Honestly - Is Vengeance Viable?

aetherix8 · December 13

Major_Mangle wrote: »

The most ironic thing about Vengeance or the game in general as of late, is how ZOS won't spend a single calorie reading or even considering whatever feedback any of you give. Either you accept whatever they throw at you, or you do like a lot of others have done during this year and move on to other games.

Lol, they do read and consider, that's why we're in the middle of Vengeance "tests" now. It's years and years of complaints of the PvP community that brought us here. It's just that after reading and considering, ZOS somehow comes up with solutions that are often very different from what players suggested, or smth that nobody even suggested. There seems to be some dissonance.

MorallyBipolar · December 13

Poss wrote: »

ToddIngram wrote: »

Tonight is the third night in a row that Grey Host has been pop locked while vengeance only has one bar. Not sure how ZOS is going to be able to spin the side by side comparison at this point. The vast majority of people will play Grey Host when given the choice between Grey Host and vengeance.

They just wont. They'll still declare it a resounding success and push this abomination through to Live

If past is prologue, you are exactly right. ZOS doesn't care if we almost universally hate vengeance. If they like it it's the sandwich they're going to serve to the exclusion of better options people actually want to eat.

MorallyBipolar · December 13

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This isn't it's final form so it's hard to say. No new stuff is being added but they're going to be looking at its damage/healing balance.

If they can't fix Grey Host they can't develop a new system that will work properly either.

MorallyBipolar · December 13

Iriidius wrote: »

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.

11 years people surely didn’t started to play PvP in GreyHost nor any other cp campaign because neither GreyHost nor cp existed 11 years ago.
If you mean they started in a campaign with builds instead of templates this is true but 11 years ago everyone was a new player and you could type lfg and play Pickupgroup against other PuGs consisting of new players so you didn’t had to be good.
Nowadays even having good build isn’t enaugh to have fun in GH/BR because PuGs are dead, soloplay is dead and premades will don’t invite you in group for beeing a zergling (even when you never play in group or attack outnumbered players) and unskilled and zerg you themself on sight as „revenge“.

I became addicted to Cyrodiil PvP in September of 2014, two months after purchasing the game.

It's true that it hasn't always been exactly the same over the last 11 years, but it has existed that long, and that's how long ZOS has had to resolve the issues they themselves created in the system. There is NO EXCUSE WHAT SO EVER for there to be ongoing performance issues in Cyrodiil after all this time. It's clearly a lack of effort on their part that we're in this situation today.

MorallyBipolar · December 13

Iriidius wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

Lucasl402 wrote: »

Grey Host has been part of the game since inception (maybe not with same name). ZOS should fix the game they created not waste time creating something new that won't help their business in any capacity.

ESO was originally marketed as a PvP game too, Cyrodiil was literally the endgame.

Most popular real PvP games have players start on equal ground like in Vengeance and unlike GreyHost.
Vengeance allows players to play ESO as pure PvP game and brings in PvP players that wouldn’t play GreyHost.

SneaK wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

and then Vengeance comes along and makes them stop playing for a week... it is a VERY convenient time to simply step away for good.

I only play this game when Vengeance is up, so I only get 1 week every 3 months.

The 100 or so GH regulars could all quit forever with zero impact on the game as a whole.

If you're still holding hope that they'll "fix" GH after 12 directionless years... lol.

Right….. Cause if all you do is PvP and all you have is Vengeance there’s no reason to play the rest of the game cause it’s makes PvE irrelevant for PvPers. Thanks for proven a point with your entitlement.

Majority of players are pure PvE players or mostly PvE players occasional PvPing, there are enaugh of them that you don’t have to force pure PvPer to do PvE content to keep it full when most players do the PvE content without even needing the rewards for PvP.
Content that you have to force players to play because they don’t do it for fun is bad content

Everyone who plays PvP in ESO starts from the same level as well. It's the same hill to climb for everyone.

MorallyBipolar · December 13

Major_Mangle wrote: »

The most ironic thing about Vengeance or the game in general as of late, is how ZOS won't spend a single calorie reading or even considering whatever feedback any of you give. Either you accept whatever they throw at you, or you do like a lot of others have done during this year and move on to other games.

Spoken like someone who's been dealing with ZOS for a decade or more.

I'm still bent about their refusal to revert something as simple as the jabs animation. That was when I knew we were at the beginning of the end. They refused to revert and fix a nearly universally hated animation change. Just an animation change a dev could rework in a couple hours or less. So they're either not listening, or just don't care.

Iriidius · December 13

manukartofanu wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

The answer is pretty simple: to revitalize the population, to add more players to PvP. And frankly, it is delusional to expect that newbies will turn into skilled PvPers in 1 week (or 2 even).

It will be a different story once Vengeance is permanent because it will offer a continuity of learning. At the moment, there is no reason to engage with a mode that is unfinished and only there for a week or two.

If the only audience that matters and should be taken into account is vet PvPers then PvP is as good as dead, as it fails to attract new players while population is actively shrinking.

