MorallyBipolar wrote: »
That's because you're not a PvP player.
The problem is that ZOS is acting like their intention is to make vengeance the only PvP option in Cyrodiil just like they made 2 team BG's the only option.
The current Cyrodiil isn't bringing any new players to PvP either. On the contrary, even with drastically reduced pop caps GH isn't pop locked most of the time, BR is barely kicking and the other two campaigns are basically dead. It's been quite some time I didn't see PvPers complaining about queue lenghts. The last WSM saw the lowest participation ever, and I'm pretty sure PvEers got out as soon as they got their tickets from a single scouting quest, while before they used to hang around for much longer, be it in towns or in pugs.
ZOS is acting like their intention is to develop a new mode while saying they are just testing some performance fixes.
Vengeance haters are acting like the current Cyrodiil is so broken that there's nothing else to do but to scrap it entirely.
Vengeance was boring slow ***.
I say it again.. Don't make yourself illusions.
If you got steamrolled by a good player in regular GH then you'll also be steamrolled by good players during vengeance ✌🏻
Vengeance PC EU has 3 bars on all alliances at 9pm without any Vengeance goldenpursuit pullingin pve players but an undaunted golden pursuit and event pulling players out.SaffronCitrusflower 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?
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.
Then why did so many PvE players who hate GreyHost played and enjoyed Vengeance?
Them not playing PvP doesn’t mean they do not like any PvP, only that they dislike current PvP. Otherwise „GreyHost players don‘t like PvP or they would play Vengeance“ would be true. Players just like different version of PvP.
There are quite a few current and a lot more former PvPer preferring Vengeance (but that probably autoturns them into nonPvPer).
Nobody wanting to play Vengeance is „hard to understand“for Vengeance supporters because they’re living prove it is not true.
Well, at least you are realizing that vengeance is popular with the PvE community. The PvP community almost without exception hates vengeance. People who like PvP are already playing PvP. Vengeance will not, ever, under any circumstances, bring new players to ESO. It will do the opposite. It will drive away the few PvP players left.
And to answer your question, the PvE players populated vengeance because there was an associated Golden Pursuit. Once they had their pursuit completed they left and never came back.
Vengeance PC EU has 3 bars on all alliances at 9pm without any Vengeance goldenpursuit pullingin pve players but an undaunted golden pursuit and event pulling players out.
3 bars Vengeance are like 9 bars GreyHost so still enaugh to fill 2,5 normal campaigns which is more than ever fill outside event.
MincMincMinc wrote: »Vengeance is fine for a learning environment. Actually it is probably ideal for a learning environment in today's game. Early on ESO was far more vertical progression wise. Vertical progression had tiers to separate playerbases which is why we had u50 and then nocp and then you finally got to vetcp campaigns. However now that ESO is such a wide horizontal progression game there is no way to split up the playerbase. New players are cp160 within the first day if they want.
The only way to create those learning environments with horizontal progression is to cut back on systems. However at a certain point people wonder what systems are enabled? what about this or that? Which can be worse in some cases because it clouds the experience making the new player learn tons of more stuff just to play something that should be easier. This was the issue with the NOPROC nocp campaign. Even 10year vet players like me had to spend hours and hours testing random sets to see what worked. How can you expect new players to participate, who dont keep up with pts and patch notes or even read wiki pages and build editors.
IMO replacing the u50 and nocp campaign is a nobrainer, they are beyond dead. Then have two cp 30 day campaigns. Testing wise for proper data you NEED the ballgroup and vet CP guild group players though. THEY are the lag. How they play, the choices they make, the skills they prefer, the effects they choose. There will be very clear performance demand differences from ball group players vs lvl10 new players spamming light attack only.
The other major design hole we are seeing is right now vengeance now has its own system for stat changes. This was probably put in place to quickly allow players during testing to have build choice to some degree, while allowing zos to introduce and plug and play systems on demand. IMO they should have made the simple perk and loadout system MIMIC item sets and bonuses, mundus, enchants. As a training tool give new players a basic menu so they could learn about pairing item sets and quickly swap choices they would normally do ingame. Then start baking in each of the mundus, enchant, gear, item set bonus systems as they get vengeance reworks. Slowly greying them out in the vengeance test menu.
