Honestly - Is Vengeance Viable?

aetherix8 · December 9

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

I seriously don't get some of the pvp community. There's nothing wrong with having Vengeance as an option. A lot of people like it, just because most of the pvp community doesn't mean anything. Why are you so opposed to the rest of the ESO community actually jumping into an accessible pvp environment? Sorry to say, but GH is a terrible first impression, and the below level 50 campaign is completely dead and would still face the same issues as GH.

PvP mains since beta are afraid that all the no skill zerglings will switch to Veng, and the days of ez farming of newbies will be over. Only true vet vs vet PvP will remain, ball groups and bombers (obsolete without zergs). I cannot find any other logical explanation for the staunch opposition to Vengeance.

Sarannah · December 9

Personally I hope vengeance is viable as a long term PvP mode, as it is a fun/fair PvP mode. But the vengeance mode seems to only mostly attract the more casual PvP players. The highest I have seen the bars go on PC EU/PC NA is to 2 bars(lowest 1 bar), whatever that means population-wise. Making it roughly the same as grey host.

Maybe if vengeance is a permanent campaign it will attract more players, as many will not participate in tests. But the fact that the grey host and vengeance populations are roughly the same, means vengeance could be used as a stepping stone into grey host.

Vengeance(permanent) would allow ZOS to advertise a new more casual/'light' massive scale PvP mode. Which in turn could grow the game's PvP population as a whole and could eventually also cause more players to flow into grey host. Growing both modes and the game's popularity amongst MMO PvPers.

PS: I think both the grey host and vengeance audiences are so different, that there would not be a problem with running them side-by-side. (despite all the panicking the grey host supporters are doing)
PPS: Some players call vengeance just zerging, but given some time even vengeance will have theorycrafting and meta builds. Though not to the extreme extend as is the case in grey host. (which I personally think is a good thing)

Lord_Hev · December 9

aetherix8 wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

I seriously don't get some of the pvp community. There's nothing wrong with having Vengeance as an option. A lot of people like it, just because most of the pvp community doesn't mean anything. Why are you so opposed to the rest of the ESO community actually jumping into an accessible pvp environment? Sorry to say, but GH is a terrible first impression, and the below level 50 campaign is completely dead and would still face the same issues as GH.

PvP mains since beta are afraid that all the no skill zerglings will switch to Veng, and the days of ez farming of newbies will be over. Only true vet vs vet PvP will remain, ball groups and bombers (obsolete without zergs). I cannot find any other logical explanation for the staunch opposition to Vengeance.

The vast majority of old-school-since-beta-pvp mains have either completely quit ESO, or do not regularly pvp anymore if they do still play eso(not all of them, I do still see a few of the old guard when I can stomache cyrodiil in it's current state) but they are few and far between. Most of the "pvp mains" you see today are either young blood or "vets" from 2016 and onward.

As for a more objective answer to the quoted question. The reason why vengeance as an option is being crusaded against is because eso does not have a vibrant population, and this is doubly-so in the pvp scene. This is coming from someone who can see the positives of both Vengeance, and Greyhost. And coming from someone who is a "since beta pvper": For all the positives Vengeance has going for it, it is entirely dependent on a consistently high population. The second the population is medium-grade and reduced to just small-scale fights, it starts to get stale. And when the population gets low, it becomes straight-up boring. And again, this is coming from someone whom is an eso boomer and refuses to subclass on straight stubborn self-jeopardizing principle. I would rather deal with the nonesense of Greyhost the second vengeance's population enters the medium stage.

Idk how it isn't brought up enough, more evidence that there really aren't that many of the old guard still around. People today talk like Cyrodiil was never the focus, and that vengeance's extremely high population during the first test were anomalous. I remember a time where there were two "greyhost" type campaigns... multiple "blackreach" type campaigns... And another set of campaigns that were "dead" scroll buff campaigns where if you took a scroll, the faction that dominated would immediately cease their trial and dungeons progs and storm the sweat group that dared to take that scroll... SURE, vengeance is "unique" in that it can field 900 people in -one- single campaign. But that is not indicative of a vibrant and booming population. Cyrodiil has not had a vibrant population since 1.5 and onwards. It was of course, afterwards where the number of total campaigns started to be cut.