Because the current GH has already evolved to a point where it is no longer very interesting for PvP players. This happened due to constant flirtation with PvE, not through a separate campaign but through the meta itself, which kept shifting more and more toward ensuring that you do not die. The natural result is ball groups that have no real counter.

In real PvP, you die again and again. You get better and you die even more. You change your builds, learn mechanics and timings, come back to compete, and you die again. This goes on endlessly. Even when you are the best, you still die to specific builds that can and should counter the meta. If something has no counter, if it cannot be killed, it gets nerfed.

In this game, however, everything is reversed. If something can kill, it gets nerfed. This is simply the evolution of a PvP environment into a PvE activity. The current GH is PvE in its essence, just with a high barrier to entry.

Vengeance is merely a continuation of the idea that PvE players can be drawn into PvP by giving them more and more concessions. This will not work. These are completely different players with completely different mindsets.

The meta didn’t ensure that PvEplayers don’t
die but only that PvP players don’t die. In PvE most players use 20k hp DD builds and many will go PvP with them rather than 40k hp Balorgh Monomyth Mara RC

Ballgroups flirt only with premade trial groups but do the opposite with soloPvPer, dungeon groups and even trial lfg groups.

What you call concession to PvE players was concession to premade groups/guilds and the opposite to everyone else.

Changes in the last few years have mostly reduced time to kill.
Mara was nerfed, corrosive and cinderstorm and sorcerer and arcanist shield was nerfed,
Undead passive was nerfed, Subclassing lets players choose 2 or 3 offensive skilllines and mitigation got reworked so that the product of multiple multiplied sources of mitigation gets less mitigation.

Players having no interest in PvP can’t be drawn in with concessions but players that do but don’t like current ruleset can be drawn in if you change it in their favor.

A poll has shown that 95% of players in forum have somewhen played PvP.
Even when 80% of them were „encouraged“ by rewards the remaining 20% are still a lot more players that tried PvP thinking they might like it only to get heavily disappointed than the players we currently have in PvP.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/discussion/685800/have-you-played-pvp-in-cyrodiil-before/p1

BardokRedSnow · December 13

ceruulean wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

The queue was so long that when people crashed they just logged lmao, that’s the Cyrodiil I missed XD

In fact they should raise the GH population cap too, 200 per faction at least. Last night was very fun even despite ballgroups. We had plenty of bombers making them suffer.

ZoS raised the population cap in Greyhost 2 years ago as a test (which I participated in)

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/648108/cyrodiil-population-cap-testing/p1

The devs didn't really publish anything about the results afterwards. In fact the test probably made them conclude that GH is unsalveagable and they started working on Vengeance.

We are all aware of their pop cap shenanigans. I think that the performance issues in GH are overstated currently, the only time performance dips is when ballgroups come out. Raising the cap actually helps with that too, can kill the balls with more people sieging, negating, and bombing.

Also many people are misconstruing their pcs being outdated with lag. A lot of people dont realize after updates sometimes their graphics settings change and their cpu is getting bottlenecked, adding onto high ping spike issues but having nothing to do with it specifically.

If my last pc with a 1070 can handle greyhost, most people can too. Without crashes also. Ambient occlusion, grass detail, surface reflection, all can be turned way down, or off entirely, and same with shadow quality, and all sliders down to 20-30 percent. Youll get much better performance this way and its necessary for any mode with lots of players in a huge area like cyrodiil.

Ping spikes is server side usually, or your internet connection but greyhost rn in that regard is actually rather stable.

BardokRedSnow · December 13

aetherix8 wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

The answer is pretty simple: to revitalize the population, to add more players to PvP. And frankly, it is delusional to expect that newbies will turn into skilled PvPers in 1 week (or 2 even).

It will be a different story once Vengeance is permanent because it will offer a continuity of learning. At the moment, there is no reason to engage with a mode that is unfinished and only there for a week or two.

If the only audience that matters and should be taken into account is vet PvPers then PvP is as good as dead, as it fails to attract new players while population is actively shrinking.

Why do you (need) to be skilled in one or two weeks? Where did that argument even come from, my comment was about experience because the newbies who do not like PvP should not get to shape the future of PvP for those who do.

Do you expect new pvers to parse 110k damage on the dummy?

Again, Greyhost specifically is end game content. We already had 50 and under and no proc campaigns for new players or players tired of ballgroups and the like, like what @Iriidius is talking about. Theres still organized groups but it’s not like it is in greyhost.

Fact is, if people needing a break from procs and gh shenanigans were numerous enough to keep a campaign alive besides Greyhost, those campaigns wouldn’t be so dead.

No one here can justify or advocate for Vengeance without explaining that first. Especially when next to greyhost vengeance is dead also on day 1.

If you’re tired of PvP, do some questing, go farm some sets to get better, or for gold. We don’t need another dead side campaign next to greyhost and as shown pvers aren’t enough to sustain it alone. They’re not interested and no amount of simplicity will make them become pvpers. This has been proven again and again.

