Is it time for ZOS to give us an official statement of intentions regarding future vengeance plans?

YandereGirlfriend · September 27

Yes

Muizer wrote: »

CalamityCat wrote: »

Each iteration of Vengeance has included more stuff, so I'm not sure why this drama is still going on when they're literally unlocking more things with each round.

Some people are happy with Cyrodiil as it is. They're either not experiencing performance issues as much as others or they can tolerate it. Some may even benefit from it. The principle of survivorship bias means they are overrepresented in the population that is still active and vocal about it. Others probably can be convinced that the final product may be objectively better, but dread the idea that the progress they have made with their play style and builds will be lost. That they'll have to start over.

It's because we've been "bait-and-switched" by "tests" replacing existing campaigns already. I'm old enough to remember when No-CP Ravenwatch was "just a test" but then, Surprised Pikachu Face, suddenly it replaced the existing Ravenwatch and the campaign died immediately afterward as a direct result. Because nobody wanted to play with those rules.

These sorts of initiatives are typically touted most vocally by non-PvP and ex-PvP players. They are advocating, essentially, to demolish a house that they do not actually live in. Which is huge moral hazard.

tomofhyrule · September 27

Yes

I'm noticing a lot of people who are voting "No" are not considering what's coming up in U48 either.

Yes, Vengeance 1 was a new thing and could be seen as a test: bringing everything to absolute bare bones to see if performance is good. They spent so much energy trying to stress that this was not a solution, but only a stress test. But people did enjoy it for what it was.

Vengeance 2 added weapon lines and people liked that, since a lot of players use weapon skills in their builds as well. Again, it seemed to go well (but there were already some creeping reports of heal stacking getting problematic)

Now Vengeance 3 didn't exactly add much new stuff - the biggest thing is meatbags that don't leave a ground AoE. Guild and Armor lines are not as commonly used, so a lot of people are thinking that it's pretty well the same thing as Vengeance 2, but without the Golden Pursuit or AP bonuses we had before. That's the main reason that it seems uninteresting is that the incentives are not there, and it's competing with a PvE-focused event that drops expensive style pages.

Still, seems like just a test... until we look at U48 and Vengeance 4.

There was barely any work done at all in post-Subclassing balance. Why did the team, knowing how unbalanced everything was since the players tested it on U46's PTS, not really try to do anything to general Class balance at all? Well, it definitely looks like all of their effort since dropping the nuke that was Subclassing went into making Vengeance into a brand new mode.

Vengeance 4 in December will be bringing "loadouts" and "perks." So... what's that? Those are not seen in any other mode, so why did they not only add something that doesn't exist anywhere else to 'test' it, and why did they get that art team to make a brand new UI and icons fir all of it? It seems like "loadouts" is closest to food buffs (so why not just give the template character a few food choices and be done with it?) and "perks" are closest to CP bonuses (so why not just activate some CP nodes?), but each also is very tailored to a Cyrodiil game mode. And we're supposed to believe that they had no problem making brand new assets like that for just a test that they're going to throw out later? No, that's 100% prep for a new Cyrodiil campaign. They are making a permanent version of Vengeance, which is going to use those assets. I still believe they're not going to replace Grey Host, but Icereach and likely Ravenwatch will be going.
(and it does feel a little bad that the U48 preview stream said they're planning a Vengeance 5 early next year which will try to balance the Vengeance abilities as well. Note that balancing the rest of the game was not mentioned...)

But really, why keep this hidden? Just come out and say "hey, we're getting a lot of positive feedback from Vengeance, so we want to make it permanent next year! But don't worry PvPers, we're not removing Grey Host!" That would definitely stop a lot of the angst about all of this.

Also, if it were still "only a test," then logically they would be able to table it for an update to focus on general balance if it were that bad. They did tell us that the theme of this year was to "not rush content and give everything the time it needs" after all...

PDarkBHood · September 28

No

Vengeance is a test, only a test and nothing but a test. What don't you people understand about this?? Did you watch Zos's recent video, they explain what they are doing and it's future. Again Vengeance is a test, only a test and nothing but a test.

They are collecting data to make a better future Cyrodiil. Enough with your conspiracy theories.

fizzybeef · September 28

Yes

yes

Muizer · September 28

PDarkBHood wrote: »

Vengeance is a test, only a test and nothing but a test. What don't you people understand about this?? Did you watch Zos's recent video, they explain what they are doing and it's future. Again Vengeance is a test, only a test and nothing but a test.

