Vengeance – An Unsustainable False Positive

minnowfaun · June 26

The Vengeance test mode experience is not what you’ll get should it become a live playable mode. Here’s why.

During Vengeance (Round 1) many players new to Cyro and even the Lead PVP Developer have said “this” is what we want to see.* It seems that the ‘record population’ was being conflated with success and popularity when in fact, the high population was manufactured.

Tactics Driving Record Population

Novelty – new things almost always enjoy and immediate surge in popularity. However, this is short lived as the ‘new-shiny’ feeling fades.
Scarcity – with availability of only one week, players flocked to Cyro to see what was happening. Should a Vengeance mode become available all the time it will lose the scarcity driving factor as well.
Belonging – Being a part of something, ex. ‘let’s test this together’ tends to drive up participation as people become invested in an outcome. When tests are over the motivation to ‘be a part of something’ will subside.

Additional Forced Population Tactics

Restricted Choice - Vengeance was the only Cyro campaign available. The only way to potentially maintain the population level is to only offer one campaign.
Golden Pursuits – The GPs that coincided with Vengeance were Cyro driven, forcing even more people into the campaign. Players strive to complete GPs for a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with loving PVP. In fact, the desire to complete the GP can compel even a PVP hater to go into Cyro.

Fading Excitement

After the first four days, as GPs were completed and the novelty wore off, you could see the population decline. Had there been other Cyro options you would have seen even fewer players in the Vengeance Campaign.

For those of you who think Vengeance should be a live playable mode, as we enter into Vengeance Round 2, be mindful of the tactics that are manufacturing excitement and high population. Try to imagine what it will be like without all the hype. This will give you a more realistic view of what you could be left with.

And yes, I do understand that Vengeance is supposed to be a test mode only. However, seeing the Lead PVP Developer and many others (especially players who don’t regularly PVP) say “this” is what we want to see* concerns me enough to write this. I’m deeply concerned that the manufactured population popularity is clouding people’s judgment.

*Paraphrased from stream - https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2429316140?filter=archives&sort=time

Pixiepumpkin · June 26

Vengeance is a stellar good game mode for Cryrodiil.

The issue is not the gameplay, the issue is the lack of meaningful rewards. ESO has a terrible rewards structure in it's entirety (because they'd rather sell you the item on the crownstore/through crowncrates).

If Vengeance gave out meaningful rewards, then a ton of people would play it. Without those, I agree that it will die down significantly after people get burned doing the same thing over and over without any real reward.

But the no skill, no armor gameplay....is spot on, ESPECIALLY now with subclassing. Most folks do not like being free deaths to hardcore players. That chases them away from the game/from cyrodiil.

Credible_Joe · June 26

Cyrodiil as it is now is the most discouraging experience a new player can possibly have when considering PvP activities. While it's always possible to contribute to campaign score and large conflicts through support and siege at any level, the knowledge that you will always lose to more experienced players and being relegated to this role for literal years is punishing to the point of disincentivizing the experience entirely.

Every other activity in game has a clear progression path from introduction to expert. PvP in ESO throws you in with zero indication on how to compete, and navigating the available information online (none of which being official) is a maze of conflicting and outdated opinions from competing sources.

The population we saw in the previous vengeance test was not entirely manufactured. I believe A huge portion of it was casual players jumping at the chance to engage with this system on an even playing field.

No gear diff. No champion points diff. No stress about optimizing gear traits and weapon enchants. The prospect of having a chance against anyone you see on the field and knowing victory or defeat is driven by skill and ally support is what's attractive about Vengeance.

I disagree with the assertion that the novelty will wear off and Vengeance would be abandoned if it were added as a Cyrodiil queue. It would be the only available PvP activity that isn't defined by number optimization. It would therefore be the most attractive option for players that aren't inclined to spend hours, days, or weeks crafting a build, or even months and years building up the account foundation needed to compete at the highest levels.

From that point, players would gain experience fighting other players and gain practical, useful experience in PvP. They would be more inclined to join standard Cyrodiil knowing the difference between a skill diff defeat and a gear diff defeat. Which, in turn, would contribute to a surplus of PvP players overall.

TL;DR: PvP in ESO is not accessible, and Vengeance offers accessibility, which would be good for the health of the PvP community overall.

xylena_lazarow · June 26

minnowfaun wrote: »

After the first four days, as GPs were completed and the novelty wore off, you could see the population decline.