GH sees new players all the time, another example of why pvpers’ experience should be taken more seriously, if GH wasn’t receiving new players, then with the amount of people we’ve seen quit the game, GH being pop locked and having a queue every night would be an interesting magic trick.

The games population is dwindling but pretty sure it has more to do with battle pass shenanigans and awful events on solstice, in pve land. Not anything to do with PvP. Also bad implementations of subclassing has done more damage to pve than PvP. Look over there first maybe PVE needs Vengeance….

And it will dwindle even more if vengeance is forced on us.

I doubt that players who “do not like PvP” try to shape it ever in any way other than “remove PvP” or “make Cyro PvE”. Basically, players who don’t like it are not participating at all unless event tickets, and I’m pretty sure that they have better discussions to read and comment on, like class refresh, or fake roles in dungeons, or fashion. Players who debate Vengeance are all PvPers, some veterans, some newer, but we all have the same objective: PvP that is working (performance) and fun (balance).

As for other campaigns, U50 is dead since conception and no-proc was a half baked and botched experiment promptly abandoned by ZOS. And how is CP2k+ supposed to take a break from ballgroups or whatever in U50? There is simply 0 alternative rn for anyone tired of GH blatant lack of balance.

GH pop-wise, trick for sure just not magic. How many times ZOS have reduced population caps in Cyrodiil? How long the queue is nowadays? PC EU GH I rarely see a queue, and if there’s one it is extremely rarely longer than 15min., while a few years ago queue could be longer than 1 hour. Sure, there are new players who try it, but it seems that far too few stay.

And you say that the fact that PvPers are leaving the game does not have “anything to do with PvP”? Is that even real!? So they left because there are too many fake tanks in dungeons? Or because new PvE content is downsized currently? Or because new mounts are too flashy? It certainly has nothing to do with broken sets or OP ballgroups, or shield/HoT stacking?

And how did subclassing hurt PvE more than PvP? Because everyone is beaming everything now? Because players can burn through trials even faster now? It doesn’t make any sense.

If the other campaigns werent good enough for people to take a break in, neither will vengeance be. It is exactly what you called ravenwatch, a half baked and botched experiment that will be abandoned by zos.

GH has been pop locked in the evenings all week since its return and was also before, especially yesterday on a friday night and it will be again today also. PC NA. The queue was hours long for some.

I said people leaving the game period, as in, all players in general, pve and pvp. It stands to reason that if pvpers are a small part of the community, and pve is the majority of players, that if people are leaving eso, it is primarily pve side and not because of pvp. Pvp has its problems and people have left yea but Pvp isnt the heart of eso's woes. We stick around longer than the majority of players do in pve land, we're a dedicated part of the fanbase.

So it is absurd that Zos looks at our part of the community, our slice of the pie and thinks to take away from us what we've been enjoying for years even despite their shortcomings instead of the real issue which is pve. Pve as someone else earlier stated is the main thing they looked at when they developed subclassing, and now its so simplified that everyone's expected to have a beam build for dps in trials.

Thats what I'm speaking of. Pvp is homogenized to a bad extent but not nearly as bad as pve which affects way more players, so why should we have to carry the effort to save this game. Pve is losing more players than we are, perhaps zos should turn to there for more tests in the future and leave our greyhost alone, lol no Britney Spears.

BardokRedSnow · December 13

And on the subject of homogenization... vengeance is that personified. All in all it is the final form on pvp side of the issue they've been having for years. That anyone thinks it will solve anything is so perplexing, of the three people on my friends list i saw playing it, they were all nightblades. You're not getting a break from anything there it shines a light on the balance issue even more than greyhost does.

blktauna · December 13

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

ToddIngram wrote: »

And why should someone who admits to only playing one week/month have a louder voice in the direction for the game than those of us who still play daily?

You really wanna compare the size of our uh, playtimes? Good luck

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

Speak for yourself brother. Wednesday and Friday my EU guild is in Ravenwatch or Vengence if its up. We prefer skill based to cheese based combat.
The only reason my NA pvp guild went to GH is after the last couble od updates, the pop od Blackreach bottomed out.

Your gatekeeping and condescention to pvpers who do not like the same as you is very sad.

blktauna · December 13

Artisian0001 wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Your sole aspiration is to derail every thread you dislike.

Then why are you replying to me?

Because you get your comments deleted often and have been banned before. Your sole purpose is to troll and derail threads because you think PvP where players have any skill and you can't just troll dodge every instance of damage shouldn't exist.

Oh by the way, GH is way above vengeance right now in population, just thought I would keep you updated on what the thread is about.

And how do you know this?

BardokRedSnow · December 13

blktauna wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

ToddIngram wrote: »

And why should someone who admits to only playing one week/month have a louder voice in the direction for the game than those of us who still play daily?

