Honestly - Is Vengeance Viable?

Artisian0001 · December 20

xylena wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Notice how you never respond when asked a direct question?

I did. Test fatigue. The devs even acknowledged it.

Test fatigue? So they are fatigued from playing vengeance? And what is your claim about GH? It was that is isn't growing. Maybe people after 12 years (the number you gave multiple times) are fatigued from PvP for a little while. This is why none of your arguments on the forums go anywhere, anytime someone responds with the same logic back to you, your own point is refuted. You think there is fatigue from playing vengeance after a few weeks yet people have played GH for years. Yes, people are BORED of vengeance, I agree, hence why the population is less than GH every single night.

Nihilr · December 20

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Except even with that taken into account GH is still more populated than vengeance when both are out at the same time.

Not at the beginning, even when GH was back up. The main issue is pops are uneven. There's a reason Battlegrounds don't begin until there's at least even pops or -1 for a group.

I've already made a post about making the queue flex so that only +/- 5 total players from each alliance can be on the server at once.

IE: 150 AD 153 EP 148 DC
Means that 3 AD can join immediately.
Ep has to wait for more DC to join, and 5 DC can join immediately. Obviously there would be timers for players leaving and it would check every 1 minute to ensure player counts are in range of each other.

Yeah, you can have people log in their alt accounts to try and fudge the numbers but they already do that in GH with poplock queue

Artisian0001 · December 20

Nihilr wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Except even with that taken into account GH is still more populated than vengeance when both are out at the same time.

Not at the beginning, even when GH was back up. The main issue is pops are uneven. There's a reason Battlegrounds don't begin until there's at least even pops or -1 for a group.

I've already made a post about making the queue flex so that only +/- 5 total players from each alliance can be on the server at once.

IE: 150 AD 153 EP 148 DC
Means that 3 AD can join immediately.
Ep has to wait for more DC to join, and 5 DC can join immediately. Obviously there would be timers for players leaving and it would check every 1 minute to ensure player counts are in range of each other.

Yeah, you can have people log in their alt accounts to try and fudge the numbers but they already do that in GH with poplock queue

Do you even acknowledge that pop locked across AD, DC, and EP on Greyhost is more population than 1 bar Vengeance or will you deny reality? If you are going to deny the numbers you are even quoting from the devs then this conversation is over because you are just lying about the population numbers. If you acknowledge this you must also realize that vengeance on PC/NA is not going above 1 bar with GH being out, and therefor is not ever out populating it.

Theignson · December 20

[quote/]
Hello, certified Adrasties player here.
Can confirm: 4 coordinated players with siege can absolutely push a top-tier ball group off a keep — and not just oils. Two or three properly timed coldstone treb shots will delete multiple people in a ball before they even realize what hit them. Seen it. Lived it. Died to it. Respect it.

Credentials (100% verified):
– Adrestia 2024–2025
– ex-CB
– ex-Hold Block
– Orc Dismantler
– Drac Disbander
– ex-4D
– ex-MC
– Multi-world record holder
– Patch sweeper
– Former top Wayrest fiend
– 2× Battleground tournament champion, undefeated
– ex-Legend mod
– Unemployed since COVID, still waiting for someone to hire me. Did you read the “ex-4D” part on my CV?
— Looking for e-girl, again I'm ex-4D
[/quote]

There are ESO world records? What game am I playing, lol

Artisian0001 · December 20

Theignson wrote: »

[quote/]
Hello, certified Adrasties player here.
Can confirm: 4 coordinated players with siege can absolutely push a top-tier ball group off a keep — and not just oils. Two or three properly timed coldstone treb shots will delete multiple people in a ball before they even realize what hit them. Seen it. Lived it. Died to it. Respect it.

Credentials (100% verified):
– Adrestia 2024–2025
– ex-CB
– ex-Hold Block
– Orc Dismantler
– Drac Disbander
– ex-4D
– ex-MC
– Multi-world record holder
– Patch sweeper
– Former top Wayrest fiend
– 2× Battleground tournament champion, undefeated
– ex-Legend mod
– Unemployed since COVID, still waiting for someone to hire me. Did you read the “ex-4D” part on my CV?
— Looking for e-girl, again I'm ex-4D

There are ESO world records? What game am I playing, lol

[/quote]

There used to be an archive of all the ESO records for each trial of every patch, as well as vMA. I don't know if it is still around but there technically are "world records" for all PvE content.