They are collecting data to make a better future Cyrodiil. Enough with your conspiracy theories.

If you watch the video, you can hear Wheeler say pretty much literally that build variety as it is on live (with morphs, CP, sets) is to blame for poor performance and that they are exploring different ways to offer it. What's the point of exploring it if you're just going to discard it and go back to how things are? If the idea was to transfer any learnings from Vengeance to current Cyrodiil, Vengeance would be tracking it much more closely than it is.

shadyjane62 · September 28

Yes

Either make it faction lock or dispose of the idea properly.

StihlReign · September 28

Yes

PDarkBHood wrote: »

Vengeance is a test, only a test and nothing but a test. What don't you people understand about this?? Did you watch Zos's recent video, they explain what they are doing and it's future. Again Vengeance is a test, only a test and nothing but a test.

They are collecting data to make a better future Cyrodiil. Enough with your conspiracy theories.

Looks like a Cyrodiil Replacement called Test...what does it look like to you?

PTS Patch Notes v11.2.0
Vengeance
Loadouts are now in Vengeance. A Loadout is essentially a package...
Perks are now in Vengeance. Perks are passives to add...
A new Vengeance Inventory has been created...
Many systems have been turned back on including....
Your standard inventory is now available in Vengeance, however the same item restrictions...

JustLovely · September 30

Yes

Failing to address this subject can mean only one thing; that what most of us fear to be the case, and that is ZOS plans to eliminate live PvP for vengeance. So enjoy Cyrodiil PvP while it lasts.

LadyGP · September 30

Yes

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Yes. Absolutely.

We were told numerous times that Vengeance was only a test to make Cyrodiil more performant. They told us not to worry and they weren’t going to take Cyrodiil away.

And now U48 is including “loadouts” and “perks,” all with a custom UI and new icons. No other mode has those. This is obviously no longer a test. It’s crystal clear that this is testing a new game mode. I do think that Grey Host will still exist once permanent Vengeance is released, but I’m fully expecting Icereach and likely Ravenwatch to go away.

But the thing I am livid about is the fact that U48 is dropping with zero balance changes. Subclassing came in like a wrecking ball and now they really are not even going to address balance until March at the earliest?!?! Instead, they’re trying to focus all of their energy on a test mode which is active for all of a week.

The plan has obviously changed. Tell us that officially, don’t play this coy “you’ll see!” game. I fully expect they’re planning U50 in June as a huge free update with “Upgraded Cyrodiil!!” (Vengeance permanently, replacing half of the Campaigns) and “Overland difficulty!!” (A self-nerf slider). I’m betting that they’ll try to sell this as “what the players wanted,” even though that’s not the way people wanted it, and then the lack of new features like a Class will drive even more people away.

I want to be wrong. I hope I am. I desperately want a new Class. But I’m a cynic. And this year has only made me more cynical.

Remember during the stream when everyone complained about PvP balances being wild if subclassing came to PvP and they said they were aware.. would be monitoring.. and react as needed.

Yeah. About that.

AngryPenguin · October 1

Yes

JustLovely wrote: »

Failing to address this subject can mean only one thing; that what most of us fear to be the case, and that is ZOS plans to eliminate live PvP for vengeance. So enjoy Cyrodiil PvP while it lasts.

"Is there anybody out there?" Don't "just nod if you can hear me".

@ZOS_Kevin
@ZOS_BrianWheeler
@ZOS_GinaBruno
@ZOS_RichLambert
@ZOS_MattFiror
@ZOS_Phoenix
@ZOS_Adrikoth

valenwood_vegan · October 1

Yes

FWIW, I definitely don't think Matt is out there listening to forum complaints. He left the company.

Rohamad_Ali · October 1

Yes

I'm all ears ZoS.

MincMincMinc · October 1

Yes

I'm all for testing and think pvpers should participate and suggest or push zos on what to cut back on. Or what rules to implement etc. But the current problem is that the playerbase matters for data. 900 bots spamming light attack are different than 900 pugs spamming light attack are different than 900 ballgroup players stacking every buff in the game pushing through another ballgroup in a closed tight breach with hundreds of AoE over time effects proccing enchants and status effects.