You really wanna compare the size of our uh, playtimes? Good luck

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

Speak for yourself brother. Wednesday and Friday my EU guild is in Ravenwatch or Vengence if its up. We prefer skill based to cheese based combat.
The only reason my NA pvp guild went to GH is after the last couble od updates, the pop od Blackreach bottomed out.

Your gatekeeping and condescention to pvpers who do not like the same as you is very sad.

I do speak for myself, I stated multiple times in this discussion I come from PC NA. And even in ours we have people stating they play there. Mostly on these forums. I know they exist. Yet every time you look at ravenwatch or blackreach it always says 1/1/1 and the map is a solid color. Much like Vengeance now mind you.

My duo from a couple years ago used to go to Ravenwatch with her group of four or so to farm the ones taking empty keeps specifically because they all log in and switch characters to other factions to regularly sweep the entire map from blue to red to yellow.

If that aint dead I don't know what is. You say its better in EU, I can only take your word.

Side note tho, I see plenty of comments from others on your server saying Vengeance is dead same as ours.

blktauna wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Your sole aspiration is to derail every thread you dislike.

Then why are you replying to me?

Because you get your comments deleted often and have been banned before. Your sole purpose is to troll and derail threads because you think PvP where players have any skill and you can't just troll dodge every instance of damage shouldn't exist.

Oh by the way, GH is way above vengeance right now in population, just thought I would keep you updated on what the thread is about.

And how do you know this?

Everyone that knows Xylena or has read her comments here knows. She herself didn't deny it. Dont wanna turn this into a discussion about individuals, I know that makes the mods twitchy but in our community, PCNA, there's a reputation and I will leave it at that.

imPDA · December 13

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

You say its better in EU, I can only take your word.

It is pretty the same for EU. There was group of 3-4 blue players taking emperor before primetime and then defending it from AD and EP groups (pop locked AD, EP pop - 3 bars or lock, DC - 2 bars usually, rarely 3) coordinated and attacking blues alliance together without fighting with each other. These DC tried hard to keep emperor as long as possible and they managed to do it for 2-3 hours, but then they were usually just smashed by EP+AD on last emperor keep (like, literally more than 150 players at one place EP + AD sieging from two sides at the same time vs maybe 50 DC + emperor). It was before procs, after procs introduced - these tryhards left and now it is one faction zergfest.

Poss · December 13

Iriidius wrote: »

Most popular real PvP games have players start on equal ground like in Vengeance and unlike GreyHost.
Vengeance allows players to play ESO as pure PvP game and brings in PvP players that wouldn’t play GreyHost.

And yet Cyrodiil was hugely popular on release and Vengeance is dead. So what’s your point?

blktauna · 1:01AM

lol Just because you want it to be dead doesn't mean it is.

JohnRingo · 1:16AM

Most popular real PvP games have players start on equal ground like in Vengeance and unlike GreyHost.
Vengeance allows players to play ESO as pure PvP game and brings in PvP players that wouldn’t play GreyHost.

Incredible. Veteran PvP players are simply never going to get any respect for the years of effort it took to achieve our current level of ability. We ALL had to start at the start. Grey Host WILL punish entitled behavior. No doubt about that.

xylena · 1:40AM

SneaK wrote: »

YES, I want a reason to go into Solstice

Is Solstice not fun on its own merit?

Not throwing shade on reward-oriented players, just have no personal interest in rewards. The fun of PvP is in the moment for me. If it isn't fun in the moment, I don't play.

manukartofanu · 2:30AM

Iriidius wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

The answer is pretty simple: to revitalize the population, to add more players to PvP. And frankly, it is delusional to expect that newbies will turn into skilled PvPers in 1 week (or 2 even).

It will be a different story once Vengeance is permanent because it will offer a continuity of learning. At the moment, there is no reason to engage with a mode that is unfinished and only there for a week or two.

If the only audience that matters and should be taken into account is vet PvPers then PvP is as good as dead, as it fails to attract new players while population is actively shrinking.

Because the current GH has already evolved to a point where it is no longer very interesting for PvP players. This happened due to constant flirtation with PvE, not through a separate campaign but through the meta itself, which kept shifting more and more toward ensuring that you do not die. The natural result is ball groups that have no real counter.

In real PvP, you die again and again. You get better and you die even more. You change your builds, learn mechanics and timings, come back to compete, and you die again. This goes on endlessly. Even when you are the best, you still die to specific builds that can and should counter the meta. If something has no counter, if it cannot be killed, it gets nerfed.

In this game, however, everything is reversed. If something can kill, it gets nerfed. This is simply the evolution of a PvP environment into a PvE activity. The current GH is PvE in its essence, just with a high barrier to entry.

Vengeance is merely a continuation of the idea that PvE players can be drawn into PvP by giving them more and more concessions. This will not work. These are completely different players with completely different mindsets.

The meta didn’t ensure that PvEplayers don’t
die but only that PvP players don’t die. In PvE most players use 20k hp DD builds and many will go PvP with them rather than 40k hp Balorgh Monomyth Mara RC

Ballgroups flirt only with premade trial groups but do the opposite with soloPvPer, dungeon groups and even trial lfg groups.

