MincMincMinc wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

Yes, beyond any doubt, flashy stuff trashes the PvE performance. But we know perfectly well by now that holy flashy procs aren’t the cause coz it was already tested, and removing them did not improve the performance in PvP at all, so why would that be any different in PvE. Therefore it must be the combo of flashy mechs being repeatedly flushed down by a flashy laser beam. It should all be just dimmed sepia, the same for PvP; that would work 100%. And only having the courage to port into a sepia dungeon should guarantee cool and unique (and flashy) rewards without having to complete it, but no quests, keys, or achievs. Ideally, should also run during BG weekends every month until further notice.

Well that's not entirely a silver bullet. They tested just removing proc sets which was not enough on its own to solve the issue. It is annoying that they never did a data stream for those tests like we saw after vengeance 1. Really this just points to a combination of systems being designed in a way to operate poorly together. Test wise this is probably why they thought going from the ground up was their better option since they could spend eternity implementing random combinations and rules to cut down ticks.

Lets say we have 1x button press which does an aoe that hits 10x people that does a dot and a hot that hits 10x and 10x people which also does 5x effects each and procs status effects that do another 3x effects and hits several proc sets that do another 5x effects.......and so on. We have already seen the live tests where they remove one of these systems, yet no drastic improvement. Removing these systems only ruins gameplay though. The purpose of AoE is to hit and Area with an effect to hit multiple targets. The purpose of an over time effect is to hit people over time. Inherently these systems create ticks which propel the other proc conditions off of ticks to the moon.

Ideally you would use the pve and pvp split system they made for vengeance to take the live skills and implement specific rule changes like people have been asking for for years.

• Hots and dots not stacking, which was how they originally worked to force players to use other morphs for diversity while also preventing a single BiS meta. This also soft caps groups preventing them from stacking out of control efficiently. In essence solo and smaller groups hardly overlap, but in 50v50 situations where it is a moshpit anyways this could cut down drastically on ticks.
• No crosshealing, or less crosshealing where you could make inefficient morphs crossheal outside of group. Or change certain skills like how we see vengeance have more skillful AIMED single target healing skills. Instead of live pvp where groups are incentivized to ball up with no downsides. (balls are harder to aim at targets, while also being easier for smartheals to do their thing automatically)
• Aoe caps could be selectively baked into skills. You could have spammable skills like jabs capped at 3x where less frequently used and "gamechanger" skills like ultimates hit uncapped.
• Maybe zerg ballgroup sets like rallying cry should proc off of single target aimed skills instead of incentivizing these players to spam aoe hots to meet guaranteed proc conditions with no cooldowns for a 5 piece item giving out 5k wd. Even though most 5 piece sets solo only reach about 450-700wd.
• etc......we can think of a ton of rule changes to cut back on unnecessary calculations in scenarios where they really don't matter. If there is a zerg of 50 people.....does the zergling really know whether their light attack even hit anyone? Or whether their aoe actually hit that 7th person?

You fail to address our current core concern, flashy animations in dungeons, which obviously ruin PvE performance...

Back to proc sets, ZOS tested disabling them along with other things, like reducing group size and disabling crosshealing outside of groups back in 2021. According to ZOS, none of these had any impact on performance, and it truly did not. I remember that well; I was playing RW during those live tests, and it was as laggy as usual. ZOS decided to keep reduced groups because of “behavioral” reasons, and disabled procs on RW because of player feedback, but otherwise they did not get any answers as to what causes lag in Cyrodiil. So it only makes sense that they now take a completely different approach with Vengeance and check how far they can build up the complexity before it breaks down the performance, as opposed to whack-a-mole with just turning off random systems.

As for game breaking, it is relative. I enjoyed the no-proc ruleset, and you won't see me anywhere near the current Cyrodiil. Too bad no-proc was a disastrous implementation and immediately abandoned by ZOS. I would like to see Vengeance sets, simplified or adapted for PvP, to be precise, because some of those PvE procs are truly game breaking in PvP.