BardokRedSnow · December 21

xylena wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

No one's saying anything new otherwise, is just rehashing the same points over and over.

xylena wrote: »

It does bring up an interesting point though. How does one evaluate their own impact on the battlefield? The game doesn't give much useful feedback. Mid skill players running Hunding's Rage will still kill bad players running total jank. Confirmation bias everywhere.

So how do you evaluate the effectiveness of your siege tactics or SnB DK prowess?

This game has always been full of players who claim their terrible build is actually amazing because they "win" by zerging down solos 10v1 with chain spam or whatever, no awareness that what they are doing is at replacement level (or worse).

Its good enough against you, not sure why you think saying i have a SnB DK is an insult, its not like its a one bar tank build, I have a two hander front bar. I've fought and beaten you when you were zerging me.

xylena wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Notice how you never respond when asked a direct question?

I did. Test fatigue. The devs even acknowledged it.

Test fatigue?? What are we doing here. You mean they were tired of Vengeance*

JohnRingo · December 21

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

No one's saying anything new otherwise, is just rehashing the same points over and over.

xylena wrote: »

It does bring up an interesting point though. How does one evaluate their own impact on the battlefield? The game doesn't give much useful feedback. Mid skill players running Hunding's Rage will still kill bad players running total jank. Confirmation bias everywhere.

So how do you evaluate the effectiveness of your siege tactics or SnB DK prowess?

This game has always been full of players who claim their terrible build is actually amazing because they "win" by zerging down solos 10v1 with chain spam or whatever, no awareness that what they are doing is at replacement level (or worse).

Its good enough against you, not sure why you think saying i have a SnB DK is an insult, its not like its a one bar tank build, I have a two hander front bar. I've fought and beaten you when you were zerging me.

xylena wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Notice how you never respond when asked a direct question?

I did. Test fatigue. The devs even acknowledged it.

Test fatigue?? What are we doing here. You mean they were tired of Vengeance*

Stand easy, xylena. lol

Artisian0001 · December 21

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

No one's saying anything new otherwise, is just rehashing the same points over and over.

xylena wrote: »

It does bring up an interesting point though. How does one evaluate their own impact on the battlefield? The game doesn't give much useful feedback. Mid skill players running Hunding's Rage will still kill bad players running total jank. Confirmation bias everywhere.

So how do you evaluate the effectiveness of your siege tactics or SnB DK prowess?

This game has always been full of players who claim their terrible build is actually amazing because they "win" by zerging down solos 10v1 with chain spam or whatever, no awareness that what they are doing is at replacement level (or worse).

Its good enough against you, not sure why you think saying i have a SnB DK is an insult, its not like its a one bar tank build, I have a two hander front bar. I've fought and beaten you when you were zerging me.

xylena wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Notice how you never respond when asked a direct question?

I did. Test fatigue. The devs even acknowledged it.

Test fatigue?? What are we doing here. You mean they were tired of Vengeance*

This is exactly what I said lol. Vengeance has been out for a fraction of the time but people are already bored of it.

BardokRedSnow · December 21

The conversation has just become trolling and bad faith statements again and again, from the same user. Its just getting to be a bitter back and forth even with mods editing several times over.

So I'll just see myself out from here, I've said all that can be said.

moderatelyfatman · December 21

Maybe we should step away from arguing about binary choices. Just keep Grey Host and Blackreach and have Vengeance up as an option. If it becomes a PvP zone for PvErs during special events like Whitestrakes Mayhem, the game will still be better off as a few of these players will get a taste for PvP and come over to the dark side!

Radiate77 · December 21

Most of my problems with Vengeance can be simplified to these major points.

Perks are not interesting enough. (sweet more armor stats, where’s the fun?)
Subclassing is missing. (we can subclass everywhere else…)
Scribing is missing. (just lock out complex Scripts from Vengeance)
Many Skills need a complete revision. (permanent pets, where are you?)

Could it be viable? Yes.

It’s just nowhere near ready, and I don’t see any of these problems getting fixed for its final iteration, and part of that is how people refuse to comment constructively on Vengeance and just complain about it as if it will disappear.

How will this system ever be for us if we don’t speak up about the things we like/dislike about it?

Nihilr · December 21

Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.

Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.

[snip]
[edited for trolling]

aetherix8 · December 21

Radiate77 wrote: »

Most of my problems with Vengeance can be simplified to these major points.
Perks are not interesting enough. (sweet more armor stats, where’s the fun?)