Now, what I have noticed is that there -is- common ground to be found amongst both ends of the spectrum. Actual balance changes. Changes that for whatever reason are completely ignored no matter how many times it is brought up. Vengeance in it's rawest form is just another example of a defeatist "I give up" solution. I mean it is straight-up written that "We cannot make Greyhost performant enough for large-scale pvp."

However, people still pvp... and say hey: There's issues with ballgroups, pull sets, and meta sets having a massive gap and creating a barrier to entry. And we have people who -don't- pvp who say hey: There's issues with ballgroups, pull sets, and meta sets having a massive gap and creating a barrier to entry... It's so strange to see! Maybe there seems to be a problem with ballgroups, pull sets, and the meta having a massive gap... I even hear the meta gap is an issue in PvE too... very odd.

edward_frigidhands · December 9

amiiegee wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

amiiegee wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

Yes, it is viable, but we need more character movement speed, more customization options and better balance between classes.
Also dynamic queue locks.

amiiegee wrote: »

It´s like many guessed and more people hoped. People dont like Vengeance and wont play it as soon Grey Host is back up.
And these who do like it will come back to GH because everyone else is playing there.
They are in a minority.

Zos should of not lied to us and pushed this path of destroying the own game or perhaps just spend the ressources somewhere else.

I can tell you exactly what´s gonna happen if you bring Vengeance as campaign but keep GH on. Nobody will play Vengeance.
And if you make it ''Vengeance only '' - see you at 5k daily players.

Some who like Vengeance won’t go to GH even if Veng does not succeed - they will just keep staying away from Cyro entirely.

I strongly disagree to your hot take, because the most people did not start cyrodiil because of vengeance.
And the three people who maybe decide to not play cyro because there is no vengeance, a system wich was announced as a ''test'' before and never was meaned to be implemented permanently before, are perhaps no loss to the pvp community.

You miss the point. Some of us quit Cyro before Vengeance was even announced.

Okay but as you can see the majority of the pvp community is still playing, but not Vengeance - unless they are forced too

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

xR3ACTORx · December 9

LPapirius wrote: »

Ya, it's just not believable anymore that some of the pro vengeance comments are coming from a desire for good faith debates. They're just trying to create conflict and get these threads shut down and/or heavily edited.

That makes sense. Thank you for this enlightening explanation.

FullMax · December 9

Well, what can I say:
- Repairing gates and walls has become much more convenient (press it once and wait), without clicking the same button over and over.
- The radius at which mobs lose interest in the player has decreased, or so it seemed to me.

Sets and champion points shouldn't be enabled: they'll only ruin the balance again. I've started winning noticeably more often than before. That's a sign of balance.

edward_frigidhands · December 9

FullMax wrote: »

Sets and champion points shouldn't be enabled: they'll only ruin the balance again. I've started winning noticeably more often than before. That's a sign of balance.

I don't know if that is an indication of improved balance.

aetherix8 · December 9

Lord_Hev wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

I seriously don't get some of the pvp community. There's nothing wrong with having Vengeance as an option. A lot of people like it, just because most of the pvp community doesn't mean anything. Why are you so opposed to the rest of the ESO community actually jumping into an accessible pvp environment? Sorry to say, but GH is a terrible first impression, and the below level 50 campaign is completely dead and would still face the same issues as GH.

PvP mains since beta are afraid that all the no skill zerglings will switch to Veng, and the days of ez farming of newbies will be over. Only true vet vs vet PvP will remain, ball groups and bombers (obsolete without zergs). I cannot find any other logical explanation for the staunch opposition to Vengeance.

The vast majority of old-school-since-beta-pvp mains have either completely quit ESO, or do not regularly pvp anymore if they do still play eso(not all of them, I do still see a few of the old guard when I can stomache cyrodiil in it's current state) but they are few and far between. Most of the "pvp mains" you see today are either young blood or "vets" from 2016 and onward.

As for a more objective answer to the quoted question. The reason why vengeance as an option is being crusaded against is because eso does not have a vibrant population, and this is doubly-so in the pvp scene. This is coming from someone who can see the positives of both Vengeance, and Greyhost. And coming from someone who is a "since beta pvper": For all the positives Vengeance has going for it, it is entirely dependent on a consistently high population. The second the population is medium-grade and reduced to just small-scale fights, it starts to get stale. And when the population gets low, it becomes straight-up boring. And again, this is coming from someone whom is an eso boomer and refuses to subclass on straight stubborn self-jeopardizing principle. I would rather deal with the nonesense of Greyhost the second vengeance's population enters the medium stage.