You need the greyhost population to participate for any results to be truly representative. The lack of communication and clarity is drastically affecting the turnout and population representation. Even with this last test not having the PvE players if the cap was at 3x and we only saw 2-3 bar or 50% on each faction for about 1.5x the greyhost pop......the playerbase had a huge mix of new and less calculation dense combat players. PCNA only had a few coordinated groups active all week during primetime PCNA. Breach fights had tons of seige and aoe, but no calcs going through since no coordinated groups would push through these breaches.

Zos needs wheeler to do some roadmap clarification statement. Even a bullet list of what is on the table after the next two tests. Even a 5 min explanation of their "ideal vision of what systems they want to exist" would suffice.

Veng4 is to test the perks (mimics CP, set, buff modifiers) and more generic background systems nobody pays attention to in pvp.
Veng4 week 2 will test running veng and GH side by side to judge the actual PvP preference.
Veng5 is the start of rule change tests where they want to test raising damage aoe caps compared to heal aoe caps.
Veng6.........
- Hot/dot rules?
- Crossheal?
- Smartheals?
- Passives?
- Core stat changes? mundus, Gear weight, enchants, attributes?
- Item sets bonuses?

YandereGirlfriend · October 1

Yes

MincMincMinc wrote: »

I'm all for testing and think pvpers should participate and suggest or push zos on what to cut back on. Or what rules to implement etc. But the current problem is that the playerbase matters for data. 900 bots spamming light attack are different than 900 pugs spamming light attack are different than 900 ballgroup players stacking every buff in the game pushing through another ballgroup in a closed tight breach with hundreds of AoE over time effects proccing enchants and status effects.

You need the greyhost population to participate for any results to be truly representative. The lack of communication and clarity is drastically affecting the turnout and population representation. Even with this last test not having the PvE players if the cap was at 3x and we only saw 2-3 bar or 50% on each faction for about 1.5x the greyhost pop......the playerbase had a huge mix of new and less calculation dense combat players. PCNA only had a few coordinated groups active all week during primetime PCNA. Breach fights had tons of seige and aoe, but no calcs going through since no coordinated groups would push through these breaches.

Zos needs wheeler to do some roadmap clarification statement. Even a bullet list of what is on the table after the next two tests. Even a 5 min explanation of their "ideal vision of what systems they want to exist" would suffice.

Veng4 is to test the perks (mimics CP, set, buff modifiers) and more generic background systems nobody pays attention to in pvp.

Veng4 week 2 will test running veng and GH side by side to judge the actual PvP preference.

Veng5 is the start of rule change tests where they want to test raising damage aoe caps compared to heal aoe caps.

Veng6.........
Hot/dot rules?

Crossheal?

Smartheals?

Passives?

Core stat changes? mundus, Gear weight, enchants, attributes?

Item sets bonuses?

I am less interested in the road map and more interested in the end game.

We only really need one question answered: "Will existing Grey Host rules (e.g. "Classic PvP" or whatever) be preserved alongside whatever comes of Vengeance?

If the answer is 'yes' then worries disappear. Anything else, however, is simply unacceptable.

Muizer · October 1

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Zos needs wheeler to do some roadmap clarification statement. Even a bullet list of what is on the table after the next two tests. Even a 5 min explanation of their "ideal vision of what systems they want to exist" would suffice.

At this point, I think they should clarify whether the separate rule set for abilities is something they have committed to and whether the same applies to other aspects of character builds like CP and gear. Basically, is Vengeance working towards a new game mode or not. Everything seems to point in that direction. Denial can only obscure that for so long. They won't keep those who do not want a new game mode on board any longer just by being vague about it. This is probably the moment to shift attention to those who actually are willing to give it a shot. Then they can also be more open and interactive about what it is they're working towards. Sure the disgruntled fans of current Cyrodiil will kick op a storm, but that was bound to happen at some point. Time to bite the bullet.

colossalvoids · October 1

Yes

I don't think it's too much to ask if there's a plan or not to replace some if any old campaigns along the way, or if that's an a discussion stage still and too early to say for sure.

YandereGirlfriend · October 1

Yes

Muizer wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Zos needs wheeler to do some roadmap clarification statement. Even a bullet list of what is on the table after the next two tests. Even a 5 min explanation of their "ideal vision of what systems they want to exist" would suffice.