Subclassing is missing. (we can subclass everywhere else…)

Scribing is missing. (just lock out complex Scripts from Vengeance)

Many Skills need a complete revision. (permanent pets, where are you?)

Could it be viable? Yes.

It’s just nowhere near ready, and I don’t see any of these problems getting fixed for its final iteration, and part of that is how people refuse to comment constructively on Vengeance and just complain about it as if it will disappear.

I agree, I would just wait with subclassing considering the mess it is rn. Vengeance needs to include more modifiers for it to be viable long-term. Perks and loadouts are way too few, and the build variety is too limited. Luckily, it is unfinished at the moment and the permanent version will maybe incorporate more options. Time will tell.

Radiate77 wrote: »

How will this system ever be for us if we don’t speak up about the things we like/dislike about it?

Have a look at other Vengeance threads. We barely manage to have any constructive conversation in any of those. We are stuck eternally at arguing whether it should/could/would/may be enabled permanently, but we rarely discuss the shape we would like it to take. And that's a shame; we should be proposing systems, solutions, etc, that we believe would make the mode better, more fun, and more engaging long term.
I was thinking about opening a "Vengeance Wish List" thread, but it would just get derailed by bad faith arguments, trolling, and false accusations of lying without providing any basis whatsoever. Our current discussions are becoming real boring, just the same stuff from the same people all over again.

imPDA · December 21

Nihilr wrote: »

Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.

Well, yes, it is partially true for me but tune it down a bit. It is a game after all

Before nonproc become live, I used to play solo a lot, because I had sets which granted me slightly more damage, so I could rebalance other stuff to survivability. After noproc, I started avoiding some groups and really big zergs and started to play more safe in general, because I had to put everything into damage in order to kill other gamers because all pugs decided to put everything into survivability and win by numbers. It was possible to kill 99% of players solo tho, except full tanks/heals/fast troll nb/sorcs, but fighting groups with heals was just waste of time. Even if it was possible to kill 1-2-3 players, they were constantly revived. Guess what I did and what pugs did after nonproc? Before nonproc pugs were whining about me unkillable, after nonproc - about particular group unkillable and overpowered and cheating and etc, etc and how we broke gameplay, etc because I started to cooperate more with friends in group. I used to play with them anyway, but it usually was 2-3 groups of 2-3 people in different parts of the map, or one group in IC, one in Cyro/BG/afk/etc, and we started to cooperate more after realizing what now it is number game.

I do want to see Vengeance live side by side with GH for a longer time - we will see if Vengeance is viable.
I do want to see if there will be ball group which will do what we did in Vengeance (I will probably try to do it lol), it could be very interesting and fun to see how people start whining again about unkillable overpowered groups. Only if ZOS will keep skills as is, it will be, well, hard.
I do want to see how it will become number game in a month. Faction with 300 players against faction with 100 players - guess who win.

Nihilr wrote: »

Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.

Yes, it is dead anyway.

ZOS_Icy · December 21

Greetings,

After removing some unnecessary back and forth from this thread, this is a friendly reminder that comments need to adhere to our Community Rules to avoid thread derailment.

The Elder Scrolls Online Team

Artisian0001 · December 21

ZOS_Icy wrote: »

Greetings,

After removing some unnecessary back and forth from this thread, this is a friendly reminder that comments need to adhere to our Community Rules to avoid thread derailment.

The Elder Scrolls Online Team

What if some people's purpose is to get the thread derailed? Can those people just be removed from the thread altogether?

Vengeance can replace the NO CP camp and I think the amount of people that would care is low, but sinking resources into vengeance when GH is more popular is still an issue.

CatoUnchained · December 21

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

What are you guys even trying to preserve with Grey Host?

I ask that genuinely. It’s barely a PvP zone at this point cause it’s extremely dead. We haven’t seen good combat adjustments in so many years that I’ve lost count. Subclassing hasn’t been a positive thing for PvP either.

If you guys succeed in getting ZOS to scrap Vengeance, Grey Host will continue to die anyway.

If you’re holding out for ZOS to fix PvP through incremental tweaks as it is right now, you’re going to be disappointed.