Performance is so far remarkably better in Vengeance. Gameplay is less fun because too many systems are disabled and there is no room whatsoever for theorycrafting. Also, balance is not at all taken into account when designing next iterations, and here devs are shooting themselves in the foot. Now that there is this environment where PvP and PvE are split so they can be balanced separately without affecting one another, why not start implementing some changes, like capping dots, hots and shield stacking, that PvP players have been asking for since years? When crosshealing was limited to groups only back in 2021, many solo healers complained that it made their role redundant, and it was pointless for them to play in Cyrodiil because they couldn't heal random players during siege fights, so I would rather have it enabled, but single target aimed indeed. As long as those solo healers don't interfere in duels, or in 1vX in open field or around resource towers, they can do their job during siege battles, it's fine with me. Aoe caps just don't make sense; so I throw Razor Caltrops that cover a huge area but only 3 players slow down and the rest of the blob can run through a bottleneck full speed and no damage? Or meatbag that hits 10+ players but only 3 take damage? Oil burns only 3 out of 6 or more players standing in a ram? That would be ridiculous IMO.

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Target caps are NEVER the answer. They are failed game design and should be resisted at every step in ESO.

Now that that is out of the way... things like animations and particle effects are also NOT drivers of bad performance at the server level. They might be drivers of bad performance on your particular machine with your particular hardware choices, but that is ultimately a player problem with player solutions (e.g. turn down your settings or upgrade your gear).

As others have said, something that undoubtedly IS a driver of bad server performance are things like the vast proliferation of damage/healing calculations in recent years and their knock-on effects, like status effect chances, debuffs, etc.

Those issues can be further compounded if the code for some of the foundational game logic and systems are themselves inefficient. As having poorly implemented frequently executed blocks of code is far, far, far worse than infrequently executed code that is poorly implemented for very obvious reasons.

In other words, the answer should NOT be to dumb-down the game so that poorly implemented code is simply run less often (this would be the Vengeance approach), it would be to identify and re-write inefficient code to perform better. The latter approach IS harder work because you need devs who understand algorithmic complexity but it is also the only true solution to the issue. The Vengeance approach is merely trading away gameplay to temporarily mask the issues.

Half the issues could just be an inconsistent coder leaving us with desync issues. There are tons of tiny desyncs all the time that people don't even notice. Could be hundreds of those firing off and the server vomitting when it tries to correct them. We already saw with the 100% mit bug back in summerset testing when they changed how cast time skills fire off that the server can take a whole second to correct desync issues.

Its one of those things, are they better off starting from scratch or trying to patch already patched patches of code. If I was to do the tests I would have done the baseline vengeance as they did, but then spent the year working on the next baseline that rewrote veng versions of all of the systems you know would be in the final product.

aetherix8 wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

Yes, beyond any doubt, flashy stuff trashes the PvE performance. But we know perfectly well by now that holy flashy procs aren’t the cause coz it was already tested, and removing them did not improve the performance in PvP at all, so why would that be any different in PvE. Therefore it must be the combo of flashy mechs being repeatedly flushed down by a flashy laser beam. It should all be just dimmed sepia, the same for PvP; that would work 100%. And only having the courage to port into a sepia dungeon should guarantee cool and unique (and flashy) rewards without having to complete it, but no quests, keys, or achievs. Ideally, should also run during BG weekends every month until further notice.

Well that's not entirely a silver bullet. They tested just removing proc sets which was not enough on its own to solve the issue. It is annoying that they never did a data stream for those tests like we saw after vengeance 1. Really this just points to a combination of systems being designed in a way to operate poorly together. Test wise this is probably why they thought going from the ground up was their better option since they could spend eternity implementing random combinations and rules to cut down ticks.