At this point, I think they should clarify whether the separate rule set for abilities is something they have committed to and whether the same applies to other aspects of character builds like CP and gear. Basically, is Vengeance working towards a new game mode or not. Everything seems to point in that direction. Denial can only obscure that for so long. They won't keep those who do not want a new game mode on board any longer just by being vague about it. This is probably the moment to shift attention to those who actually are willing to give it a shot. Then they can also be more open and interactive about what it is they're working towards. Sure the disgruntled fans of current Cyrodiil will kick op a storm, but that was bound to happen at some point. Time to bite the bullet.

Existing Grey Host players don't mind if it becomes its own game mode that exists alongside normal Grey Host.

The red line is what is happening with Grey Host.

Masteroshi430 · October 1

Vengeance is both multiple waves of testing and a new campaign mode which is slowly being implemented in the game code.
I don't think they will remove the other campaigns when Vengeance will be live, they will probably let all campaigns run and let the player choose where they prefer to PvP (some campaigns will probably empty themselves with time, but who knows).
See Vengeance as a new lag optimized Cyrodiil campaign that will allow more players (and possibly features they wanted to add long ago but couldn't because of the lag).

Joy_Division · October 1

They don;t know yet.

Muizer · October 1

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

The red line is what is happening with Grey Host.

Nah I think it's the same question. If ZOS are committing to a dedicated PvP combat model, I don't see how they would continue the decade long and painful struggle to keep a unified combat model for the sake of GH. If it stays open, it will be PvP with the PvE rule set going forward. Not sure how long that would last.

Marto · October 1

No

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

It's because we've been "bait-and-switched" by "tests" replacing existing campaigns already. I'm old enough to remember when No-CP Ravenwatch was "just a test" but then, Surprised Pikachu Face, suddenly it replaced the existing Ravenwatch and the campaign died immediately afterward as a direct result. Because nobody wanted to play with those rules.

I don't understand the logic behind these kinds of comments. In what way is that a "bait and switch"?

If the devs say something is a test, and that thing ends up becoming a permanent part of the game, that doesn't mean the devs "lied" about it being a test, and it doesn't mean it was always intended to be added. It mean the test was a success. It means the test accomplished what the devs wanted. It means they considered the pros outweighed the cons. It means they considered it a valuable addition.

There's been plenty of failed tests. Tests that didn't end up becoming part of the game. Like when cooldowns were added to PVP. Or when light attacks regenerated stam/mag and heavy attacks dealt more damage. Or when Oakensoul provided unique bonuses. Or the myriad of skill changes that get rolled back or adjusted in most PTS cycles..

Paying attention to the changes that made it out of their test phase, and ignoring the ones that didn't, is nothing more than an example of survivorship bias.

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

nobody wanted to play with those rules.

This is patently untrue.

You're free to dislike it. You're free to argue against it. (Heck, I agree with you. I personally think no-CP in PVP and Battlegrounds is a quite silly restriction of character customization, and is entirely unnecessary with the more restrained bonuses and better performance of CP 2.0)

But it was a successful test because enough people liked it. Either because of the simplified mechanics or improved performance.

The reason why ZOS keeps calling Vengeance a test is because it is a test.

ZOS isn't making official statements because their previous official statement of "It's a test, we'll be adding things slowly and see what works" is still true and accurate.

No one knows what Vengeance "1.0.0" will look like. Not the players, and not the devs. It will probably be released as a full thing in the future, given the much improved performance and the high popularity. It will probably have the simplified skills of the tests so far.

Vengeance "0.0.5" is adding a loadout system with perks. Will that make it to the full release? Maybe, maybe not. Will the map be updated? Maybe, maybe not.

YandereGirlfriend · October 2

Yes

Marto wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

It's because we've been "bait-and-switched" by "tests" replacing existing campaigns already. I'm old enough to remember when No-CP Ravenwatch was "just a test" but then, Surprised Pikachu Face, suddenly it replaced the existing Ravenwatch and the campaign died immediately afterward as a direct result. Because nobody wanted to play with those rules.

I don't understand the logic behind these kinds of comments. In what way is that a "bait and switch"?

If the devs say something is a test, and that thing ends up becoming a permanent part of the game, that doesn't mean the devs "lied" about it being a test, and it doesn't mean it was always intended to be added. It mean the test was a success. It means the test accomplished what the devs wanted. It means they considered the pros outweighed the cons. It means they considered it a valuable addition.

There's been plenty of failed tests. Tests that didn't end up becoming part of the game. Like when cooldowns were added to PVP. Or when light attacks regenerated stam/mag and heavy attacks dealt more damage. Or when Oakensoul provided unique bonuses. Or the myriad of skill changes that get rolled back or adjusted in most PTS cycles..