So many of PvP’s issues exist because of PvE balancing. ZOS has been trying to make higher damage in PvE easier to achieve for years now. This is why status effects are such an overtuned and free damage source. It’s also why there’s so many broken group buff sets that can be combined to give even small coordinated groups 1000+ extra weapon damage, very easy access to Major Force, and much more. Heal stacking likely remains in the game because of PvE balancing as well. Tweaking that too much could make certain Veteran trials too difficult for the average group.

A lot of times ESO’s direction is unclear, but one thing that has been clear and consistent throughout the years is that ZOS wants to boost veteran PvE participation rates through making damage easier to achieve. PvP is in a deep hole largely due to balancing efforts around that goal and the hole will continue to get deeper for as long as PvE and PvP are balanced together. We are well past the point where Battle Spirit is enough to keep things in check.

ZOS will not walk back on their casual oriented PvE balancing efforts. As long as they continue down that path, PvP balance will get worse and worse. By advocating for Grey Host you guys are basically acting like ZOS will eventually and successfully address balance concerns in a way that keeps PvErs and PvPers happy. You guys really think they’re going to pull that off despite their track record and the fact that there’s so much more complexity (subclassing) to keep in mind now? It’s not going to happen.

Yes Vengeance has poor balance, a low skill ceiling, and it’s way too simple. However, it’s 100% separate from PvE and all of its issues are addressable without consequences elsewhere. It doesn’t have to have the balance that it does now.

So maybe some of you guys hate Vengeance as it is, that’s understandable. Instead of trying to get it scrapped completely, try to get it balanced correctly though. Grey Host will only sink deeper into it’s hole as it continues to be balanced with PvE.

Don’t ruin PvPs opportunity to be completely separated from PvE. It’s more productive to bring attention to the overtuned healing, lack of mobility skills, low skill ceiling, etc. in Vengeance. If they actually address those issues, we could get somewhere.

Sorry. I bought a product from ZOS and I expect ZOS to support that product they're still selling to this day. This is not an unreasonable expectation in any capacity.

If ZOS can't make GH run smoothly, they can't make a version of vengeance that will either. Plus, I'll feel robbed if they take a decade of set grinding away from me to the point that I will never buy any ZOS/Bethesda product ever again.

This is where I'm at.

ZOS been telling us for a decade "They're working on it". Now it's "we're never going to work on it again". What? How's that work? I thought companies were supposed to support the products they sold, especially with digital products.

And if ZOS can't make GH work properly, they can't make a new system work properly either.

What's going on here?

Cooperharley · December 21

CatoUnchained wrote: »

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

What are you guys even trying to preserve with Grey Host?

I ask that genuinely. It’s barely a PvP zone at this point cause it’s extremely dead. We haven’t seen good combat adjustments in so many years that I’ve lost count. Subclassing hasn’t been a positive thing for PvP either.

If you guys succeed in getting ZOS to scrap Vengeance, Grey Host will continue to die anyway.

If you’re holding out for ZOS to fix PvP through incremental tweaks as it is right now, you’re going to be disappointed.

So many of PvP’s issues exist because of PvE balancing. ZOS has been trying to make higher damage in PvE easier to achieve for years now. This is why status effects are such an overtuned and free damage source. It’s also why there’s so many broken group buff sets that can be combined to give even small coordinated groups 1000+ extra weapon damage, very easy access to Major Force, and much more. Heal stacking likely remains in the game because of PvE balancing as well. Tweaking that too much could make certain Veteran trials too difficult for the average group.

A lot of times ESO’s direction is unclear, but one thing that has been clear and consistent throughout the years is that ZOS wants to boost veteran PvE participation rates through making damage easier to achieve. PvP is in a deep hole largely due to balancing efforts around that goal and the hole will continue to get deeper for as long as PvE and PvP are balanced together. We are well past the point where Battle Spirit is enough to keep things in check.

ZOS will not walk back on their casual oriented PvE balancing efforts. As long as they continue down that path, PvP balance will get worse and worse. By advocating for Grey Host you guys are basically acting like ZOS will eventually and successfully address balance concerns in a way that keeps PvErs and PvPers happy. You guys really think they’re going to pull that off despite their track record and the fact that there’s so much more complexity (subclassing) to keep in mind now? It’s not going to happen.

Yes Vengeance has poor balance, a low skill ceiling, and it’s way too simple. However, it’s 100% separate from PvE and all of its issues are addressable without consequences elsewhere. It doesn’t have to have the balance that it does now.