What you call concession to PvE players was concession to premade groups/guilds and the opposite to everyone else.

Changes in the last few years have mostly reduced time to kill.
Mara was nerfed, corrosive and cinderstorm and sorcerer and arcanist shield was nerfed,
Undead passive was nerfed, Subclassing lets players choose 2 or 3 offensive skilllines and mitigation got reworked so that the product of multiple multiplied sources of mitigation gets less mitigation.

Players having no interest in PvP can’t be drawn in with concessions but players that do but don’t like current ruleset can be drawn in if you change it in their favor.

A poll has shown that 95% of players in forum have somewhen played PvP.
Even when 80% of them were „encouraged“ by rewards the remaining 20% are still a lot more players that tried PvP thinking they might like it only to get heavily disappointed than the players we currently have in PvP.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/discussion/685800/have-you-played-pvp-in-cyrodiil-before/p1

I disagree. These changes are being introduced for players with a PvE mindset. It’s just that PvP players can use them far more effectively, and that will always be the case.
If things worked the way you describe, ball groups wouldn’t survive even a second when their counter engages them, but in reality they’re almost impossible to kill.

I don’t know a single PvP game where the theory is based simply on stacking effects and living forever. No one would ever even think of playing like that, because it’s boring. A PvP player’s enjoyment comes from pulling off clean, beautiful kills. And PvP theory is always built around making the right trades; no one would ever assume you can just never die.

xylena · 2:56AM

JohnRingo wrote: »

Incredible. Veteran PvP players are simply never going to get any respect for the years of effort it took to achieve our current level of ability.

On Vengeance, the biggest difference between myself and my opponent is exactly that: skill gained from experience. Not what 5pc or Mythic I'm wearing. Not what subclass I'm slotting. No one gets "punished" on GH when mid skill is enough to pilot a nigh immortal heal tank build.

On Vengeance, I deterministically kill unprepared players in 4-5 seconds. No fight resets. No endless block healing. No spammable one button defense. No gear procs to randomly save you from a superior opponent. Past "play NB and dots" Vengeance is all raw combat skill.

JohnRingo · 3:15AM

xylena wrote: »

JohnRingo wrote: »

Incredible. Veteran PvP players are simply never going to get any respect for the years of effort it took to achieve our current level of ability.

On Vengeance, the biggest difference between myself and my opponent is exactly that: skill gained from experience. Not what 5pc or Mythic I'm wearing. Not what subclass I'm slotting. No one gets "punished" on GH when mid skill is enough to pilot a nigh immortal heal tank build.

On Vengeance, I deterministically kill unprepared players in 4-5 seconds. No fight resets. No endless block healing. No spammable one button defense. No gear procs to randomly save you from a superior opponent. Past "play NB and dots" Vengeance is all raw combat skill.

I respect you as a poster Xylena so allow me to reframe the discussion. Not long after Vengeance takes its final form, sweats and try-hards will begin to optimize with the tools available to them. They will spent countless hours determining skill synergies and sequencing, efficiencies, build advantages (to the extent possible) and will eventually separate themselves dramatically from the abilities of a new player. Vengeance will find its way to the same place as GH, albeit with a different rule set. This is not optional behavior; it is emergent behavior.

Any persistent PvP ruleset in ESO will inevitably develop a skill gap over time, regardless of its original design intent.
Vengeance will not be an exception. Time investment always converts into advantage.

Vengeance can change the shape of the skill gap, but it cannot eliminate it. Given time, dedicated players will always optimize, and optimization always recreates hierarchy. Gray Host isn’t “broken.” It’s simply mature.

Vengeance, if it survives, will age the same way.

xylena · 3:46AM

JohnRingo wrote: »

Vengeance can change the shape of the skill gap, but it cannot eliminate it.

That's why balancing video games is hard. Vengeance does a much better job managing the skill gap than GH does. Noobs have 3-4 seconds to find their defensive buttons or run to their allies on Vengeance. They die instantly on GH, no feedback except a misleading death recap.

GH also does weird things with the skill curve because many of its hyper-efficient builds require only mid skill to pilot. Heal-tank builds indefinitely stall out more skilled opponents on GH all the time. Dice roll proc builds with Rushing Agony or Null Arca eventually get lucky kills.

Lord_Hev · 3:52AM

JohnRingo wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

JohnRingo wrote: »

Incredible. Veteran PvP players are simply never going to get any respect for the years of effort it took to achieve our current level of ability.

On Vengeance, the biggest difference between myself and my opponent is exactly that: skill gained from experience. Not what 5pc or Mythic I'm wearing. Not what subclass I'm slotting. No one gets "punished" on GH when mid skill is enough to pilot a nigh immortal heal tank build.

On Vengeance, I deterministically kill unprepared players in 4-5 seconds. No fight resets. No endless block healing. No spammable one button defense. No gear procs to randomly save you from a superior opponent. Past "play NB and dots" Vengeance is all raw combat skill.

