the whole camp and not just a 1 off fight, and 3X the population mostly kills PvP for the lower pop alliances. It's not a game, but slaughter and doesn't feel fun for anyone with sportsmanship principles. We're not here to revel in warcrimes. lol
• Expand the vengeance passives to 2 or 3 selections per color to really develop a playstyle. I wouldn't do more than 3 because then we're back to square one with server performance. I guess because more ≠ better. (edited to reflect correction)
• Maybe (JUST MAYBE) allow 1 set to be used. Not monster sets. Not antiquities. Just Overland base game sets, or crafted sets with <6 traits researched only.

If you don't do any of these things, totally justifiable. Still love Vengeance more than the standard servers. So thank you regardless.

edit: Was corrected about server performance and passives.

YandereGirlfriend

Nihilr wrote: »

I love Vengeance, so does my husband.

But we discussed what seems lacking (and shouldn't hurt server performance):

• We should be able to place up to 2 wall/door siege. IE: 2 trebs, 2 ballistae, or 1 treb and 1 ballista like we have currently. Maybe include the Ram in this calc. This way it's not more siege placed, but is more useful for which inanimate-destroying siege that a player prefers?
• Player caps should be "smart" if the cap is going to be as high as 200 per alliance. So here's an example of flex-population needed (in order to keep the fights balanced like more like BG's) -- Ok so each alliance has 20 players on. The next player to queue has to wait until 1 player from the other alliance also queue before being let in. 1 too specific? Then make it +/- 2 player intervals. Basically the main problem anyone really has in Vengeance is that players can have 6x the population of other alliances and it kills the PvP experience. Right now, in Vengeance, the 1V1 and 1V2/2V1 experience is fairly balanced based on players roles/class. It's when it's 3V1 where it shows who is more or less experienced. Expand this concept to the whole camp and not just a 1 off fight, and 3X the population mostly kills PvP for the lower pop alliances. It's not a game, but slaughter and doesn't feel fun for anyone with sportsmanship principles. We're not here to revel in warcrimes. lol
• Expand the vengeance passives to 2 or 3 selections per color to really develop a playstyle. I wouldn't do more than 3 because then we're back to square one with server performance.
• Maybe (JUST MAYBE) allow 1 set to be used. Not monster sets. Not antiquities. Just Overland base game sets, or crafted sets with <6 traits researched only.

If you don't do any of these things, totally justifiable. Still love Vengeance more than the standard servers. So thank you regardless.

Many of the Vengeance passives, at least the ones that I remember looking at, do not really impact performance at all. Because they are one-time modifications of your character sheet values and not something dynamic that is constantly having to be recalculated or checked during each instance of an action or condition. They would be essentially Big O(1) operations in computer science terms.

So something like:

A. +X Spell Resistance -X Physical Resistance
B. +X Sprint Cost +Y Sprint Speed
C. +X Magicka -X Stamina

Are all essentially "free" after you select them at your home base. They perform a simple modification your character stats precisely once and then do nothing. And there is no recurring computational cost to have them selected. Honestly, you could allow players to select many more and the game would still play the same while having significantly more comparative build customization options.

These sorts of concepts would be beneficial to port over to regular PvE and PvP as well. And, from a best practices perspective, all game devs working on mechanics should have at least a surface-level understanding of algorithmic complexity (so, the "cost" of their ideas to implement) or else there should always be technical staff signing-off on any mechanical changes made to the game. One glance at the game's bloated passives, abilities, sets, etc. tells you that this has definitely not been the case historically.

LPapirius

If ZOS can't balance normal live Cyrodiil and make it work smoothly they can't do it with vengeance either.

Nihilr

LPapirius wrote: »

If ZOS can't balance normal live Cyrodiil and make it work smoothly they can't do it with vengeance either.

Vengeance has been balanced minus the population creep. Allowing 200 players against 2 alliances with only 20-40 players each is bad design.