JustLovely wrote: »

No thanks. We don't need or want vengeance. Most of us PvP mains absolutely despise vengeance and ZOS' apparent intent to have vengeance replace the PvP we already have instead of fixing it.

L_Nici wrote: »

If they really test them alongside each other, thats finally the first representative Vengeance test. If there is only one campaign of course everyone would be in that one campaign, with the choice given we will see how popular Vengeance actually is among those who regulary play PvP.

aetherix8 wrote: »

Could keeping Vengeance 4 on live be viable?
Let's say, once V4 is on live in December, it remains accessible until after the V5 PTS testing. Then, if necessary, it goes down for a week or two to allow for adding new features.
Would it lead to an avalanche of support tickets about corrupted characters and items missing from inventories?
Would it make players complain about new features because they got used to a certain ruleset?
Would it trigger even more complaints about unbalanced classes and skills?

Joy_Division wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

No thanks. We don't need or want vengeance. Most of us PvP mains absolutely despise vengeance and ZOS' apparent intent to have vengeance replace the PvP we already have instead of fixing it.

The OP's suggestion had nothing to do with replacing GH. They specifically said "alongside Grey Host." GH would still be there for you and Vengeance's critics. That you still object speaks volumes. You're just going to come onto these forums update after update after update always complaining about how much you hate Vengeance and will accept nothing else, even when your precious GH is still there for you to play. Vengeance's critics whine about being forced to played Vengeance, but they have no problem forcing the rest of us to stay in broken GH.

How long from the time that they add a permanent vengeance campaign until they shut down the normal live cyrodiil do you think?

If we look at Cyrodiil's decade+ long history, its quite clear ZOS only shuts down campaigns that hardly anyone plays. And by hardly anyone, I mean hardly anyone. IC has been dead for years and years and ZOS went out of their way to offer a no CP version of it. 5 of the 6 PvP campaigns are strictly niche and have been for quite a long time and are still there. There isn't any real reason to shut these down because they can just leave them up, unsupported and on autopilot, knowing that the few remaining PvP oriented players are so attached to the game, they'll just continue to log onto those campaigns.

Even when the default ESO went to the champion point system, ZOS still went out of its way to offer a PvP campaign with no CP. In fact, the default Battleground setting is no CP. So ZOS has a decade long history of catering to niche audience to maintain PvP systems that are completely different to how the default game works.

This could be interpreted both ways. 1. Vengeance is the niche/different PvP system ZOS would accommodate. 2. Vengeance is the new default PvP system, and GH would become the niche/different offering. Either way, ZOS's history would suggest support for both at the same time.

I did hear during the Livestream that even though ZOS was thinking of making Battlegrounds like Vengeance, they also said that IC would continue to be what it is now, i,e, non-Vengeance. That is the horse's mouth saying that ZOS is still planning to support ESO PvP as it currently is. If there are these masses of hardcore ESO PvP players out in the woodworks and in your discords who absolutely can't stand Vengeance and would populate GH, then it's clear from the evidence and history we have available, GH would remain an option. Which again, is what the OP said.

No. ZOS isn't going to support two different versions of cyodiil long term. They're just not going to. Sooner or later it will be one or the other, and vengeance isn't going to fly with the current PvP players, and the PvE players won't play vengeance either. They don't like PvP or they'd already be playing it.

Why is this so hard to understand for the vengeance supporters? This is why vengeance has to be opposed in every possible way at every opportunity.

ZOS has supported different versions of PvP.

Even if what you said was true, it's one way or the other, you are basically telling the Vengeance supporters, "Too bad. There can only be one version of PvP. Even though the current version has a tiny player base, that is the one that you will play." Like, OK, why are we having this discussion? You don't care what others want. You aren't even willing to give people the choice of what to play. It's awfully rich to hear Vengeance haters constantly come onto these forums and whine that they are being forced for a week to test Vengeance when your perspective is to permanently force everyone to play ESO's PvP as it is now, without even giving them the option of something else.

I can only speak for myself, but I have never said that GH or ZOS's current version of PvP should be shut down and people forced to play Vengeance. The most common thing I have heard is that Vengeance should replace the under 50 campaign as the new introductory way for people to learn or become more experienced in PvP. If anything, I would think the GH diehards would want that arrangement because the current barrier to entry to be a decent GH PvPer is so high and intimidating that the number of replacement players they get is so small. It would a quick, easy, low stress, low pressure environment to get more of ESO's population playing PvP