So maybe some of you guys hate Vengeance as it is, that’s understandable. Instead of trying to get it scrapped completely, try to get it balanced correctly though. Grey Host will only sink deeper into it’s hole as it continues to be balanced with PvE.

Don’t ruin PvPs opportunity to be completely separated from PvE. It’s more productive to bring attention to the overtuned healing, lack of mobility skills, low skill ceiling, etc. in Vengeance. If they actually address those issues, we could get somewhere.

Sorry. I bought a product from ZOS and I expect ZOS to support that product they're still selling to this day. This is not an unreasonable expectation in any capacity.

If ZOS can't make GH run smoothly, they can't make a version of vengeance that will either. Plus, I'll feel robbed if they take a decade of set grinding away from me to the point that I will never buy any ZOS/Bethesda product ever again.

This is where I'm at.

ZOS been telling us for a decade "They're working on it". Now it's "we're never going to work on it again". What? How's that work? I thought companies were supposed to support the products they sold, especially with digital products.

And if ZOS can't make GH work properly, they can't make a new system work properly either.

What's going on here?

If this is all they're able to do, then it is what it is.

If your happiness is tied to improvement of Grey Host, i think your time would be better spent elsewhere as it seems they're moving more towards Vengeance plain and simple. Best of luck.

Cooperharley · December 21

Artisian0001 wrote: »

ZOS_Icy wrote: »

Greetings,

After removing some unnecessary back and forth from this thread, this is a friendly reminder that comments need to adhere to our Community Rules to avoid thread derailment.

The Elder Scrolls Online Team

What if some people's purpose is to get the thread derailed? Can those people just be removed from the thread altogether?

Vengeance can replace the NO CP camp and I think the amount of people that would care is low, but sinking resources into vengeance when GH is more popular is still an issue.

I agree with that. I think having both is totally cool & fine, but they should be done in tandem: improvement of greyhost and new updates along with introduction of vengeance for PvE people/new players

CatoUnchained · December 21

Nihilr wrote: »

Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.

Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.

[snip]

The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.

Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]

Artisian0001 · December 21

CatoUnchained wrote: »

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

What are you guys even trying to preserve with Grey Host?

I ask that genuinely. It’s barely a PvP zone at this point cause it’s extremely dead. We haven’t seen good combat adjustments in so many years that I’ve lost count. Subclassing hasn’t been a positive thing for PvP either.

If you guys succeed in getting ZOS to scrap Vengeance, Grey Host will continue to die anyway.

If you’re holding out for ZOS to fix PvP through incremental tweaks as it is right now, you’re going to be disappointed.

So many of PvP’s issues exist because of PvE balancing. ZOS has been trying to make higher damage in PvE easier to achieve for years now. This is why status effects are such an overtuned and free damage source. It’s also why there’s so many broken group buff sets that can be combined to give even small coordinated groups 1000+ extra weapon damage, very easy access to Major Force, and much more. Heal stacking likely remains in the game because of PvE balancing as well. Tweaking that too much could make certain Veteran trials too difficult for the average group.

A lot of times ESO’s direction is unclear, but one thing that has been clear and consistent throughout the years is that ZOS wants to boost veteran PvE participation rates through making damage easier to achieve. PvP is in a deep hole largely due to balancing efforts around that goal and the hole will continue to get deeper for as long as PvE and PvP are balanced together. We are well past the point where Battle Spirit is enough to keep things in check.

ZOS will not walk back on their casual oriented PvE balancing efforts. As long as they continue down that path, PvP balance will get worse and worse. By advocating for Grey Host you guys are basically acting like ZOS will eventually and successfully address balance concerns in a way that keeps PvErs and PvPers happy. You guys really think they’re going to pull that off despite their track record and the fact that there’s so much more complexity (subclassing) to keep in mind now? It’s not going to happen.

Yes Vengeance has poor balance, a low skill ceiling, and it’s way too simple. However, it’s 100% separate from PvE and all of its issues are addressable without consequences elsewhere. It doesn’t have to have the balance that it does now.

So maybe some of you guys hate Vengeance as it is, that’s understandable. Instead of trying to get it scrapped completely, try to get it balanced correctly though. Grey Host will only sink deeper into it’s hole as it continues to be balanced with PvE.

Don’t ruin PvPs opportunity to be completely separated from PvE. It’s more productive to bring attention to the overtuned healing, lack of mobility skills, low skill ceiling, etc. in Vengeance. If they actually address those issues, we could get somewhere.