Idk how it isn't brought up enough, more evidence that there really aren't that many of the old guard still around. People today talk like Cyrodiil was never the focus, and that vengeance's extremely high population during the first test were anomalous. I remember a time where there were two "greyhost" type campaigns... multiple "blackreach" type campaigns... And another set of campaigns that were "dead" scroll buff campaigns where if you took a scroll, the faction that dominated would immediately cease their trial and dungeons progs and storm the sweat group that dared to take that scroll... SURE, vengeance is "unique" in that it can field 900 people in -one- single campaign. But that is not indicative of a vibrant and booming population. Cyrodiil has not had a vibrant population since 1.5 and onwards. It was of course, afterwards where the number of total campaigns started to be cut.

Now, what I have noticed is that there -is- common ground to be found amongst both ends of the spectrum. Actual balance changes. Changes that for whatever reason are completely ignored no matter how many times it is brought up. Vengeance in it's rawest form is just another example of a defeatist "I give up" solution. I mean it is straight-up written that "We cannot make Greyhost performant enough for large-scale pvp."

However, people still pvp... and say hey: There's issues with ballgroups, pull sets, and meta sets having a massive gap and creating a barrier to entry. And we have people who -don't- pvp who say hey: There's issues with ballgroups, pull sets, and meta sets having a massive gap and creating a barrier to entry... It's so strange to see! Maybe there seems to be a problem with ballgroups, pull sets, and the meta having a massive gap... I even hear the meta gap is an issue in PvE too... very odd.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that some PvPers want Vengeance to stop existing because of low population concerns, to avoid splitting the playerbase any further? That would be a valid argument, except, why is it so low nowadays? Why are there fewer and fewer players in Cyro?

Reason 1. Devs
One cannot help but think that 10 years of almost complete abandon, and changes to the game made with only PvE in mind, have played a major role here. At least now we're seeing some serious engagement finally, and frankly gl devs! I hope you succeed in fixing this unique mode and make most PvPvEvPers happy.
(when "people talk like Cyrodiil was never the focus", I think they mean ZOS, as opposed to Cyro being unpopular)

Reason 2. The current state of the game
Almost nobody is talking about lag anymore, like it has somehow magically disappeared. But it is still there, and when it hits, the game becomes utterly unplayable. The balance is in shambles. The skill gap is insurmountable for newcomers. Stuck in combat and 50k days debuffs are absolutely maddening. The whole scoring system should be adjusted too. Pop caps just keep being reduced every now and then, and this is detrimental to the overall experience since the map is designed for bigger crowds. To list some of the issues.

It is making very little sense to focus on reducing the PvP space in order to assure that there are enough players while the population is actively shrinking. On the contrary, if we want healthy populations we have to offer more space, more choice, so more people will try PvP and stick around to what they enjoy, and maybe explore other options as well. Who knows, Vengeance might yet attract new players to PvP and increase its overall population. At least give it a try*, I would say to the hardcore opponents, because GH alone is failing to attract and retain new players, not to mention veterans.

*no, you don't have to play it, keep GH, but let others have their option if they so wish

Gabriel_H · December 9

fizzybeef wrote: »

First of all, i cant believe people are still arguing with that person who thinks they are always right and act as if they have some insider knowledge we dont have, while want to become a dev.

Second : Vengeange is not viable, thats exactly what happened as soon gh was back on pc eu and in the next days more people will leave vengeance because its less populated

On PS EU vengeance never had a single bar, people are either boycotting it or just despiting to play it.

Either way. Its a fail.

1 Bar on Vengeance is 3 bars on Live. I.e. the populations are the same number.

Vulsahdaal · December 9

Just a few minutes ago on PCNA someone from DC GH just came to Vengeance to beg players to come to GH because there was almost no one there. Never thought Id see that, but yeah it happened.

Not saying Vengeance was full, I only seen 30-35 max DC there, but the one looking for help claimed its more than GH?

CatoUnchained · December 9

amiiegee wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

amiiegee wrote: »

But im claiming vengeance wont be populated if it becomes a option and this will make the most vengeance enthusiasts play GH.