Lets say we have 1x button press which does an aoe that hits 10x people that does a dot and a hot that hits 10x and 10x people which also does 5x effects each and procs status effects that do another 3x effects and hits several proc sets that do another 5x effects.......and so on. We have already seen the live tests where they remove one of these systems, yet no drastic improvement. Removing these systems only ruins gameplay though. The purpose of AoE is to hit and Area with an effect to hit multiple targets. The purpose of an over time effect is to hit people over time. Inherently these systems create ticks which propel the other proc conditions off of ticks to the moon.

Ideally you would use the pve and pvp split system they made for vengeance to take the live skills and implement specific rule changes like people have been asking for for years.

• Hots and dots not stacking, which was how they originally worked to force players to use other morphs for diversity while also preventing a single BiS meta. This also soft caps groups preventing them from stacking out of control efficiently. In essence solo and smaller groups hardly overlap, but in 50v50 situations where it is a moshpit anyways this could cut down drastically on ticks.
• No crosshealing, or less crosshealing where you could make inefficient morphs crossheal outside of group. Or change certain skills like how we see vengeance have more skillful AIMED single target healing skills. Instead of live pvp where groups are incentivized to ball up with no downsides. (balls are harder to aim at targets, while also being easier for smartheals to do their thing automatically)
• Aoe caps could be selectively baked into skills. You could have spammable skills like jabs capped at 3x where less frequently used and "gamechanger" skills like ultimates hit uncapped.
• Maybe zerg ballgroup sets like rallying cry should proc off of single target aimed skills instead of incentivizing these players to spam aoe hots to meet guaranteed proc conditions with no cooldowns for a 5 piece item giving out 5k wd. Even though most 5 piece sets solo only reach about 450-700wd.
• etc......we can think of a ton of rule changes to cut back on unnecessary calculations in scenarios where they really don't matter. If there is a zerg of 50 people.....does the zergling really know whether their light attack even hit anyone? Or whether their aoe actually hit that 7th person?

You fail to address our current core concern, flashy animations in dungeons, which obviously ruin PvE performance...

Back to proc sets,

ZOS tested disabling them along with other things, like reducing group size and disabling crosshealing outside of groups back in 2021. According to ZOS, none of these had any impact on performance, and it truly did not. I remember that well; I was playing RW during those live tests, and it was as laggy as usual. ZOS decided to keep reduced groups because of “behavioral” reasons, and disabled procs on RW because of player feedback, but otherwise they did not get any answers as to what causes lag in Cyrodiil. So it only makes sense that they now take a completely different approach with Vengeance and check how far they can build up the complexity before it breaks down the performance, as opposed to whack-a-mole with just turning off random systems.

As for game breaking, it is relative. I enjoyed the no-proc ruleset, and you won't see me anywhere near the current Cyrodiil. Too bad no-proc was a disastrous implementation and immediately abandoned by ZOS. I would like to see Vengeance sets, simplified or adapted for PvP, to be precise, because some of those PvE procs are truly game breaking in PvP.

Performance is so far remarkably better in Vengeance. Gameplay is less fun because

too many systems are disabled and there is no room whatsoever for theorycrafting. Also, balance is not at all taken into account when designing next iterations, and here devs are shooting themselves in the foot. Now that there is this environment where PvP and PvE are split so they can be balanced separately without affecting one another, why not start implementing some changes, like capping dots, hots and shield stacking, that PvP players have been asking for since years? When crosshealing was limited to groups only back in 2021, many solo healers complained that it made their role redundant, and it was pointless for them to play in Cyrodiil because they couldn't heal random players during siege fights, so I would rather have it enabled, but single target aimed indeed. As long as those solo healers don't interfere in duels, or in 1vX in open field or around resource towers, they can do their job during siege battles, it's fine with me. Aoe caps just don't make sense; so I throw Razor Caltrops that cover a huge area but only 3 players slow down and the rest of the blob can run through a bottleneck full speed and no damage? Or meatbag that hits 10+ players but only 3 take damage? Oil burns only 3 out of 6 or more players standing in a ram? That would be ridiculous IMO.