Sorry. I bought a product from ZOS and I expect ZOS to support that product they're still selling to this day. This is not an unreasonable expectation in any capacity.

If ZOS can't make GH run smoothly, they can't make a version of vengeance that will either. Plus, I'll feel robbed if they take a decade of set grinding away from me to the point that I will never buy any ZOS/Bethesda product ever again.

This is where I'm at.

ZOS been telling us for a decade "They're working on it". Now it's "we're never going to work on it again". What? How's that work? I thought companies were supposed to support the products they sold, especially with digital products.

And if ZOS can't make GH work properly, they can't make a new system work properly either.

What's going on here?

They aren't working on it because they don't want to sink time into something they aren't good at, which is fixing issues pertaining to performance. Balance is fine, and even those who complain about it would still be happy with improved performance, as would every single person in GH. People have different ideas on balance but every last one would appreciate some meaningful increase in frame rate, or decrease in ping. Fixing the memory leak issue would help greatly, reducing redundancies and rewriting a lot of the existing code would help, reducing particles and calculations would be a great increase to performance, as well as fixing bugs (without introducing 100x more in the process) would also help. These are hardly ever the focus of the dev team.

Iriidius · December 21

manukartofanu wrote: »

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.

Where did I describe that stacking effects like a ballgroups doesn’t make you nearly immortal? I just said ballgroup playstile is not attractive to PvE players outside the premade hardcore trial groups/guilds which while being PvE endgame are tiny subset of PvE population.
Even if they managed to get parts of this tiny subset to play ballgroup in PvP it wouldn’t matter because they are too few to fill PvP.
How does stacking effects help PvE players playing solo, in PuGs or casual groups which together should be the overwhelming majority of PvE players? If they went to Cyrodiil they would play solo, PuG or unorganized group and not profit from stacking effects as they do not do it but suffer from ballgroups using all these effects to farm them and the negative changes made to solo and PuG to encourage ballgroups like group size reduction, buffs not shared outside group while adding more and more groupbuffs.
Vengeance draws in the opposite type of players than ballgroups so how can it be continuation of the idea to draw in PvErs by concessions?

I wonder how you even define/divide PvE and PvP players. Usually it is players sometimes pvping versus a everyone else but there are many "PvE" players "with a PvP mindset" interisted in PVP but not the way it is done in ESO.
Seems however you think all PvEr are playing like the Trial premade Guilds and totally disinterested in PvP.

Iriidius · December 21

edward_frigidhands 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.

GH caps out at 360 players at the moment according to the developers but its not always the same people in the campaign at all times since different players from different time zones with different schedules play the game.

So it wouldn't be correct to say GH has 100 or so players. It wouldn't even be correct to say that number is 360.

Additionally, you want to consider the fact that there are Blackreach players who do not want to play Vengeance and there is a Gray Host campaign on every ESO server. This includes PC NA, PC EU, XBox NA, Xbox EU, Playstation NA and Playstation EU.

Add players from all of the above mentioned servers who prefer the Gray Host campaign and you are looking at a lot more than 100 players.

This is kind of the issue when discussing the subject with people who want this new mode. Not enough people want to play it and they want ZOS to kill other modes so people who hate this game mode go play it. Which is nonsensical because they dont like it and they will just go play another video game title or the new mini-keep zone instead of going into the Vengeance campaign.

However you slice it, you can't make people play a game or content in the game that they don't want to play.

I understand you prefer the Vengeance game mode and it is completely fine if you like that.

It is just toxic however if you're trying to get other game modes that other people prefer deleted with the misconception that this will change their minds about playing the one you prefer.

Xylena is one of very few Vengeance players that actually ask to remove GreyHost. Most Vengeance players asks for Vengeance as addition rather than replacement for GreyHost while overwhelming majority of GreyHost players want remove Vengeance even if it could coexist with GreyHost without negative effect for GreyHost so they are the toxic ones. Taking away a gamemode when most players will rather quit than play the other is stupid idea.
However GreyHost regulars overestimate their importance very much when they want to coerce ZOS to stop Vengeance by threatening to quit. Same players are just telling other PvPers quitting over ballgroups, subclassing and other GreyHost problems that they and their opinion dont matter because they are PvE players and should stop defending Vengeance as they falsify results.