This is wrong, most of the players in Vengeance are casuals. The pvp player base is very small in comparison. Today was proof you're wrong on this. Both GH and Vengeance were open and Vengeance still had plenty of zergs on all sides (PCNA). I don't know why people are obsessed with comparing bars when it's already been established that the max player count is way higher than GH.

And no the bonuses are not the only reason it's still popular currently. When a new player joins cyro and they first join GH (because that's the only one that ever has players normally) they will be stomped with zero chance of winning. But if they join Vengeance they'll actually be able to play the game and experience pvp and not die in two seconds to some max CP player running meta gear and skills or a ball group.

Yes a dead campaign = no new players. But that is because they're all the same campaigns. The only difference is one no cp campaign and one below level 50. But the below level 50 one is dead because there's not enough players to sustain it and people don't bother making new toons just to rejoin it unless it's to troll real new players.

With Vengeance at least it's a different way to play pvp that is easier for the casual or new player to play. Believe me when I say a casual looks at GH and wants to stay far away from it. It's just not good pvp for them because pve and pvp are vastly different.

Currently the only way as a new player to enjoy pvp is BG's because they at least have a below level 50 version that is populated some of the time.

So yeah keeping Vengeance is fine and not going to be a problem for GH, as you said most hardcore pvp players will stay in GH. It could sustain itself if the pvp community would stop being so toxic towards the idea, the unique part of Cyro is the siege and capturing stuff, not the pvp gameplay. And Vengeance allows a way bigger player cap due to the reduction of sets and problematic calculations. Which in turns allows for better attacking and defending moments.

Time will show who is right, im just saying 11 years people who began to play pvp started in GH and adapted instead of playing training wheel pvp.
I believe this will continue.

..if they allow it continue.

CatoUnchained · December 9

LPapirius wrote: »

xR3ACTORx wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

[

Hey look, simple high school maths make that irrelevant.

Hey look, the graphic says FPS which is clearly labeled wrong.

And even I could make a graphic with blurred numbers and write 900 caps on it. Come on, bro. Don't act like you don't know.

Ya, it's just not believable anymore that some of the pro vengeance comments are coming from a desire for good faith debates. They're just trying to create conflict and get these threads shut down and/or heavily edited.

That's what I see going on.

CatoUnchained · December 9

Vulsahdaal wrote: »

Just a few minutes ago on PCNA someone from DC GH just came to Vengeance to beg players to come to GH because there was almost no one there. Never thought Id see that, but yeah it happened.

Not saying Vengeance was full, I only seen 30-35 max DC there, but the one looking for help claimed its more than GH?

On PCNA it seems most players from DC and AD have swapped back to Grey Host already. PC NA Grey Host is a solid blue map last couple days. EP maybe didn't get the memo Grey Host is back. But I know one of the main EP guilds on PC NA is still playing vengeance on purpose. It's kind of hard to tell what's going on exactly since to many variables at once here, but by in large it appears that people are going back to Grey Host as soon as they realize they can with very little exception.

xR3ACTORx · December 9

CatoUnchained wrote: »

That's what I see going on.

I just realized there is a "flag" button one can use to flag comments of specific individuals and see if the same rules apply to them.

Erickson9610 · December 9

I'd say Vengeance is viable. It's PvP separated from PvE — the skills are balanced accordingly. It does a lot more than Gray Host could ever do with Battle Spirit.

I just hope ZOS leaves the sets and passives out of Vengeance. We probably don't need Scribing abilities either — it would be a lot of work to "Vengeancify" them. I'm actually pretty glad that Skill Styles don't work in Vengeance, since the lack of them makes abilities more readable.

Hopefully we get the rest of the skill lines added, like Undaunted, Psijic Order, Werewolf, and Vampire, just without passives. It felt nice to have a reason to use certain skill lines again, but if the abilities are balanced separately anyway, they could probably add in Subclassing without causing balance issues. Hopefully the Class Refresh carries over into Vengeance if any skills are rearranged.

BardokRedSnow · December 9

Gabriel_H wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

First of all, i cant believe people are still arguing with that person who thinks they are always right and act as if they have some insider knowledge we dont have, while want to become a dev.

Second : Vengeange is not viable, thats exactly what happened as soon gh was back on pc eu and in the next days more people will leave vengeance because its less populated

On PS EU vengeance never had a single bar, people are either boycotting it or just despiting to play it.