Oh I fully agree there. Zos keeps pumping up animations and particles. Meanwhile we still have far more important mechanics doing CC that are invisible or have no clear animation. There used to be a time when the game was more visually clear. Kind of expected with the creep of proc sets and needing unique animations though.

Again those tests were disabling essentially one layer of a cake of potential causes. The thing is you wouldn't need rules like aoe caps or no crosshealing if zos could control themselves while designing skills or proc sets. Like more spammed skills could be simpler with higher tooltips. Or have the majority of damage spammed as physical/mag damage and not have status effects on those damage types. Its the compounding of tiny usually insignificant ticks that start to go multiply out and exacerbate any underlying code issues.

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Target caps are NEVER the answer. They are failed game design and should be resisted at every step in ESO.

Now that that is out of the way... things like animations and particle effects are also NOT drivers of bad performance at the server level. They might be drivers of bad performance on your particular machine with your particular hardware choices, but that is ultimately a player problem with player solutions (e.g. turn down your settings or upgrade your gear).

As others have said, something that undoubtedly IS a driver of bad server performance are things like the vast proliferation of damage/healing calculations in recent years and their knock-on effects, like status effect chances, debuffs, etc.

Those issues can be further compounded if the code for some of the foundational game logic and systems are themselves inefficient. As having poorly implemented frequently executed blocks of code is far, far, far worse than infrequently executed code that is poorly implemented for very obvious reasons.

In other words, the answer should NOT be to dumb-down the game so that poorly implemented code is simply run less often (this would be the Vengeance approach), it would be to identify and re-write inefficient code to perform better. The latter approach IS harder work because you need devs who understand algorithmic complexity but it is also the only true solution to the issue. The Vengeance approach is merely trading away gameplay to temporarily mask the issues.

Half the issues could just be an inconsistent coder leaving us with desync issues. There are tons of tiny desyncs all the time that people don't even notice. Could be hundreds of those firing off and the server vomitting when it tries to correct them. We already saw with the 100% mit bug back in summerset testing when they changed how cast time skills fire off that the server can take a whole second to correct desync issues.

Its one of those things, are they better off starting from scratch or trying to patch already patched patches of code. If I was to do the tests I would have done the baseline vengeance as they did, but then spent the year working on the next baseline that rewrote veng versions of all of the systems you know would be in the final product.

aetherix8 wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

Yes, beyond any doubt, flashy stuff trashes the PvE performance. But we know perfectly well by now that holy flashy procs aren’t the cause coz it was already tested, and removing them did not improve the performance in PvP at all, so why would that be any different in PvE. Therefore it must be the combo of flashy mechs being repeatedly flushed down by a flashy laser beam. It should all be just dimmed sepia, the same for PvP; that would work 100%. And only having the courage to port into a sepia dungeon should guarantee cool and unique (and flashy) rewards without having to complete it, but no quests, keys, or achievs. Ideally, should also run during BG weekends every month until further notice.

Well that's not entirely a silver bullet. They tested just removing proc sets which was not enough on its own to solve the issue. It is annoying that they never did a data stream for those tests like we saw after vengeance 1. Really this just points to a combination of systems being designed in a way to operate poorly together. Test wise this is probably why they thought going from the ground up was their better option since they could spend eternity implementing random combinations and rules to cut down ticks.

Lets say we have 1x button press which does an aoe that hits 10x people that does a dot and a hot that hits 10x and 10x people which also does 5x effects each and procs status effects that do another 3x effects and hits several proc sets that do another 5x effects.......and so on. We have already seen the live tests where they remove one of these systems, yet no drastic improvement. Removing these systems only ruins gameplay though. The purpose of AoE is to hit and Area with an effect to hit multiple targets. The purpose of an over time effect is to hit people over time. Inherently these systems create ticks which propel the other proc conditions off of ticks to the moon.