As a player who got 4 Overlords in Blackreach I dont consider Blackreach a loss because the campaign is beyond lost rarely reaching any bars with DC and AD gatekeeping the other and EP most of the day.

Iriidius · December 21

manukartofanu 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.

Actually, if those who log in once every three months stop playing, no one will even notice.
But if the entire PvP community leaves—that’s minus 200–500 players from the current online population. Along with them, part of the economy will collapse, which will lead to further player loss.

If you keep making changes that reduce online numbers or push players away, eventually there will be no players left. And those who played once every three months will keep doing exactly that - playing once every three months.

What we have already: a guaranteed event page drop for people who want rewards for five minutes of gameplay. The result? A ruined event economy and zero reason to farm boxes, which led, surprise, surprise, to lower online numbers.

Arcanist: letting in newcomers and people who don’t want to spend time learning how to play. The result? Players with no skill can easily clear all the content they previously couldn’t, and then they leave.

And the list of concessions and pandering to those who don’t actually want to play the game can go on and on.
The outcome: a game made for people who don’t want to play it.

Those players log in every 3 month only not voluntarily but because the content they want to play is only available every 3 month and they surely log in more than once in this week. As GreyHost defenders claimed not to log in when GreyHost is down they would also log in only every 3 month when GreyHost was up only every 3 month. If you make this content available every day than many of those players will become daily active players.

Maybe friend and guild members will notice daily active players quitting more than players active every 3 month but the game as a whole wont notice the loss of a few daily active players more than the loss of few more players active less often but with same combined playtime.

manukartofanu wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

manukartofanu 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.

Actually, if those who log in once every three months stop playing, no one will even notice.
But if the entire PvP community leaves—that’s minus 200–500 players from the current online population. Along with them, part of the economy will collapse, which will lead to further player loss.

If you keep making changes that reduce online numbers or push players away, eventually there will be no players left. And those who played once every three months will keep doing exactly that - playing once every three months.

What we have already: a guaranteed event page drop for people who want rewards for five minutes of gameplay. The result? A ruined event economy and zero reason to farm boxes, which led, surprise, surprise, to lower online numbers.

Arcanist: letting in newcomers and people who don’t want to spend time learning how to play. The result? Players with no skill can easily clear all the content they previously couldn’t, and then they leave.

And the list of concessions and pandering to those who don’t actually want to play the game can go on and on.
The outcome: a game made for people who don’t want to play it.

That is not entirely true. Sure, it is less evident when players leave one by one as opposed to the entire base at once, but the effects are still noticeable. Population is shrinking and PvPers are aware of it. Also, those who left took their wallet with them so there’s that impact too.

Some of the people who plan to move to other games should Veng be permanent (alongside GH) will be replaced by others coming back (and some will bring their friends).

Time will tell if we’re indeed witnessing the death of ESO PvP, or a new beginning.

The thesis you highlighted has nothing to do with what you're refuting. People who log in once every three months are basically people who have already stopped playing. That has nothing to do with the fact that PvE players are leaving the game in a thin trickle. PvP players also probably wouldn’t all quit at once if GH were shut down — some would still try playing Vengeance until they finally got disappointed. And that too would be the same one-by-one departure.

People who login every three month because the content they want to play is only available every 3 month didnt basicle already stop playing but use every opportunity to play the content they want to play.
Compare that to the players not bothering to come back or boycotting TESO after not being able to play for 1 week: They have really stopped played over a much smaller limitation than the limitation to a week every 3 month Vengeance players (that still come back for that week)have.

CatoUnchained · December 22

Iriidius wrote: »

manukartofanu 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.

Actually, if those who log in once every three months stop playing, no one will even notice.
But if the entire PvP community leaves—that’s minus 200–500 players from the current online population. Along with them, part of the economy will collapse, which will lead to further player loss.

If you keep making changes that reduce online numbers or push players away, eventually there will be no players left. And those who played once every three months will keep doing exactly that - playing once every three months.

What we have already: a guaranteed event page drop for people who want rewards for five minutes of gameplay. The result? A ruined event economy and zero reason to farm boxes, which led, surprise, surprise, to lower online numbers.

Arcanist: letting in newcomers and people who don’t want to spend time learning how to play. The result? Players with no skill can easily clear all the content they previously couldn’t, and then they leave.

And the list of concessions and pandering to those who don’t actually want to play the game can go on and on.
The outcome: a game made for people who don’t want to play it.