Vengeance PC EU has 3 bars on all alliances at 9pm without any Vengeance goldenpursuit pullingin pve players but an undaunted golden pursuit and event pulling players out.SaffronCitrusflower 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?
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.
Then why did so many PvE players who hate GreyHost played and enjoyed Vengeance?
Them not playing PvP doesn’t mean they do not like any PvP, only that they dislike current PvP. Otherwise „GreyHost players don‘t like PvP or they would play Vengeance“ would be true. Players just like different version of PvP.
There are quite a few current and a lot more former PvPer preferring Vengeance (but that probably autoturns them into nonPvPer).
Nobody wanting to play Vengeance is „hard to understand“for Vengeance supporters because they’re living prove it is not true.
Well, at least you are realizing that vengeance is popular with the PvE community. The PvP community almost without exception hates vengeance. People who like PvP are already playing PvP. Vengeance will not, ever, under any circumstances, bring new players to ESO. It will do the opposite. It will drive away the few PvP players left.
And to answer your question, the PvE players populated vengeance because there was an associated Golden Pursuit. Once they had their pursuit completed they left and never came back.
3 bars Vengeance are like 9 bars GreyHost so still enaugh to fill 2,5 normal campaigns which is more than ever fill outside event.
The 4th iteration of Vengeance in December will be available alongside Grey Host. Could it just stay on please? With more build possibilities, one week is simply too short to test them all. In order to avoid disappointments, it should be clearly indicated in the title, description, and all over the place that this is a test campaign, and as such, it is going to be updated on a regular basis with additional features until tests are concluded and a final version is achieved.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_Kevin
SaffronCitrusflower 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?
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.
Then why did so many PvE players who hate GreyHost played and enjoyed Vengeance?
Them not playing PvP doesn’t mean they do not like any PvP, only that they dislike current PvP. Otherwise „GreyHost players don‘t like PvP or they would play Vengeance“ would be true. Players just like different version of PvP.
There are quite a few current and a lot more former PvPer preferring Vengeance (but that probably autoturns them into nonPvPer).
Nobody wanting to play Vengeance is „hard to understand“for Vengeance supporters because they’re living prove it is not true.
Well, at least you are realizing that vengeance is popular with the PvE community. The PvP community almost without exception hates vengeance. People who like PvP are already playing PvP. Vengeance will not, ever, under any circumstances, bring new players to ESO. It will do the opposite. It will drive away the few PvP players left.
And to answer your question, the PvE players populated vengeance because there was an associated Golden Pursuit. Once they had their pursuit completed they left and never came back.
Realizing PvEr like it doesn’t mean PvPer do not.
Many players from both PvP and PvE clearly said they enjoyed Vengeance and not enjoy Grey Host. Many PvPer have stopped PvP because of issues nonexistent in Vengeance. Liking PvP doesn’t mean you like ballgroups, procsets, subclassing, metachasing or fights decided before they begin.
When PvEr miss out end of campaign reward they can also miss out golden pursuit giving only ap and gold. Golden pursuit can’t mobilize as many players as there were.
Does not playing Vengeance mean that you don’t like PvP because otherwise you would play Vengeance or does it mean you just do not like Vengeance? If it means you dislike only Vengeance and not all PvP than why does players not liking/playing Grey Host mean they dislike and won’t play Vengeance either?
(even when they said they like and play it)?
Except vengeance is in no way preparation for actual live PvP. It's templated no skill zergfest. That's NOT how to prepare someone to create and play builds.
Very hard to believe that the camp would be so popular on EU server and so hated on NA server. The PC NA servers are dead even during prime time right now.
The 4th iteration of Vengeance in December will be available alongside Grey Host. Could it just stay on please? With more build possibilities, one week is simply too short to test them all. In order to avoid disappointments, it should be clearly indicated in the title, description, and all over the place that this is a test campaign, and as such, it is going to be updated on a regular basis with additional features until tests are concluded and a final version is achieved.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_Kevin
So why not play no-proc, no CP Ravenwatch like we used to have?
Seems like the CP and sets are the problem, well we had a solution, but ZOS took that away. No-Proc PVP was great.