I respect you as a poster Xylena so allow me to reframe the discussion. Not long after Vengeance takes its final form, sweats and try-hards will begin to optimize with the tools available to them. They will spent countless hours determining skill synergies and sequencing, efficiencies, build advantages (to the extent possible) and will eventually separate themselves dramatically from the abilities of a new player. Vengeance will find its way to the same place as GH, albeit with a different rule set. This is not optional behavior; it is emergent behavior.

Any persistent PvP ruleset in ESO will inevitably develop a skill gap over time, regardless of its original design intent.
Vengeance will not be an exception. Time investment always converts into advantage.

Vengeance can change the shape of the skill gap, but it cannot eliminate it. Given time, dedicated players will always optimize, and optimization always recreates hierarchy. Gray Host isn’t “broken.” It’s simply mature.

Vengeance, if it survives, will age the same way.

This is simply not true. There has never been such a massive -gap- between meta/skill and non-meta skill. What you are describing will never happen in vengeance due to the limitations.

I'm not saying this in support of vengeance, I'm saying this from a purely objective balance standpoint. The game right now is NOT balanced no matter how anyone tries to sugar-coat it with their personal biases. And this is the real underlining reason this topic has become so controversial. Vengeance highlighted the root cause of all pvp woes, but it did so in a severely dramatic manner that anyone whom hated the balance(someone like me for example) would still rather play in Greyhost for all the other associated pros vs cons that have been spoken ad nauseum in this thread alone. But others saw the fresh air of relief and now swear by vengeance. I was mostly on the fence and myself saw Vengeance as something interesting and was supportive of it as a test. But ultimately as a permanent mode, it is horribly short-sighted. And quite frankly it's more akin to a lazy band-aid solution to a wound that is bleeding profusely. PvP performance use to be dramatically -more- laggy in the past... yet it maintained a HEALTHY population because it was fun and more balanced then all the "balance" changes that came after and ruined the game.

aetherix8 · 5:39AM

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Comparing vengeance players’ playtime as a whole vs Greyhost players’ time in PvP is more productive. Obviously the majority of vengeance enjoyers are not experienced in PvP, they’re pvers that jump ship to pve events the minute one drops.

So the question is the same, why cater to people who are not the core audience for a game type. They aren’t gonna suddenly become pvpers because it’s simpler. And they haven’t as the tests have shown.

The answer is pretty simple: to revitalize the population, to add more players to PvP. And frankly, it is delusional to expect that newbies will turn into skilled PvPers in 1 week (or 2 even).

It will be a different story once Vengeance is permanent because it will offer a continuity of learning. At the moment, there is no reason to engage with a mode that is unfinished and only there for a week or two.

If the only audience that matters and should be taken into account is vet PvPers then PvP is as good as dead, as it fails to attract new players while population is actively shrinking.

Why do you (need) to be skilled in one or two weeks? Where did that argument even come from, my comment was about experience because the newbies who do not like PvP should not get to shape the future of PvP for those who do.

Do you expect new pvers to parse 110k damage on the dummy?

Again, Greyhost specifically is end game content. We already had 50 and under and no proc campaigns for new players or players tired of ballgroups and the like, like what @Iriidius is talking about. Theres still organized groups but it’s not like it is in greyhost.

Fact is, if people needing a break from procs and gh shenanigans were numerous enough to keep a campaign alive besides Greyhost, those campaigns wouldn’t be so dead.

No one here can justify or advocate for Vengeance without explaining that first. Especially when next to greyhost vengeance is dead also on day 1.

If you’re tired of PvP, do some questing, go farm some sets to get better, or for gold. We don’t need another dead side campaign next to greyhost and as shown pvers aren’t enough to sustain it alone. They’re not interested and no amount of simplicity will make them become pvpers. This has been proven again and again.

GH sees new players all the time, another example of why pvpers’ experience should be taken more seriously, if GH wasn’t receiving new players, then with the amount of people we’ve seen quit the game, GH being pop locked and having a queue every night would be an interesting magic trick.

The games population is dwindling but pretty sure it has more to do with battle pass shenanigans and awful events on solstice, in pve land. Not anything to do with PvP. Also bad implementations of subclassing has done more damage to pve than PvP. Look over there first maybe PVE needs Vengeance….

And it will dwindle even more if vengeance is forced on us.

I doubt that players who “do not like PvP” try to shape it ever in any way other than “remove PvP” or “make Cyro PvE”. Basically, players who don’t like it are not participating at all unless event tickets, and I’m pretty sure that they have better discussions to read and comment on, like class refresh, or fake roles in dungeons, or fashion. Players who debate Vengeance are all PvPers, some veterans, some newer, but we all have the same objective: PvP that is working (performance) and fun (balance).