Either way. Its a fail.

1 Bar on Vengeance is 3 bars on Live. I.e. the populations are the same number.

So how many is this?

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

now they finally came to play lol so its zerglings and proc 'sploiters all together almost, one happy family.

Should put vengeance to bed and just let us have greyhost

im sure the numbers will get back to normal eventually, many people kept saying they didnt know greyhost was back and vengeance made them stop playing altogether.

SneaK · December 9

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

First of all, i cant believe people are still arguing with that person who thinks they are always right and act as if they have some insider knowledge we dont have, while want to become a dev.

Second : Vengeange is not viable, thats exactly what happened as soon gh was back on pc eu and in the next days more people will leave vengeance because its less populated

On PS EU vengeance never had a single bar, people are either boycotting it or just despiting to play it.

Either way. Its a fail.

1 Bar on Vengeance is 3 bars on Live. I.e. the populations are the same number.

So how many is this?

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

now they finally came to play lol so its zerglings and proc 'sploiters all together almost, one happy family.

Should put vengeance to bed and just let us have greyhost

im sure the numbers will get back to normal eventually, many people kept saying they didnt know greyhost was back and vengeance made them stop playing altogether.

I read it as zero.

Destai · December 9

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi all, thanks for the continued discussion here. We want to share a point of consideration as we are seeing some comments around population when talking about the in-game graphs. The in-game population bar is representative of the current participants in a campaign, relative to the max cap of that campaign. So for example, if Gray Host is at 360/360, but Vengeance is 450/900, the graph will show Gray Host as 100% capacity while Vengeance is at 50%, even though Vengeance has more players. We wanted to provide that as you continue your conversations about population overall.

Going forward, I would hope that no more blurring out happens. Just given the game's history, there really isn't a lot of trust, and moves like that just add fuel to that fire. Better to have too much information, IMO.

ceruulean · December 9

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

now they finally came to play lol so its zerglings and proc 'sploiters all together almost, one happy family.

Should put vengeance to bed and just let us have greyhost

im sure the numbers will get back to normal eventually, many people kept saying they didnt know greyhost was back and vengeance made them stop playing altogether.

According to your immediate circle, there's 5 guild members in Venegance but only 1 friend and 1 guildie in Grayhost.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · December 9

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi all, thanks for the continued discussion here. We want to share a point of consideration as we are seeing some comments around population when talking about the in-game graphs. The in-game population bar is representative of the current participants in a campaign, relative to the max cap of that campaign. So for example, if Gray Host is at 360/360, but Vengeance is 450/900, the graph will show Gray Host as 100% capacity while Vengeance is at 50%, even though Vengeance has more players. We wanted to provide that as you continue your conversations about population overall.

@ZOS_Kevin is the team saying that the population bars scale 1:1 with the population? i.e bar 1 =0-25% full bar2=25-50% etc? Because that is not what we saw when testing in the past.

BardokRedSnow · December 9

ceruulean wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

now they finally came to play lol so its zerglings and proc 'sploiters all together almost, one happy family.

Should put vengeance to bed and just let us have greyhost

im sure the numbers will get back to normal eventually, many people kept saying they didnt know greyhost was back and vengeance made them stop playing altogether.

According to your immediate circle, there's 5 guild members in Venegance but only 1 friend and 1 guildie in Grayhost.

My guilds are trader guilds except one for Cyrodiil claims and another where me and one friend are the only ones that still play this game lol, Carried By Stam DK

In other words, those 5 guildies are random pvers I don’t interact with lol so yea that checks out

My friends list never has more than ten people on anymore so yea that checks out also lol, was my duo.

And even with only one of my friends on in Cyrodiil, Vengeance was still getting ratio’d hard. Keep in mind also that most of the Greyhost regulars were not even aware Greyhost was back, they don’t frequent the forums or any eso media at all.

Artisian0001 · December 9

The people who want vengeance are a vocal minority. The people who dislike Greyhost or what PvP has evolved into are casual players who dislike ballgroups because they think as a solo player they should be able to fight 12 people by themselves.

A lot of the PvP streamers play vengeance for a day and get bored of it and would swap to a new game while waiting for it to go away, now that Greyhost there when vengeance is as well, we have a real representation of what it looks like, and last night GH was still pop locked. This means even more people would have been out in cyro if there wasn't a cap. Obviously, vengeance has a higher population cap, but GH was undeniably larger in pop, when GH was locked, vengeance was 1 bar AD and DC, 2 bar EP.