BGs are No-CP, Cyrodiil should be the same. No super GOD MODE ultra fast, infinite sustain, infinite heals, corrosive ROFL LAWL PWN builds that we see constantly.
MincMincMinc wrote: »Vengeance is fine for a learning environment. Actually it is probably ideal for a learning environment in today's game. Early on ESO was far more vertical progression wise. Vertical progression had tiers to separate playerbases which is why we had u50 and then nocp and then you finally got to vetcp campaigns. However now that ESO is such a wide horizontal progression game there is no way to split up the playerbase. New players are cp160 within the first day if they want.
The only way to create those learning environments with horizontal progression is to cut back on systems. However at a certain point people wonder what systems are enabled? what about this or that? Which can be worse in some cases because it clouds the experience making the new player learn tons of more stuff just to play something that should be easier. This was the issue with the NOPROC nocp campaign. Even 10year vet players like me had to spend hours and hours testing random sets to see what worked. How can you expect new players to participate, who dont keep up with pts and patch notes or even read wiki pages and build editors.
IMO replacing the u50 and nocp campaign is a nobrainer, they are beyond dead. Then have two cp 30 day campaigns. Testing wise for proper data you NEED the ballgroup and vet CP guild group players though. THEY are the lag. How they play, the choices they make, the skills they prefer, the effects they choose. There will be very clear performance demand differences from ball group players vs lvl10 new players spamming light attack only.
The other major design hole we are seeing is right now vengeance now has its own system for stat changes. This was probably put in place to quickly allow players during testing to have build choice to some degree, while allowing zos to introduce and plug and play systems on demand. IMO they should have made the simple perk and loadout system MIMIC item sets and bonuses, mundus, enchants. As a training tool give new players a basic menu so they could learn about pairing item sets and quickly swap choices they would normally do ingame. Then start baking in each of the mundus, enchant, gear, item set bonus systems as they get vengeance reworks. Slowly greying them out in the vengeance test menu.
Except vengeance is in no way preparation for actual live PvP. It's templated no skill zergfest. That's NOT how to prepare someone to create and play builds.
MincMincMinc wrote: »Vengeance is fine for a learning environment. Actually it is probably ideal for a learning environment in today's game. Early on ESO was far more vertical progression wise. Vertical progression had tiers to separate playerbases which is why we had u50 and then nocp and then you finally got to vetcp campaigns. However now that ESO is such a wide horizontal progression game there is no way to split up the playerbase. New players are cp160 within the first day if they want.
The only way to create those learning environments with horizontal progression is to cut back on systems. However at a certain point people wonder what systems are enabled? what about this or that? Which can be worse in some cases because it clouds the experience making the new player learn tons of more stuff just to play something that should be easier. This was the issue with the NOPROC nocp campaign. Even 10year vet players like me had to spend hours and hours testing random sets to see what worked. How can you expect new players to participate, who dont keep up with pts and patch notes or even read wiki pages and build editors.
IMO replacing the u50 and nocp campaign is a nobrainer, they are beyond dead. Then have two cp 30 day campaigns. Testing wise for proper data you NEED the ballgroup and vet CP guild group players though. THEY are the lag. How they play, the choices they make, the skills they prefer, the effects they choose. There will be very clear performance demand differences from ball group players vs lvl10 new players spamming light attack only.
The other major design hole we are seeing is right now vengeance now has its own system for stat changes. This was probably put in place to quickly allow players during testing to have build choice to some degree, while allowing zos to introduce and plug and play systems on demand. IMO they should have made the simple perk and loadout system MIMIC item sets and bonuses, mundus, enchants. As a training tool give new players a basic menu so they could learn about pairing item sets and quickly swap choices they would normally do ingame. Then start baking in each of the mundus, enchant, gear, item set bonus systems as they get vengeance reworks. Slowly greying them out in the vengeance test menu.
Except vengeance is in no way preparation for actual live PvP. It's templated no skill zergfest. That's NOT how to prepare someone to create and play builds.
Very hard to believe that the camp would be so popular on EU server and so hated on NA server. The PC NA servers are dead even during prime time right now.
Not sure it is very popular on PC EU. Maybe it is just that EU folks are reasonable people trying to help ZOS fix Cyro's performance by participating in this test.