Dont deactivate normal Cyrodiil or respectfully i will not play any title with a zenimax brand anymo

Getsugatenso · 12:13AM

If you take away my PvP, I'll be very upset.

Stamicka · 12:20AM

I think that this is an overblown reaction that lacks a lot of nuance. The Vengeance environment is far closer to a balanced and fun PvP experience than live Cyrodiil is.

I think that if Vengeance:
- Adjusted healing/damage/max health
- Added pure stat based sets only (Julianos is an example)
- Introduced snare removal and movement speed skills
- Added more complexity to burst skills (like making the merciless resolve proc require 5 light attacks)

Then it would actually be a pretty enjoyable PvP experience. It still wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a massive improvement over the current Vengeance and live Cyrodiil.

The best thing about all of this, is that those changes are actually easy to make and it wouldn't effect PvE environments whatsoever. Vengeance is a hard separation between PvP and PvE so it's an environment that allows for PvP specific balancing. This something that has been needed since the beginning. On top of that, subclassing isn't in Vengeance and they could even make it an environment where hybridization isn't a thing either.

Now I'm not naive, I don't have much faith that the Vengeance environment will be handled correctly so that it could live up to it's potential. However, I think getting Vengeance right is a FAR easier task for ZOS than getting live Cyrodiil right. Think about how much they would literally have to undo to fix live PvP. They also would have to keep PvE in mind while they try since live PvP isn't separate like Vengeance is.

Vengeance is ZOS' best shot at getting PvP to a decent place. Live Cyrodiil does not hold enough people these days, and it attracts even fewer. PvP is at the end of it's road right now. Even if they scrap Vengeance like you want, Cyrodiil will still be dead, laggy, and far too big. You are essentially trying to preserve a corpse.

So I encourage all the people who are extremely anti-Vengeance to see the bigger picture. It could be the foundation of a great PvP experience with some very easy to make changes. We would also no longer have to worry about PvE balancing impacting PvP. It's unlikely that ZOS will get it right, but there's not many options anymore. Either you guys let PvP take it's final breaths and have ZOS do nothing, or you support this latch ditch effort. They aren't fixing the disaster that is live Cyrodiil though, it's just too far gone.

tomofhyrule · 12:36AM

Stamicka wrote: »

I think that this is an overblown reaction that lacks a lot of nuance. The Vengeance environment is far closer to a balanced and fun PvP experience than live Cyrodiil is.

A lot of the issue with “Vengeance is a more balanced experience” is the fact that the balance is currently in the toilet because of ZOS’s extremely questionable decisions and complete disregard for any PTS feedback. And this doesn’t affect only PvP - Subclassing also made PvE balance into an utter joke.

I actually wonder if, considering this “new mode” and IC and BGs all still use the standard skills, if Vengeance will be the “drop and forget” mode. I could see them releasing Vengeance as is and only adding to it in the case that we get e.g. a new Class, while still trying to balance the rest of the game with their standard skills.

…though the pace of balance we’ve had since U46 has left me disappointed, to say the least.

katanagirl1 · 5:38AM

I haven’t seen the post that this thread is referring to yet, but I am concerned about another Vengeance test because the last one had so few players and yet the performance was horrendous, worse than Gray Host.

Have they figured out why the last test was worse or are they just marching on with more additions to break it further?

Radiate77 · 6:16AM

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I haven’t seen the post that this thread is referring to yet, but I am concerned about another Vengeance test because the last one had so few players and yet the performance was horrendous, worse than Gray Host.

Have they figured out why the last test was worse or are they just marching on with more additions to break it further?

Top of General.
They are considering one of two options.

Option 1: Vengeance and Grayhost, no other campaigns.

Option 2: Vengeance and no other campaigns.

Despite “wanting” Option 1, they have announced that they have given up on trying to fix Grayhost. That it is an impossible task, and are encouraging people to just play the permanent Vengeance campaign, confirming to everyone… that it was not just a test.

Gabriel_H · 9:38AM

Stamicka wrote: »

I think that this is an overblown reaction that lacks a lot of nuance. The Vengeance environment is far closer to a balanced and fun PvP experience than live Cyrodiil is.

Vengeance is closer to 2016 Cyro than it is to 2025 Cyro. The same 2016 Cyro the old PvP veterans who left the game long ago and pine for, but who say Vengeance is trash.