Just like what happened with BGs back in the day when the 3 team system was removed, for the better, I still think having a 3 team option would be nice for those who want to play it, but sadly the population isn't high enough to have both systems at the same time. I would prefer a working Greyhost and so would the vast majority of people, with the exception of the vocal minority that do not like it. Solving the issue of performance isn't impossible, it is just more work than the dev team would like to put it. Every new patch a new bug is introduced when certain systems shouldn't even be touched. Certain skills are messed up when they haven't even been adjusted which makes absolutely no sense, so seeing the devs actually address the issue isn't a likely outcome.

With that being the case, it is undeniable that GH is still the preferred option for the majority of players in PvP regardless of what people on the forums may say. If GH had no pop cap, the performance would be even worse in bad moments (remove volendrung) but even more people would still go past that population cap to play it with the added lag. While this may be the case, I still prefer keeping both so players can have what they want. Have one GH, one vengeance, remove alliance lock, and players will be able to go where they want and be happy.

Erickson9610 · December 9

Artisian0001 wrote: »

The people who dislike Greyhost or what PvP has evolved into are casual players who dislike ballgroups because they think as a solo player they should be able to fight 12 people by themselves.

That's not possible in Vengeance. You can do that in Gray Host, though. Why aren't more people advocating for Gray Host if that's what they want to be able to do?

BardokRedSnow · December 9

Artisian0001 wrote: »

The people who want vengeance are a vocal minority. The people who dislike Greyhost or what PvP has evolved into are casual players who dislike ballgroups because they think as a solo player they should be able to fight 12 people by themselves.

Nah those players are people who are solo not by choice but because they dont know the pvp circles and cant get a group. We see em in dc all the time, faction switchers yelling in zone for a group, but we dont have a lot of those on dc, we have an actual solo pvp culture, people that choose to play with themselves or at best smallgroup.

Those players just avoid ballgroups... Unless we have to address them.

We dislike ballgroups because the developers cater to your playstyle despite killing the server, and actively work to kill ours.

YandereGirlfriend · December 9

Sarannah wrote: »

Personally I hope vengeance is viable as a long term PvP mode, as it is a fun/fair PvP mode. But the vengeance mode seems to only mostly attract the more casual PvP players. The highest I have seen the bars go on PC EU/PC NA is to 2 bars(lowest 1 bar), whatever that means population-wise. Making it roughly the same as grey host.

Maybe if vengeance is a permanent campaign it will attract more players, as many will not participate in tests. But the fact that the grey host and vengeance populations are roughly the same, means vengeance could be used as a stepping stone into grey host.

Vengeance(permanent) would allow ZOS to advertise a new more casual/'light' massive scale PvP mode. Which in turn could grow the game's PvP population as a whole and could eventually also cause more players to flow into grey host. Growing both modes and the game's popularity amongst MMO PvPers.

PS: I think both the grey host and vengeance audiences are so different, that there would not be a problem with running them side-by-side. (despite all the panicking the grey host supporters are doing)
PPS: Some players call vengeance just zerging, but given some time even vengeance will have theorycrafting and meta builds. Though not to the extreme extend as is the case in grey host. (which I personally think is a good thing)

I definitely fit the description of veteran PvP player who does not enjoy Vengeance. But I've come around to the idea that it can peacefully coexist with Grey Host. Moreover, it could also serve as a launching pad for new players to train in and then enter Grey Host once their understanding of PvP mechanics is more developed. Which could be win-win for all sides and finally re-start the conveyor belt of creating new PvP players.

And just as it would be like weapons-grade levels of betrayal to shut down Grey Host (as there is a demonstrably large number of PvP players who prefer it to Vengeance), it would also, I think, be a betrayal of the casual players who seem to like Vengeance to suddenly snatch it away (this is more for argument's sake as we know that this is not an actual option).

ZOS is a large studio and they can/should be expected to support both.

imPDA · December 9

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

ZOS is a large studio and they can/should be expected to support both.

To rework DK they already spent 5 months and will spend some more time, it is not definition of large, but more like indie/small game studio, not consistent with productivity. I know one brilliant example of similar vibe studio - Facepunch, Rust developers. They also struggle with game engine not very suitable for things they are trying to make, they also struggle fixing old things and making new things, but boi oh boi, when they deliver new things, new features are usually huge.