Paying attention to the changes that made it out of their test phase, and ignoring the ones that didn't, is nothing more than an example of survivorship bias.

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

nobody wanted to play with those rules.

This is patently untrue.

You're free to dislike it. You're free to argue against it. (Heck, I agree with you. I personally think no-CP in PVP and Battlegrounds is a quite silly restriction of character customization, and is entirely unnecessary with the more restrained bonuses and better performance of CP 2.0)

But it was a successful test because enough people liked it. Either because of the simplified mechanics or improved performance.

The reason why ZOS keeps calling Vengeance a test is because it is a test.

ZOS isn't making official statements because their previous official statement of "It's a test, we'll be adding things slowly and see what works" is still true and accurate.

No one knows what Vengeance "1.0.0" will look like. Not the players, and not the devs. It will probably be released as a full thing in the future, given the much improved performance and the high popularity. It will probably have the simplified skills of the tests so far.

Vengeance "0.0.5" is adding a loadout system with perks. Will that make it to the full release? Maybe, maybe not. Will the map be updated? Maybe, maybe not.

Re-litigating what happened to Ravenwatch is fatiguing but at precisely no point was replacing Ravenwatch's rules with No-Proc ever on the table.

The entire sequence of events was billed as "a test" to see if any of the iterative rule changes had any impact on performance. The answer was a resounding "No!" which should have been the end of the entire affair, like it had been for the failed HA tests, except that it wasn't.

The loudest voices (who were always a tiny minority...) who praised No-Proc were primarily not Ravenwatch players but Ravenwatch was randomly volunteered to be the donor campaign that got nuked by the surprise rules change. People swiftly voted with their feet in the aftermath and Ravenwatch was a dead campaign within a few months. So much for a "successful" test.

Vengeance is history repeating itself almost verbatim. At the onset, it was introduced as an anodyne "test" to help determine which sets of systems had the largest impact on PvP performance. Okay, fair enough. But re-writing every single class skill in the game definitely did not comport with its billing as a simple test. And thus the skepticism begins.

Like I have already said, it would be very easy to put the suspicions to bed by announcing that the PvP of Grey Host that existing players enjoy will remain no matter what else happens with Vengeance. But the actions (rather than the words) are beginning to suggest that the rug might indeed be pulled out from underneath those players by a surprise announcement that Vengeance will be the only open-world PvP in the game once this whole episode is concluded.

That would be a HUGE bait-and-switch because that that has never been on the table, officially. That would be the "test" morphing from a "test" to, "Oh, by the way, we're deleting your preferred game mode, enjoy!"

I would further observe that Grey Host players aren't trying to take anything away from Vengeance-enjoyers but many Vengeance-enjoyers seem to be fairly okay with or else agnostic about Grey Host being taken away from the players that enjoy it.

StihlReign · October 2

Yes

Only guarantee:

The devs will create something you don't want and didn't ask for instead of fixing whatever you think is wrong. It will be full of bugs, require tuning, and they'll wait and see before anything is adjusted. If it's 2 campaigns, one will be empty and the other will be low pop, full of trolls, lag, and a lot of crashing before it's stable. They'll ask for feedback and never follow up.

This is where we are and what we'll get. Based on history.

It's not about the meta...the meta is just whatever is the most powerful easiest thing to play. Zos won't nerf that. They'll nerf whatever build can kill it.

This is where we are and what we'll get. Based on history.

EDIT: added commas

JustLovely · October 2

Yes

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

I'm all for testing and think pvpers should participate and suggest or push zos on what to cut back on. Or what rules to implement etc. But the current problem is that the playerbase matters for data. 900 bots spamming light attack are different than 900 pugs spamming light attack are different than 900 ballgroup players stacking every buff in the game pushing through another ballgroup in a closed tight breach with hundreds of AoE over time effects proccing enchants and status effects.

You need the greyhost population to participate for any results to be truly representative. The lack of communication and clarity is drastically affecting the turnout and population representation. Even with this last test not having the PvE players if the cap was at 3x and we only saw 2-3 bar or 50% on each faction for about 1.5x the greyhost pop......the playerbase had a huge mix of new and less calculation dense combat players. PCNA only had a few coordinated groups active all week during primetime PCNA. Breach fights had tons of seige and aoe, but no calcs going through since no coordinated groups would push through these breaches.