And yet it was still many times more populated than Live has been in years. There's zero excitement around PvP on Live, just despair over a shrinking population and endless broken game mechanics, and that isn't going to change.

Highwayman · June 26

Vengeance should 100% replace the under 50 campaign. I had great experiences from under 50 in 2017 that new players just can't get there today.

It would provide a place where less experienced players can feel they contribute. More importantly, it provides an on-ramp for for players into pvp and potentially an on-ramp for new players into the game.

I'd love to see the mode added to battlegrounds too.

The only downside I can see is all the easiest kills will run off to another campaign. I'm fine with that though.

xylena_lazarow · June 26

Highwayman wrote: »

The only downside I can see is all the easiest kills will run off to another campaign.

Jokes aside, the pool of players isn't a bell curve, there's a lot more on the bottom/noob/beginner side, so the accessibility of Vengeance automatically gives it a larger player base. High level players who are sick of broken numbers superseding combat skill expression are also attracted to Vengeance.

MagdaV · June 26

There was a massive queue each day of the campaign at all hours. There was not a fading interest to the degree you may think. Yes, it waned a bit, but not enough to create empty queues. As for the dev team making comments, they should. Vengeance proved that PvP COULD be a massively popular thing. The complaints I mostly saw about the campaign came from those who could 1.) no longer be in a ball group 2.) those who spend their time trolling and picking off people with "unfair" advantages 3.) alpha players who didn't like new players having a fair shot.

I agree with others; PvP, as is, is a dead trend. Change has to happen to bring players back. There is no point in having "the most awesome NB gank build" or the "meta build" if there is no one to PvP against. They have made adjustments to this latest round of testing, and they will likely continue to make changes for future rounds. Complaining about the bare minimum test that was essentially turning everything off to see where the actual issues are, is a bit disingenuous IMO. That testing gave them a point to start with to create a better experience for ALL, not just the "best."

CalamityCat · June 26

That's a lot of words for "I don't want a permanent Vengence mode"

All players want to enjoy PvP without lag. With some semblance of balance so they feel they stand a chance. As opposed to being obliterated so fast it's nearly impossible to do anything, let alone learn from the experience. That's how PvP is for new players a lot of the time IMHO.

So the enthusiasm for Vengence is absolutely not all about being forced/manipulated into playing it. I've never heard an ESO player asking for more lag, exploits and stupidly OP builds. No new PvPer has said, "I want to die in <1 second or crash and have to re-queue before I even get a fight. I want to run on foot between every battle! That's the Cyrodiil I'm here for!"

hoangdz · June 26

Vengeance Cyrodiil with only the base version of all of our current skills that also conform to the Vengeance rules would solve literally all of the problems the last test had.

1) More skills to choose from? Check
2) Actual stam/mag and ranged/melee variations? Check
3) No level or stat advantage? Check
4) No gear advantage? Check
5) Less lag? Check
6) No broken mechanics? Check
7) Can hop on a new account and participate? Check

It’s everything a PvPer wants for a PvP campaign.
People can literally tell their buddies to buy the game and hop in PvP right away. No need to go through the massive barrier to entry and grinding. Why would anybody not want that?

hoangdz · June 26

If anything, they should make 2 Vengeance campaigns so we don’t have to wait in a 100 queue everyday to enjoy PvP lmao.

Highwayman · June 26

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Jokes aside, the pool of players isn't a bell curve

To be fair, I was double spec bowing people while in proc sets all day yesterday, even at range on a melee brawler setup. They really need to fix that.

Farstrider + monomyth is pretty busted too, just to put that out there.

Desiato · June 26

The bottom line is game developers have to right-size their gameplay to their technology. This has never been the case with Cyrodiil which is why the server-side performance has been abysmal. Their server tech simply cannot keep up with the gameplay. I doubt any server tech could.

Their choice is to either give Cyrodiil its own gameplay tailored to the server or nerfing their gameplay across the board.

ZOS should have implemented this concept years ago.

xylena_lazarow · June 26

Highwayman wrote: »

monomyth is pretty busted

FTFY. That ring exists solely so PvP whales have something to chase in Solstice. Not me this time, paywalling so much vertical stat progression specifically for meta PvP builds is yet another reason for me to move to Vengeance.