As for other campaigns, U50 is dead since conception and no-proc was a half baked and botched experiment promptly abandoned by ZOS. And how is CP2k+ supposed to take a break from ballgroups or whatever in U50? There is simply 0 alternative rn for anyone tired of GH blatant lack of balance.

GH pop-wise, trick for sure just not magic. How many times ZOS have reduced population caps in Cyrodiil? How long the queue is nowadays? PC EU GH I rarely see a queue, and if there’s one it is extremely rarely longer than 15min., while a few years ago queue could be longer than 1 hour. Sure, there are new players who try it, but it seems that far too few stay.

And you say that the fact that PvPers are leaving the game does not have “anything to do with PvP”? Is that even real!? So they left because there are too many fake tanks in dungeons? Or because new PvE content is downsized currently? Or because new mounts are too flashy? It certainly has nothing to do with broken sets or OP ballgroups, or shield/HoT stacking?

And how did subclassing hurt PvE more than PvP? Because everyone is beaming everything now? Because players can burn through trials even faster now? It doesn’t make any sense.

If the other campaigns werent good enough for people to take a break in, neither will vengeance be. It is exactly what you called ravenwatch, a half baked and botched experiment that will be abandoned by zos.

GH has been pop locked in the evenings all week since its return and was also before, especially yesterday on a friday night and it will be again today also. PC NA. The queue was hours long for some.

I said people leaving the game period, as in, all players in general, pve and pvp. It stands to reason that if pvpers are a small part of the community, and pve is the majority of players, that if people are leaving eso, it is primarily pve side and not because of pvp. Pvp has its problems and people have left yea but Pvp isnt the heart of eso's woes. We stick around longer than the majority of players do in pve land, we're a dedicated part of the fanbase.

So it is absurd that Zos looks at our part of the community, our slice of the pie and thinks to take away from us what we've been enjoying for years even despite their shortcomings instead of the real issue which is pve. Pve as someone else earlier stated is the main thing they looked at when they developed subclassing, and now its so simplified that everyone's expected to have a beam build for dps in trials.

Thats what I'm speaking of. Pvp is homogenized to a bad extent but not nearly as bad as pve which affects way more players, so why should we have to carry the effort to save this game. Pve is losing more players than we are, perhaps zos should turn to there for more tests in the future and leave our greyhost alone, lol no Britney Spears.

Vengeance is different from RW: no-proc campaign was enabled ad-hoc following player feedback, while testing other band-aid solutions to lag with a whack-a-mole approach, and I don't think it took as long to develop as Vengeance. Veng, meanwhile, isn't even finished yet and it's been more than one year that devs have been working on it. All Veng needs is better class balance (NB is way ahead) and at least five times more perks and loadouts.

PvE has indeed big balance issues rn (subclassing/beam) that have to be addressed urgently, because it makes the game dull and removes all challenge. But that’s another topic, nobody wants to carry the entire game; we just want to have enough players for both campaigns.

And it’s great to read that a campaign is thriving on any platform. Hopefully, ZOS won't leave your GH alone, but devs keep working towards balancing and improving it.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

And on the subject of homogenization... vengeance is that personified. All in all it is the final form on pvp side of the issue they've been having for years. That anyone thinks it will solve anything is so perplexing, of the three people on my friends list i saw playing it, they were all nightblades. You're not getting a break from anything there it shines a light on the balance issue even more than greyhost does.

Which is good, because it makes it easier to identify issues and define solutions. Perhaps ZOS won't just abandon it all for another 10 years, but instead keep balancing both modes. Some balance testing is supposed to happen next year.

aetherix8 · 5:48AM

JohnRingo wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

JohnRingo wrote: »

Incredible. Veteran PvP players are simply never going to get any respect for the years of effort it took to achieve our current level of ability.

On Vengeance, the biggest difference between myself and my opponent is exactly that: skill gained from experience. Not what 5pc or Mythic I'm wearing. Not what subclass I'm slotting. No one gets "punished" on GH when mid skill is enough to pilot a nigh immortal heal tank build.

On Vengeance, I deterministically kill unprepared players in 4-5 seconds. No fight resets. No endless block healing. No spammable one button defense. No gear procs to randomly save you from a superior opponent. Past "play NB and dots" Vengeance is all raw combat skill.

I respect you as a poster Xylena so allow me to reframe the discussion. Not long after Vengeance takes its final form, sweats and try-hards will begin to optimize with the tools available to them. They will spent countless hours determining skill synergies and sequencing, efficiencies, build advantages (to the extent possible) and will eventually separate themselves dramatically from the abilities of a new player. Vengeance will find its way to the same place as GH, albeit with a different rule set. This is not optional behavior; it is emergent behavior.

Any persistent PvP ruleset in ESO will inevitably develop a skill gap over time, regardless of its original design intent.
Vengeance will not be an exception. Time investment always converts into advantage.

Vengeance can change the shape of the skill gap, but it cannot eliminate it. Given time, dedicated players will always optimize, and optimization always recreates hierarchy. Gray Host isn’t “broken.” It’s simply mature.