Zos needs wheeler to do some roadmap clarification statement. Even a bullet list of what is on the table after the next two tests. Even a 5 min explanation of their "ideal vision of what systems they want to exist" would suffice.

Veng4 is to test the perks (mimics CP, set, buff modifiers) and more generic background systems nobody pays attention to in pvp.

Veng4 week 2 will test running veng and GH side by side to judge the actual PvP preference.

Veng5 is the start of rule change tests where they want to test raising damage aoe caps compared to heal aoe caps.

Veng6.........
Hot/dot rules?

Crossheal?

Smartheals?

Passives?

Core stat changes? mundus, Gear weight, enchants, attributes?

Item sets bonuses?

I am less interested in the road map and more interested in the end game.

We only really need one question answered: "Will existing Grey Host rules (e.g. "Classic PvP" or whatever) be preserved alongside whatever comes of Vengeance?

If the answer is 'yes' then worries disappear. Anything else, however, is simply unacceptable.

Hence the silence on the matter from everyone at ZOS. They know a mandated vengeance camp will drive off far more customers than it will bring in. But hey, vengeance looks good on a spreadsheet and that's good enough justification for a dev that doesn't have any time left in the day to actually play the game they've built.

Joy_Division wrote: »

They don;t know yet.

You actually think a AAA game producer like ZOS doesn't know what their plans are for a project they've sunk thousands of man hours and who knows how much money into is going to be? Let's try and be real here for a second, shall we?

JustLovely · October 2

Yes

Marto wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

It's because we've been "bait-and-switched" by "tests" replacing existing campaigns already. I'm old enough to remember when No-CP Ravenwatch was "just a test" but then, Surprised Pikachu Face, suddenly it replaced the existing Ravenwatch and the campaign died immediately afterward as a direct result. Because nobody wanted to play with those rules.

I don't understand the logic behind these kinds of comments. In what way is that a "bait and switch"?

If the devs say something is a test, and that thing ends up becoming a permanent part of the game, that doesn't mean the devs "lied" about it being a test, and it doesn't mean it was always intended to be added. It mean the test was a success. It means the test accomplished what the devs wanted. It means they considered the pros outweighed the cons. It means they considered it a valuable addition.

There's been plenty of failed tests. Tests that didn't end up becoming part of the game. Like when cooldowns were added to PVP. Or when light attacks regenerated stam/mag and heavy attacks dealt more damage. Or when Oakensoul provided unique bonuses. Or the myriad of skill changes that get rolled back or adjusted in most PTS cycles..

Paying attention to the changes that made it out of their test phase, and ignoring the ones that didn't, is nothing more than an example of survivorship bias.

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

nobody wanted to play with those rules.

This is patently untrue.

You're free to dislike it. You're free to argue against it. (Heck, I agree with you. I personally think no-CP in PVP and Battlegrounds is a quite silly restriction of character customization, and is entirely unnecessary with the more restrained bonuses and better performance of CP 2.0)

But it was a successful test because enough people liked it. Either because of the simplified mechanics or improved performance.

The reason why ZOS keeps calling Vengeance a test is because it is a test.

ZOS isn't making official statements because their previous official statement of "It's a test, we'll be adding things slowly and see what works" is still true and accurate.

No one knows what Vengeance "1.0.0" will look like. Not the players, and not the devs. It will probably be released as a full thing in the future, given the much improved performance and the high popularity. It will probably have the simplified skills of the tests so far.

Vengeance "0.0.5" is adding a loadout system with perks. Will that make it to the full release? Maybe, maybe not. Will the map be updated? Maybe, maybe not.

No. You have it exactly backwards on all counts. Vengeance is not just a test. Vengeance is being rolled out as an alternative or replacement for current live cyrodiil. If that's not as obvious to you as it is to everyone else I don't know what to tell ya.

And no, the vast majority of PvP players loathe vengeance rule sets. Many have already left because they were around long enough to see how ZOS handles these kinds of situations and they're just done with the disrespect ZOS has for it's customer base.

Orbital78 · October 2

If it supports lag free large scale battles without a hour queue, I would make it my home campaign instead of Grayhost anyday.

Marto · October 2

No

JustLovely wrote: »

No. You have it exactly backwards on all counts. Vengeance is not just a test. Vengeance is being rolled out as an alternative or replacement for current live cyrodiil. If that's not as obvious to you as it is to everyone else I don't know what to tell ya.