I get the whole power fantasy of blowing up opponents with broken gear, done it myself for years, but when it's at the point where players on the other end are quitting instead of coming back to zerg me down, there's a problem.

MorallyBipolar · June 26

minnowfaun wrote: »

The Vengeance test mode experience is not what you’ll get should it become a live playable mode. Here’s why.

During Vengeance (Round 1) many players new to Cyro and even the Lead PVP Developer have said “this” is what we want to see.* It seems that the ‘record population’ was being conflated with success and popularity when in fact, the high population was manufactured.

Tactics Driving Record Population

Novelty – new things almost always enjoy and immediate surge in popularity. However, this is short lived as the ‘new-shiny’ feeling fades.
Scarcity – with availability of only one week, players flocked to Cyro to see what was happening. Should a Vengeance mode become available all the time it will lose the scarcity driving factor as well.
Belonging – Being a part of something, ex. ‘let’s test this together’ tends to drive up participation as people become invested in an outcome. When tests are over the motivation to ‘be a part of something’ will subside.

Additional Forced Population Tactics

Restricted Choice - Vengeance was the only Cyro campaign available. The only way to potentially maintain the population level is to only offer one campaign.
Golden Pursuits – The GPs that coincided with Vengeance were Cyro driven, forcing even more people into the campaign. Players strive to complete GPs for a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with loving PVP. In fact, the desire to complete the GP can compel even a PVP hater to go into Cyro.

Fading Excitement

After the first four days, as GPs were completed and the novelty wore off, you could see the population decline. Had there been other Cyro options you would have seen even fewer players in the Vengeance Campaign.

For those of you who think Vengeance should be a live playable mode, as we enter into Vengeance Round 2, be mindful of the tactics that are manufacturing excitement and high population. Try to imagine what it will be like without all the hype. This will give you a more realistic view of what you could be left with.

And yes, I do understand that Vengeance is supposed to be a test mode only. However, seeing the Lead PVP Developer and many others (especially players who don’t regularly PVP) say “this” is what we want to see* concerns me enough to write this. I’m deeply concerned that the manufactured population popularity is clouding people’s judgment.

*Paraphrased from stream - https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2429316140?filter=archives&sort=time

Couldn't have said it better.

It feels like ZOS is planning on making vengeance mode the only option at some point and that would be a huge blunder in my view.

MorallyBipolar · June 26

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

minnowfaun wrote: »

After the first four days, as GPs were completed and the novelty wore off, you could see the population decline.

And yet it was still many times more populated than Live has been in years. There's zero excitement around PvP on Live, just despair over a shrinking population and endless broken game mechanics, and that isn't going to change.

It very well might change if ZOS just made a couple changes we've been asking for for years now. Specifically limited heal and shield stacking and removing or radically changing RoA.

So the real question is why hasn't ZOS made any effort to even discuss these numerous feedback requests?

The biggest disappointment to the PvP Q&A was how committed the devs seemed to making vengeance mode the primary focus going forward, which convinced me that's going to be the only option at some point. Why hasn't ZOS made any changes at all to live PvP again?

Highwayman · June 26

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Highwayman wrote: »

monomyth is pretty busted

FTFY. That ring exists solely so PvP whales have something to chase in Solstice. Not me this time, paywalling so much vertical stat progression specifically for meta PvP builds is yet another reason for me to move to Vengeance.

I get the whole power fantasy of blowing up opponents with broken gear, done it myself for years, but when it's at the point where players on the other end are quitting instead of coming back to zerg me down, there's a problem.

Saint is just as bad damage wise, it just requires a little more finesse. It's really the back bar major protection freeing up a slot for me that makes it shine. They could make that minor protection and it would be dead in the water.

MorallyBipolar · June 26

Desiato wrote: »

The bottom line is game developers have to right-size their gameplay to their technology. This has never been the case with Cyrodiil which is why the server-side performance has been abysmal. Their server tech simply cannot keep up with the gameplay. I doubt any server tech could.

Their choice is to either give Cyrodiil its own gameplay tailored to the server or nerfing their gameplay across the board.

ZOS should have implemented this concept years ago.

Except the servers used to keep up just fine. What changed?

Desiato · June 26

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

The bottom line is game developers have to right-size their gameplay to their technology. This has never been the case with Cyrodiil which is why the server-side performance has been abysmal. Their server tech simply cannot keep up with the gameplay. I doubt any server tech could.