So, I feel like ZOS has problems internally after all things happened and they just very slow and unproductive right now (not all departments, but department involved into Vengeance/PvP/etc.), and they can fail to support both at the end, as they abandoned non-proc and surrendered and removed it.

LennaTheRussian · December 9

Vengeance PCNA 4PM Tuesday.

The only reason why it's not viable is because people don't want to play in an empty campaign. When GH wasn't around and the people that apparently "hated Vengeance" so much that they stopped playing pvp entirely, Vengeance was booming with new players and always had big fights going on.

If it's hated so much by the pvp community then why was it packed on PCNA? Because people enjoy it, but now that GH is back to skew the numbers and make people think GH has more players, people don't want to bother joining Vengeance because they think it's dead (which it is because GH is deceptive with it's bars.)

It's not dead because no one liked playing it, if that was the case then no one would have played it. The bonus ap they offered is not that good of an incentive.

fizzybeef · December 9

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

Vengeance PCNA 4PM Tuesday.

The only reason why it's not viable is because people don't want to play in an empty campaign. When GH wasn't around and the people that apparently "hated Vengeance" so much that they stopped playing pvp entirely, Vengeance was booming with new players and always had big fights going on.

If it's hated so much by the pvp community then why was it packed on PCNA? Because people enjoy it, but now that GH is back to skew the numbers and make people think GH has more players, people don't want to bother joining Vengeance because they think it's dead (which it is because GH is deceptive with it's bars.)

It's not dead because no one liked playing it, if that was the case then no one would have played it. The bonus ap they offered is not that good of an incentive.

Just accept its dead. And thats good.
GH never needed incentives to be populated.
Time to move on, be part of pvp in GH or let it be and stay outside.

As long people are not forced to play it, vengeance will not become populated. And it was only populated because there was no other way to play cyro pvp and people got lurked with double ap lmao.

LennaTheRussian · December 9

fizzybeef wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

Vengeance PCNA 4PM Tuesday.

The only reason why it's not viable is because people don't want to play in an empty campaign. When GH wasn't around and the people that apparently "hated Vengeance" so much that they stopped playing pvp entirely, Vengeance was booming with new players and always had big fights going on.

If it's hated so much by the pvp community then why was it packed on PCNA? Because people enjoy it, but now that GH is back to skew the numbers and make people think GH has more players, people don't want to bother joining Vengeance because they think it's dead (which it is because GH is deceptive with it's bars.)

It's not dead because no one liked playing it, if that was the case then no one would have played it. The bonus ap they offered is not that good of an incentive.

Just accept its dead. And thats good.
GH never needed incentives to be populated.
Time to move on, be part of pvp in GH or let it be and stay outside.

As long people are not forced to play it, vengeance will not become populated. And it was only populated because there was no other way to play cyro pvp and people got lurked with double ap lmao.

Pretty sad you're that desperate tbh.

fizzybeef · December 9

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

LennaTheRussian wrote: »

Vengeance PCNA 4PM Tuesday.

The only reason why it's not viable is because people don't want to play in an empty campaign. When GH wasn't around and the people that apparently "hated Vengeance" so much that they stopped playing pvp entirely, Vengeance was booming with new players and always had big fights going on.

If it's hated so much by the pvp community then why was it packed on PCNA? Because people enjoy it, but now that GH is back to skew the numbers and make people think GH has more players, people don't want to bother joining Vengeance because they think it's dead (which it is because GH is deceptive with it's bars.)

It's not dead because no one liked playing it, if that was the case then no one would have played it. The bonus ap they offered is not that good of an incentive.

Just accept its dead. And thats good.
GH never needed incentives to be populated.
Time to move on, be part of pvp in GH or let it be and stay outside.

As long people are not forced to play it, vengeance will not become populated. And it was only populated because there was no other way to play cyro pvp and people got lurked with double ap lmao.

Pretty sad you're that desperate tbh.

Not desperated at all, because the actions of the players who straight left vengeance as soon it was possible, just proved the game mode is not accepted or wanted.

If Zos brings that game mode aside of grey host you can have fun fighting guards or three people. It will be like IC basically.

Im happy about all that.