And no, the vast majority of PvP players loathe vengeance rule sets. Many have already left because they were around long enough to see how ZOS handles these kinds of situations and they're just done with the disrespect ZOS has for it's customer base.

What exactly is your definition of "test"...? Do you think test means it's temporary and never to be implemented?

Of course it's going to be rolled out. Because the initial tests were a success. The performance was greatly improved, the breaking point was much higher, and the average player was more open to the idea of a simplified PVP experience with a more even playing ground.

If the test had failed, they would have done 1, maybe 2 performance tests, and then abandoned the project. But it didn't fail. It accomplished what it set out to do.

And now the upcoming tests are for determining the shape that Vengeance will take. It's currently half-finished, and ZOS are adding features one by one to see what works.

So, again, what exactly is OP asking for?
What other official statements does ZOS need to make, when their last official statements are still true and accurate?

JustLovely wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

They don;t know yet.

You actually think a AAA game producer like ZOS doesn't know what their plans are for a project they've sunk thousands of man hours and who knows how much money into is going to be? Let's try and be real here for a second, shall we?

That is quite literally what is happening. And there's nothing weird about that.

It's perfectly normal for any project being made by any developer of any videogame to go through stages during which the final shape of the feature is yet to be determined.

Does the ESO community really refuse to understand what "to be determined" means? It doesn't mean the devs lack a plan. It just means the plan is being adjusted as it goes. They have a rough idea where it's going, but specifics will need to be proposed, developed, and tested before making decisions.

James-Wayne · October 2

No

I hope with it they create a new open PvP world space maybe in a oblivion realm and do away with Cryodiil.

Muizer · October 2

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Vengeance is history repeating itself almost verbatim. At the onset, it was introduced as an anodyne "test" to help determine which sets of systems had the largest impact on PvP performance. Okay, fair enough. But re-writing every single class skill in the game definitely did not comport with its billing as a simple test. And thus the skepticism begins.

Are you sure your sense of betrayal does not stem from your assumptions about the meaning of the word "test" than with anything ZOS have actually, explicitly said or done? Perhaps based on experiences with earlier tests they ran?

Personally I've always taken the emphasis they put on it being a test (like putting in the orange sky and all) as their way of reassuring people Vengeance was in early stages of development: Test, as opposed to 'finished product'. And everything they have said and done seems perfectly consistent with it.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee · October 2

Yes

Muizer wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Vengeance is history repeating itself almost verbatim. At the onset, it was introduced as an anodyne "test" to help determine which sets of systems had the largest impact on PvP performance. Okay, fair enough. But re-writing every single class skill in the game definitely did not comport with its billing as a simple test. And thus the skepticism begins.

Are you sure your sense of betrayal does not stem from your assumptions about the meaning of the word "test" than with anything ZOS have actually, explicitly said or done? Perhaps based on experiences with earlier tests they ran?

Personally I've always taken the emphasis they put on it being a test (like putting in the orange sky and all) as their way of reassuring people Vengeance was in early stages of development: Test, as opposed to 'finished product'. And everything they have said and done seems perfectly consistent with it.

The problem here is that what a huge part of the PvP community actually wants is a less laggy Grey Host experience. Vengeance in its current form (or anything remotely close to it) is not what the majority of players log in for multiple times a week. That’s been made crystal clear by the terrible populations in tests 2 and 3 whenever there weren’t heavy incentives to force people in.

So when ZOS first called these “tests,” most of us assumed we’d be participating to generate data for targeted changes to the PvP we still want to play every day, the Cyrodiil that people still log into despite the performance.

But ever since those first tests, ZOS’s own actions have made it harder and harder to believe that’s what’s happening. They’re slowly layering on new features and systems into Vengeance, they avoid answering the very direct question the community has asked countless times. What is the true purpose here? Is it to build a final Vengeance product no one asked for, or to actually make specific, surgical changes to live Cyrodiil so it performs better without gutting the systems that make it fun?

That’s why people are frustrated when they hear the word “test.” Sure, by definition it’s a test — but at this point it looks and feels like a test for a brand-new gamemode. Not a test meant to improve the PvP that the core playerbase still wants fixed. And that distinction matters, because the longer this drags on without clarity, the more obvious it becomes that Vengeance is a completely different direction from what the community has been asking for.

So if this really is about improving Grey Host, then just say it. If it’s not, stop pretending it is.