Ideally you would use the pve and pvp split system they made for vengeance to take the live skills and implement specific rule changes like people have been asking for for years.

• Hots and dots not stacking, which was how they originally worked to force players to use other morphs for diversity while also preventing a single BiS meta. This also soft caps groups preventing them from stacking out of control efficiently. In essence solo and smaller groups hardly overlap, but in 50v50 situations where it is a moshpit anyways this could cut down drastically on ticks.
• No crosshealing, or less crosshealing where you could make inefficient morphs crossheal outside of group. Or change certain skills like how we see vengeance have more skillful AIMED single target healing skills. Instead of live pvp where groups are incentivized to ball up with no downsides. (balls are harder to aim at targets, while also being easier for smartheals to do their thing automatically)
• Aoe caps could be selectively baked into skills. You could have spammable skills like jabs capped at 3x where less frequently used and "gamechanger" skills like ultimates hit uncapped.
• Maybe zerg ballgroup sets like rallying cry should proc off of single target aimed skills instead of incentivizing these players to spam aoe hots to meet guaranteed proc conditions with no cooldowns for a 5 piece item giving out 5k wd. Even though most 5 piece sets solo only reach about 450-700wd.
• etc......we can think of a ton of rule changes to cut back on unnecessary calculations in scenarios where they really don't matter. If there is a zerg of 50 people.....does the zergling really know whether their light attack even hit anyone? Or whether their aoe actually hit that 7th person?

You fail to address our current core concern, flashy animations in dungeons, which obviously ruin PvE performance...

Back to proc sets,

ZOS tested disabling them along with other things, like reducing group size and disabling crosshealing outside of groups back in 2021. According to ZOS, none of these had any impact on performance, and it truly did not. I remember that well; I was playing RW during those live tests, and it was as laggy as usual. ZOS decided to keep reduced groups because of “behavioral” reasons, and disabled procs on RW because of player feedback, but otherwise they did not get any answers as to what causes lag in Cyrodiil. So it only makes sense that they now take a completely different approach with Vengeance and check how far they can build up the complexity before it breaks down the performance, as opposed to whack-a-mole with just turning off random systems.

As for game breaking, it is relative. I enjoyed the no-proc ruleset, and you won't see me anywhere near the current Cyrodiil. Too bad no-proc was a disastrous implementation and immediately abandoned by ZOS. I would like to see Vengeance sets, simplified or adapted for PvP, to be precise, because some of those PvE procs are truly game breaking in PvP.

Performance is so far remarkably better in Vengeance. Gameplay is less fun because

too many systems are disabled and there is no room whatsoever for theorycrafting. Also, balance is not at all taken into account when designing next iterations, and here devs are shooting themselves in the foot. Now that there is this environment where PvP and PvE are split so they can be balanced separately without affecting one another, why not start implementing some changes, like capping dots, hots and shield stacking, that PvP players have been asking for since years? When crosshealing was limited to groups only back in 2021, many solo healers complained that it made their role redundant, and it was pointless for them to play in Cyrodiil because they couldn't heal random players during siege fights, so I would rather have it enabled, but single target aimed indeed. As long as those solo healers don't interfere in duels, or in 1vX in open field or around resource towers, they can do their job during siege battles, it's fine with me. Aoe caps just don't make sense; so I throw Razor Caltrops that cover a huge area but only 3 players slow down and the rest of the blob can run through a bottleneck full speed and no damage? Or meatbag that hits 10+ players but only 3 take damage? Oil burns only 3 out of 6 or more players standing in a ram? That would be ridiculous IMO.

Oh I fully agree there. Zos keeps pumping up animations and particles. Meanwhile we still have far more important mechanics doing CC that are invisible or have no clear animation. There used to be a time when the game was more visually clear. Kind of expected with the creep of proc sets and needing unique animations though.