Their choice is to either give Cyrodiil its own gameplay tailored to the server or nerfing their gameplay across the board.

ZOS should have implemented this concept years ago.

Except the servers used to keep up just fine. What changed?

The servers kept up fine for a couple of months when almost everyone was low level and barely knew how to play.

You can browse through the old Alliance War forum yourself. Widespread complaints about performance issues started in July 2014. Players were patient at first, expecting ZOS to iron out the bugs. By August 2014 it was already untenable.

And no, it wasn't "anticheat measures". There is zero evidence ZOS regineered their gameplay to move calculations from the client to the server as many will tell you. Zazeergate happened in 2016 and performance was already bad then and remained bad after. They addressed the specific methods used then, but did not ever solve the underlying issue. ESO has very poor cheat mitigation: usermode checks and obfuscation. Should Cyrodiill ever become actually popular as a PVP game, they would have to add modern anticheat like every other successful pvp game. Had they actually significantly re-engineered the gameplay on the fly (not really possible) it would have been night and day noticeable.

As the average APM of players increased over the years, ZOS responded by steadily reducing the player caps to what they are now -- which some players think is around 10% of the original cap. Keep in mind hardly anyone could LA weave before target dummies were introduced in 2017. There is a greater percentage of skilled players in Cyrodiil now than ever probably. Skilled high APM players who are highly mobile stress the server MUCH more than some dude standing motionless on a wall heavy attacking.

The best I have ever personally seen a poplocked main campaign perform was when I returned to ESO after a long break in 2024. This was after the server upgrade and before scribing, but it was still awful. Scribing made it far worse.

Here's a post I made about the rose colored glasses people see Cyrodiil's past through:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/658524/the-glory-days-of-cyrodiil/p1

MorallyBipolar · June 26

Desiato wrote: »

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

The bottom line is game developers have to right-size their gameplay to their technology. This has never been the case with Cyrodiil which is why the server-side performance has been abysmal. Their server tech simply cannot keep up with the gameplay. I doubt any server tech could.

Their choice is to either give Cyrodiil its own gameplay tailored to the server or nerfing their gameplay across the board.

ZOS should have implemented this concept years ago.

Except the servers used to keep up just fine. What changed?

The servers kept up fine for a couple of months when almost everyone was low level and barely knew how to play.

You can browse through the old Alliance War forum yourself. Widespread complaints about performance issues started in July 2014. Players were patient at first, expecting ZOS to iron out the bugs. By August 2014 it was already untenable.

As the average APM of players increased over the years, ZOS responded by reducing the player caps to what they are now -- which some players think is around 10% of the original cap. Keep in mind hardly anyone could LA weave before target dummies were introduced in 2017. There is a greater percentage of skilled players in Cyrodiil now than ever probably. Skilled high APM players who are highly mobile stress the server MUCH more than some dude standing motionless on a wall heavy attacking.

The best I have ever personally seen a poplocked main campaign perform was when I returned to ESO after a long break. This was after the server upgrade and before scribing, but it was still awful. Scribing made it far worse.

Here's a post I made about the rose colored glasses people see Cyrodiil's past through:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/658524/the-glory-days-of-cyrodiil/p1

I've been PvP main since 2015. The glory days were 2016-2019. These problems with live PvP were created by ZOS, they can fix them if they try hard enough.

Stamicka · June 26

Things really can't get worse than the current Cyrodiil experience tbh. Most of the map is usually dead cause the population caps are so low. Even with low population caps the performance is still rough. There's tons and tons of free damage from status effects and procs, there's heal stacking, pulls in every fight, and honestly a lot of investment needed to even get your foot in the door.

Accessibility is a huge issue when it comes to PvP and the issue gets worse and worse each patch. Personally speaking, I find myself logging out before I even get into Cyrodiil because I'm missing leveled subclass skill lines, mythics, gear sets, and I still haven't leveled scribing. There's so much I would have to get done before I would be on equal footing with other players. With the current state of Cyrodiil though, it's just not worth investing all of that.

I think that Vengeance had some major balance issues and it was far too simplified, but it solved the performance issue, the accessibility issue, and the low population cap issue. I actually found myself logging on for PvP and having a good time. I've even returned from months of time off to experience this next Vengeance test. It has it's issues, but it's better than a laggy, empty, and inaccessible Cyrodiil by far.