Of course, the reality of Cyro's history is very different: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/658524/the-glory-days-of-cyrodiil

Gabriel_H · 9:39AM

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I haven’t seen the post that this thread is referring to yet, but I am concerned about another Vengeance test because the last one had so few players and yet the performance was horrendous, worse than Gray Host.

Have they figured out why the last test was worse or are they just marching on with more additions to break it further?

They added more skill lines but kept the player cap at 300 per alliance (for context they confirmed the player cap on Live is 120 per alliance).

Major_Mangle · 9:57AM

Radiate77 wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I haven’t seen the post that this thread is referring to yet, but I am concerned about another Vengeance test because the last one had so few players and yet the performance was horrendous, worse than Gray Host.

Have they figured out why the last test was worse or are they just marching on with more additions to break it further?

Top of General.
They are considering one of two options.

Option 1: Vengeance and Grayhost, no other campaigns.

Option 2: Vengeance and no other campaigns.

Despite “wanting” Option 1, they have announced that they have given up on trying to fix Grayhost. That it is an impossible task, and are encouraging people to just play the permanent Vengeance campaign, confirming to everyone… that it was not just a test.

Almost like anyone with above room temp IQ could predict that Vengeance wasn't "only a test" from the start...feeling psychic.....😁

On a serious note. My guess is that Vengeance is most likely a preparation for future cross-play to allow older gen consoles to function when cross-play eventually happens. Vengeance has too much effort put into it to just be a simple "we wanna fix performance" project.

And anyone that can read between the lines will realise that option 1 isn't really an option. I don't see them having one campaign with 360 players, one campaign with 900 players, imperial city, battlegrounds and a new pvp mode. Battlegrounds and IC won't be removed for obvious reasons and they already announced a new pvp mode is coming (which they even said will be designedfor those who like the current GH PvP setting)....that leaves GH as the thing to get rid off.

Even with crossplay there won't be enough of a population to support all different modes, assuming you want a decently pooulated PvP outside of events.

MISTFORMBZZZ · 10:01AM

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I haven’t seen the post that this thread is referring to yet, but I am concerned about another Vengeance test because the last one had so few players and yet the performance was horrendous, worse than Gray Host.

Have they figured out why the last test was worse or are they just marching on with more additions to break it further?

Top of General.
They are considering one of two options.

Option 1: Vengeance and Grayhost, no other campaigns.

Option 2: Vengeance and no other campaigns.

Despite “wanting” Option 1, they have announced that they have given up on trying to fix Grayhost. That it is an impossible task, and are encouraging people to just play the permanent Vengeance campaign, confirming to everyone… that it was not just a test.

Almost like anyone with above room temp IQ could predict that Vengeance wasn't "only a test" from the start...feeling psychic.....😁

On a serious note. My guess is that Vengeance is most likely a preparation for future cross-play to allow older gen consoles to function when cross-play eventually happens. Vengeance has too much effort put into it to just be a simple "we wanna fix performance" project.

And anyone that can read between the lines will realise that option 1 isn't really an option. I don't see them having one campaign with 360 players, one campaign with 900 players, imperial city, battlegrounds and a new pvp mode. Even with crossplay there won't be enough of a population to support all different modes, assuming you want a decently pooulated PvP outside of events.

They should eventually just not aim for 900 people pvp ?

Who needs that ? We had ''360'' for years and were fine.

Why not just aim for maybe a cap of 600 in total and STILL try to improve performance?
I dont get why it has to be all or nothing

MsGurrl · 1:11PM

amiiegee wrote: »

Oh great so they’re going to force changes on the PvP community which the majority do not want based on middling feedback from casual PvE players that only play reliably it there is a golden pursuit FOMOing them into doing it.

Performance on PS5 hasn’t been bad enough to warrant these changes since the server upgrade, and the performance in vengeance for me at least was actually worse than in grey host so I don’t believe them for a second that this is legitimately about performance issue.

I don’t buy for one second that population was higher in the third test than the regular baseline considering that a total of 10 people max were playing one of the alliances on PSEU and all servers reported struggling to get even one bar during the test. In fact immediately afterwards the day the test ended there was over 100 people on the leaderboard for that very same alliance. PvP players do not want to play vengeance, on the whole, and PvE/casual players will only jump in during an event or incentive like a golden pursuit. ZoS is just killing off a section of its community for 0 gain, yet again.