Again those tests were disabling essentially one layer of a cake of potential causes. The thing is you wouldn't need rules like aoe caps or no crosshealing if zos could control themselves while designing skills or proc sets. Like more spammed skills could be simpler with higher tooltips. Or have the majority of damage spammed as physical/mag damage and not have status effects on those damage types. Its the compounding of tiny usually insignificant ticks that start to go multiply out and exacerbate any underlying code issues.

Vengeance is not re-writing combat logic from the ground up, though (defined for the issue as refactoring all of the constituent pieces necessary to process a player action, such as an AOE attack), at least AFAIK. The abilities themselves are new in form but they are likely recycling the legacy code that we can strongly surmise runs inefficiently. Which is, ultimately, just smoke and mirrors for performance.

It is impractical at this scale but back on the OG Nintendo, for example, games were written in assembly and immense care and consideration was given even to basic game design questions such as, "What is worth using scarce cartridge and system memory on?" The actual programmers on those games worked computer science miracles managing that scarce memory and writing performant code that could run well on modestly powered consoles.

For a bunch of different reasons, we just don't have that today. Especially in gamedev, the solution is typically to throw more hardware at a problem rather than ask if the current solutions to problems are good enough or if they could have been implemented in a better way. As time continues, that technical debt grows.

Which is why Vengeance feels very much like trying to design around the problem rather than solving the actual problem.

Yeah as far as we have seen its just been them deleting large chunks of skills. Like with streak it probably did 3 stun functions an initial circle aoe, then a rectangle while moving, then a circle at the final location. They probably just cut the call functions triggering the other two stuns.

The Nintendo reference is a good example. Truly going back to a blank slate is probably the only way to make it work right. At that point why not just go to a new game engine altogether that is decades newer.

Veng actually showed us an even worse possibility. We can see that pen still has spell/phys portions. Its very possible the hybridization we see on live is just a facade in the UI. Like how we still have phys/spell resists but item sets just show "armor" The code is probably still a jumbled mess, probably even more so now if they are translating to different variables to show the end user. Or if half the variables have been replaced and the other half still in limbo since they stopped hybridization.

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

reazea wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

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?

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)?

The vast majority of the PvP players loathe vengeance. Players who want to play PvP are already playing it. Vengeance wont bring in any new players that will stick around more than a week or two.

This is not true as you are just guessing.

Tigor wrote: »

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

reazea wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

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?

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)?

The vast majority of the PvP players loathe vengeance. Players who want to play PvP are already playing it. Vengeance wont bring in any new players that will stick around more than a week or two.

This is not true as you are just guessing.

It's not a guess. The vast majority of the current live PvP community won't play a version of vengeance. They won't play a templated version of PvP. They just won't. And the vast majority of people promoting vengeance are PvE mains. They'll never play any version of PvP for any sustainable amount of time.

aetherix8 wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

What worries me now is perks and loadouts, I hope they are not intended to replace sets and build diversity in general, just to test to what extent more variables interacting with one another can affect (if at all) performance in Vengeance.

Yeah like I pointed out on the PTS. Zos could design the UI to look like literally anything. Why not make a fake UI page where you choose between 4 different 12 piece item sets. At least for new players they wont get as confused learning how a whole different system works again.

Behind the scenes all loadouts do is swap to different base stats. Perks are modifiers essentially CP.

Being able to tinker with actual builds would be better from a learner's PoV as it would be closer to what theorycrafting is and a much more fitting preparation for vet Cyro. You don't just pick 3 or 4 item sets with or without a mythic, but also try different weights, traits, enchants, etc., until you find a build that suits you best. That's a pretty fun part of the game. So if I were to be infected by the general doomism and assume that ZOS will just stop there, it doesn't sound too good to me, because it has less potential to be long-term engaging.

Yeah all of the normal build options could simply exist on a single UI menu with dropdown choices. Pretty simple to do and then turn off certain ones in that fake menu when introducing the actual system.