Vengeance, if it survives, will age the same way.

I hope for exactly such an outcome. When players optimize and adjust, the game becomes varied and interesting. But for that to actually happen, we need more perks and loadouts, more customization options.

Btw, what you say here is directly undermining the general mantra that Veng is a no-skill zergfest; but ofc there is the potential for skill expression and skill gap in this mode too.

EDIT Vengeance might be more successful in keeping the skill gap in check because of fewer options.

aetherix8 · 6:07AM

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

Lucasl402 wrote: »

Grey Host has been part of the game since inception (maybe not with same name). ZOS should fix the game they created not waste time creating something new that won't help their business in any capacity.

ESO was originally marketed as a PvP game too, Cyrodiil was literally the endgame.

Most popular real PvP games have players start on equal ground like in Vengeance and unlike GreyHost.
Vengeance allows players to play ESO as pure PvP game and brings in PvP players that wouldn’t play GreyHost.

SneaK wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

and then Vengeance comes along and makes them stop playing for a week... it is a VERY convenient time to simply step away for good.

I only play this game when Vengeance is up, so I only get 1 week every 3 months.

The 100 or so GH regulars could all quit forever with zero impact on the game as a whole.

If you're still holding hope that they'll "fix" GH after 12 directionless years... lol.

Right….. Cause if all you do is PvP and all you have is Vengeance there’s no reason to play the rest of the game cause it’s makes PvE irrelevant for PvPers. Thanks for proven a point with your entitlement.

Majority of players are pure PvE players or mostly PvE players occasional PvPing, there are enaugh of them that you don’t have to force pure PvPer to do PvE content to keep it full when most players do the PvE content without even needing the rewards for PvP.
Content that you have to force players to play because they don’t do it for fun is bad content

Everyone who plays PvP in ESO starts from the same level as well. It's the same hill to climb for everyone.

No, it isn't. Back in 2014 you didn't even have a jewlerly system. Now, there are several more systems that were added over the years, and players need to understand them all in order to stay competitive. You were able to incorporate them one by one, but a new player has to figure out everything at once.

SneaK · 7:50AM

aetherix8 wrote: »

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

Lucasl402 wrote: »

Grey Host has been part of the game since inception (maybe not with same name). ZOS should fix the game they created not waste time creating something new that won't help their business in any capacity.

ESO was originally marketed as a PvP game too, Cyrodiil was literally the endgame.

Most popular real PvP games have players start on equal ground like in Vengeance and unlike GreyHost.
Vengeance allows players to play ESO as pure PvP game and brings in PvP players that wouldn’t play GreyHost.

SneaK wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

and then Vengeance comes along and makes them stop playing for a week... it is a VERY convenient time to simply step away for good.

I only play this game when Vengeance is up, so I only get 1 week every 3 months.

The 100 or so GH regulars could all quit forever with zero impact on the game as a whole.

If you're still holding hope that they'll "fix" GH after 12 directionless years... lol.

Right….. Cause if all you do is PvP and all you have is Vengeance there’s no reason to play the rest of the game cause it’s makes PvE irrelevant for PvPers. Thanks for proven a point with your entitlement.

Majority of players are pure PvE players or mostly PvE players occasional PvPing, there are enaugh of them that you don’t have to force pure PvPer to do PvE content to keep it full when most players do the PvE content without even needing the rewards for PvP.
Content that you have to force players to play because they don’t do it for fun is bad content

Everyone who plays PvP in ESO starts from the same level as well. It's the same hill to climb for everyone.

No, it isn't. Back in 2014 you didn't even have a jewlerly system. Now, there are several more systems that were added over the years, and players need to understand them all in order to stay competitive. You were able to incorporate them one by one, but a new player has to figure out everything at once.

Could be wrong but I think the point is.. you start with no experience, certain people start with more knowledge cause they’ve watched or read about it, but everyone in the beginning whenever that is for them, starts with wandering in Cyrodiil hoping not to get slaughtered.

Now imagine, being a console player at launch and fighting PC transfers..

Now a decade later we’re looking at entry level balance, disguised as performance.

This entire thing is nuts. Bring Vengeance, whatever, but keep normal Cyrodiil AND BALANCE IT so people won’t be turned off by it.

xR3ACTORx · 8:23AM

xylena wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

YES, I want a reason to go into Solstice

Is Solstice not fun on its own merit?

Not throwing shade on reward-oriented players, just have no personal interest in rewards. The fun of PvP is in the moment for me. If it isn't fun in the moment, I don't play.

But as you already said this isn't about you and your preferences, this is about the game mode.

No offense. That's what you said before.

StackonClown · 8:27AM

tldr - we spent years grinding and setting up gear and builds to only get it stripped away?? ye nah.. bring back GH

edward_frigidhands · 10:30AM

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.

edward_frigidhands wrote: »

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.

What is the lowest each bar represents?

Kevin could you please answer the question if possible? Could 1 bar in Vengeance also be representative of 0-1 players?