You also mentioned that novelty and scarcity were some of the only reasons that Vengeance had good turn out. I don't agree. I think that Vengeance was more successful than the most recent Whitestrake's Mayhem which also benefits from novelty and scarcity. Whitestrake's has been getting less turn out with each successive event and the drop off after day 2 was far worse than Vengeance.

Current Cyrodiil just isn't retaining or attracting players and I get why. New players have 100 different hurdles to jump through before they can have a good experience in PvP. If they do enter, they probably just get pulled in by a set and explode over and over. So whether the developers go the Vengeance route or keep the same Cyrodiil, there's big issues either way. I think that Vengeance has easier issues to fix by far though.

Estin · June 26

Even on the last day, vengeance had an hour+ queue time during prime time, and I think the upper limit was 350 people per alliance. It definitely wasn't because of novelty, people did genuinely enjoy it.

I would agree that Vengeance v0.1 got stale after an hour because it was only a numbers game, there was class imbalances, and there wasn't much difference between battles. That was to be expected, though. Vengeance v0.2 is adding more skill lines that will mostly only affect class imbalances and nothing else, but I don't see that as a bad thing. I would rather for variety to be implemented first before the numbers game is addressed. If v0.3 added racials and passives, and v0.4 added stat sets, then Vengeance wouldn't be as bad and boring as some people think it is. I would go as far and say that it'll be better than Live. The rest of the iterations should then focus on making large scale sieges a lot less boring than it was.

minnowfaun · June 26

CalamityCat wrote: »

That's a lot of words for "I don't want a permanent Vengence mode"

Ummm, No. It's a lot of words for the potential permanent Vengeance mode they're selling isn't the one you're going to end up with. Apply critical thinking.

Tbf, I don't want there to be ONLY a permanent Vengeance mode.

CalamityCat wrote: »

All players want to enjoy PvP without lag. With some semblance of balance so they feel they stand a chance. As opposed to being obliterated so fast it's nearly impossible to do anything, let alone learn from the experience. That's how PvP is for new players a lot of the time IMHO.

I agree with you. And I think that, Vengance as it stands is not the answer, but that's another post.

CalamityCat wrote: »

So the enthusiasm for Vengence is absolutely not all about being forced/manipulated into playing it. I've never heard an ESO player asking for more lag, exploits and stupidly OP builds. No new PvPer has said, "I want to die in <1 second or crash and have to re-queue before I even get a fight. I want to run on foot between every battle! That's the Cyrodiil I'm here for!"

I never said it was. There's genuine excitement as well. Personally, I'd love to see a limit on heal stacks as well as a few other things.

But with Vengeance as it stands I was bored by Thursday. With the exception of a few small scale battles it was just follow the zerg and leech.

tsaescishoeshiner · June 26

The high population in Vengeance wasn't what made it successful. It was how amazingly performant it was (compared to regular Cyrodiil) with massive amounts of people present.

So the tactics to increase the number of players weren't some manipulative scheme, but an intentional way to stress-test the performance changes. This was the stated intent and is pretty clear.

It might or might not be a good mode if it launched permanently as it was the first test, but the whole point was to test what's straining performance and how to improve it.

Concerns about long-term interest in Vengeance being a permanent mode are valid, but there's more being added for the next test. I for one think I enjoyed it more than regular Cyrodiil, though I would miss my item set options that make a build feel more unique.

Radiate77 · June 26

Not having been able to test this last time on my PC, how was Vengeance’s TTK?

Were fights extremely dragged out, or were 100-0 burst combos still possible? Playing primarily on console, it sucks that we don’t get to experience the test campaign, or even have an educated say on whether we would want an update like that.

sarahthes · June 26

Man I just want to go back to 24 man pug zergs and massive 3 way fights. But without getting stuck running in place while waiting for the next "cell" to load.

CalamityCat · June 26

minnowfaun wrote: »

Ummm, No. It's a lot of words for the potential permanent Vengeance mode they're selling isn't the one you're going to end up with. Apply critical thinking.

Tbf, I don't want there to be ONLY a permanent Vengeance mode.

Apply critical thinking? They're still testing the thing so without having a crystal ball, no player can say what options we'll have in Cyrodill. I don't need to say as much. There is always also the option for some completely unpredictable screw up option that nobody asked for/wanted.