Agreed! They cannot convince me that the third test had 900 folks in there for NA ps. They can apply vengeance to PvE if they want to have their work go somewhere, but I do not like vengeance for PvP. I think many people have already told them to a dead horse, that AOE sets and the stacking healing uncapped is problematic and likely creating performance issues but the won’t look at that because these are all their creations. They won’t kill their baby convergence or VD… instead they’ll rather burn the house itself.

ceruulean · 1:29PM

React wrote: »

This is a problem. I know some people will say "oh but there is 3 of them and one of you. How can you expect to win?". My answer is the skill gap. This has always existed in ESO PVP, and is what enables outnumbered gameplay. In the current balance of vengeance, the skill ceiling is lowered dramatically and the skill floor is brought up similarly. This results in situations like the one above, where the skill gap is made meaningless. As a veteran player, it feels terrible to have all of your time and dedication be artificially made meaningless through balance like this.

I have a serious question, how would fighting against 3 "unskilled players" spamming blockcast heals and, while not dying also not doing damage, be any different than fighting against 3 veteran players spamming heals and being unkillable? How is labeling them "low skill" even fair when they are clearly using their skills in a normal way? Because in the current state of the game, and probably for most of ESO history, you can't kill a player 1v1 of equal skill who is playing defensively. It's like blaming templars for being heal bots while NB and sorcs have their stealth and mobility.

Honestly I think ESO players become delusional. Being able to 1v5-10 fulfills a power fantasy that was caused by esoteric theorycrafting and takin advantage of new players. It should not be normal to 1xX any more than 3 people, and it isn't "normal" in any game I've ever played except ESO.

loveeso · 1:38PM

Theignson wrote: »

Many of the people complaining bitterly about Vengeance run in ball or small man groups, and they found out that in Vengeance they died just like pugs. Without Crutch of Agony and Vapid death, plus 10 ultis etc etc in subclassed builds, they couldn't instantly round up a bunch of people and kill them, then do it again 8 seconds later for hours on end.
Without 25,000 hp heals per second, 12,000 shield per second, they found out they had no advantage as a group and any 12 pugs could kill them.

The fact is that Cyrodil has died a slow death largely due to the enormously over powered groups. ZOS has lost sight of game balance.

The math is something like this: a pug group generally has only a small bonus as a group, so 12 people = approximately a strength of n=12.This is an additive increase per player.
However, with the above changes to the game, ball groups power goes at least multiplicative and, arguably, exponentially.

So now 2 players in a group can have a strength of 2(2) = 4. A six man can have 6(2) = a power of 36, This is why you see well structured 6 man groups running around with dozens of players seemingly helpless. Of course with a 12 man 12(2) = 144, they are virtually immortal. With heals of shields they have something like 37,000 hp heals per second for the whole group.

Now an exponential claim may be overstating the group advantage as you scale up. It may only be multiplicative, eg (players) (x) where X is probably 4-5. So in the scenario some 12 man groups are as strong as 50-60 pugs.

I am all for build variety and subclassing. But group strength should not be multiplicative or exponential. It should be additive, ie a group, due to coordinated movement and strategy, as an advantage over a similar number of pugs. So a well run ball group should have 12+n, eg advantage,
This is actually the case in Vengeance and some of the old school groups with skill had a noticeable , but not hugely overpowered advantage.
Also skilled players like @React ran up 110 kills and zero deaths based on skill. They didnt like it because the skill cap was low, and a competent player could defend against them, but skill actually did play some role. If you add back subclassing and sets that boost the individual (not group in pvp) the skill cap could rise.

I am so sick , especially in lower pop later at night, of ball groups running around using Proc of agony every 8 seconds for hours at time. Every single group does this, (now even worse with broken Warden charm-- which they all use, of course). This is dead, broken, stale, boring game play that has now been the meta for at least 2 years, an eternity. Something needs to change.

Interesting. Maybe ZOS should look at adding body-blocking in PvP so players can’t stack and move as a single blob so easily. On top of that, reducing the radius of AoE heals/buffs in PvP (say 5m instead of 8m/12m). Wouldn’t that make the “ball group” playstyle less dominant — since right now it feels more like a pathology than healthy PvP?