Rungar · June 26

im pretty sure what they wanted to see was a lot of players and the game actually working. Round 2 they will likely add more things back in and keep doing that until it breaches one of their goals. Then whatever that is is likely what it will have to be.

seems like a logical approach so i cant fault them on this.

Marto · June 26

OP, you have entirely misunderstood the point of the Vengeance PVP test.

The point of the test wasn't to get loads of players just for the fun of it. The point was to find when, where, and why server performance becomes degraded as a function of player counts.

Does the server lag at 300, 600, or 1000 players? Is the performance worse if the players are all in the same place? By how much? 20%, 50%, 5%?

It's very likely that ZOS will adopt a permanent Vengeance mode. But we don't know what shape that will take. And the devs don't know either.
Will the inclusion of weapon skills make it perform better or worse? Will it make it more or less fun? We don't know, and they don't know.

The final shape and quality of this "Permanent Vengeance mode" is still an unknown.

LadyGP · June 26

I feel like the majority of the people in this thread are just talking past each other to be honest. Most people I've seen who have an opinion on Cyro or Veng are dead set in their views and really burnt by ball groups, zergs, one shots, etc - everyone has "their thing" they can't stand.

"This is what we want to see" can mean a lot of things.

Did Brian mean it in the, "there are (making up a number) 1,000 people in Cyro right now vs the 250 cap (we think it's 250 but have no idea)?

Did Brian mean it in the, "overall balance is pretty even - no one really has an edge"?

Did Brian mean it in the, "(ball) groups can't run 3 siege per person so they can't back cap a keep and run a farm inside near as easy"?

Did Brian mean it in the, "there aren't bombers anymore" sense?

Did Brian mea it in the, "because of the changes fights are harder to win so we can extend what would have been a 20 minute fight into 5 hours" (fwiw that chal fight was intense AF and I loved it)?

or Did Brian mean it in the, "performance is damn good, we have tons of players in, and there are battles all over the map simultaneously"?

We can all take a guess but we don't know - my two cents is that its mostly the last point, with a sprinkle of all the rest on top.

Do I enjoy the fact that class identity and build identity isn't as important as it used to be - absolutely not.

Do I enjoy the fact that I can no longer run a ball group because of how simple the builds are now - absolutely not (before you roast me I think ball groups are way OP and heal stacking and AOEs need to dramatically be tuned in a way that makes running a ball group significantly more challenging).

Do I enjoy the fact that because they reduced the complexity of skills it made performance the best I've ever seen it while also making cyro full of the most people I have ever seen - absofrigginlutely.

Now, to address the "barrier to entry" for the newbs who want to get into cyro - yeah if you go into live right now... you're going to get demolished and I'd be willing to bet the analytics behind new players in cyro who return for a second attempt are significantly low.

THIS IS WHERE VENGANCE SHOULD COME INTO PLAY.

IMO - vengeance in it's current form (templates) should be either the U50 or it's own camp. Remove all the other ones and just have Grayhost and then Vengeance. "Skill" isn't as important in this camp and it's the perfect way to have a blast while being lazy (or learning how to PvP) without it being demoralizing.

Future Grayhost should have reworked skills/sets/buffs/cp/siege so the math is reduced substantially so performance is good but allows the hardcore regulars to still have the play style/identity they want.

If I had to guess... this last point is what "we want to see" and what their end goal is.

MasterSpatula · June 26

For me, PVP's biggest problem isn't lag; it's imbalance. Vengeance addressed both.

There were lots of things missing in Vengeance that I genuinely missed from PVP, but none of them could outweigh the sheer joy of tanky builds no longer doing the same damage as glass cannons, not getting bulldozed by untouchable ball groups, and actually being able to repair doors without worrying about getting bombed while I was stuck in an animation and unable to respond.

It feels, to me, like much of the hostility to Vengeance comes from those who are upset that Vengeance doesn't allow them to do the precise thing that killed all the joy in PVP for me.

xylena_lazarow · June 26

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

It very well might change if ZOS just made a couple changes we've been asking for for years now. Specifically limited heal and shield stacking and removing or radically changing RoA.

So the real question is why hasn't ZOS made any effort to even discuss these numerous feedback requests?

Their answer is Vengeance. It solves the performance in addition to all these meta problems. There's so much to fix that it's more efficient to start over, why keep trying to fix a sinking ship with duct tape, it's still sinking.