Those players log in every 3 month only not voluntarily but because the content they want to play is only available every 3 month and they surely log in more than once in this week. As GreyHost defenders claimed not to log in when GreyHost is down they would also log in only every 3 month when GreyHost was up only every 3 month. If you make this content available every day than many of those players will become daily active players.

Maybe friend and guild members will notice daily active players quitting more than players active every 3 month but the game as a whole wont notice the loss of a few daily active players more than the loss of few more players active less often but with same combined playtime.

manukartofanu wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

manukartofanu 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.

Actually, if those who log in once every three months stop playing, no one will even notice.
But if the entire PvP community leaves—that’s minus 200–500 players from the current online population. Along with them, part of the economy will collapse, which will lead to further player loss.

If you keep making changes that reduce online numbers or push players away, eventually there will be no players left. And those who played once every three months will keep doing exactly that - playing once every three months.

What we have already: a guaranteed event page drop for people who want rewards for five minutes of gameplay. The result? A ruined event economy and zero reason to farm boxes, which led, surprise, surprise, to lower online numbers.

Arcanist: letting in newcomers and people who don’t want to spend time learning how to play. The result? Players with no skill can easily clear all the content they previously couldn’t, and then they leave.

And the list of concessions and pandering to those who don’t actually want to play the game can go on and on.
The outcome: a game made for people who don’t want to play it.

That is not entirely true. Sure, it is less evident when players leave one by one as opposed to the entire base at once, but the effects are still noticeable. Population is shrinking and PvPers are aware of it. Also, those who left took their wallet with them so there’s that impact too.

Some of the people who plan to move to other games should Veng be permanent (alongside GH) will be replaced by others coming back (and some will bring their friends).

Time will tell if we’re indeed witnessing the death of ESO PvP, or a new beginning.

The thesis you highlighted has nothing to do with what you're refuting. People who log in once every three months are basically people who have already stopped playing. That has nothing to do with the fact that PvE players are leaving the game in a thin trickle. PvP players also probably wouldn’t all quit at once if GH were shut down — some would still try playing Vengeance until they finally got disappointed. And that too would be the same one-by-one departure.

People who login every three month because the content they want to play is only available every 3 month didnt basicle already stop playing but use every opportunity to play the content they want to play.
Compare that to the players not bothering to come back or boycotting TESO after not being able to play for 1 week: They have really stopped played over a much smaller limitation than the limitation to a week every 3 month Vengeance players (that still come back for that week)have.

The people who want to play PvP are already doing so. Vengeance will not bring in new players and self populate from the PvE community. It just won't happen that way. Vengeance is the biggest bungle to date from ZOS on the PvP side of the coin, and this last year of content combined with the 10th anniversary grind and the writhing wall event and Solstice have been a bug ridden disasters on the PvE side of things. So ZOS is failing equally across the board right now. How long can a company keep that up and remain viable? ....we're about to find out.

Iriidius · December 22

CatoUnchained wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

manukartofanu 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.

Actually, if those who log in once every three months stop playing, no one will even notice.
But if the entire PvP community leaves—that’s minus 200–500 players from the current online population. Along with them, part of the economy will collapse, which will lead to further player loss.

If you keep making changes that reduce online numbers or push players away, eventually there will be no players left. And those who played once every three months will keep doing exactly that - playing once every three months.

What we have already: a guaranteed event page drop for people who want rewards for five minutes of gameplay. The result? A ruined event economy and zero reason to farm boxes, which led, surprise, surprise, to lower online numbers.

Arcanist: letting in newcomers and people who don’t want to spend time learning how to play. The result? Players with no skill can easily clear all the content they previously couldn’t, and then they leave.

And the list of concessions and pandering to those who don’t actually want to play the game can go on and on.
The outcome: a game made for people who don’t want to play it.

Those players log in every 3 month only not voluntarily but because the content they want to play is only available every 3 month and they surely log in more than once in this week. As GreyHost defenders claimed not to log in when GreyHost is down they would also log in only every 3 month when GreyHost was up only every 3 month. If you make this content available every day than many of those players will become daily active players.

Maybe friend and guild members will notice daily active players quitting more than players active every 3 month but the game as a whole wont notice the loss of a few daily active players more than the loss of few more players active less often but with same combined playtime.

manukartofanu wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

manukartofanu 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.

Actually, if those who log in once every three months stop playing, no one will even notice.
But if the entire PvP community leaves—that’s minus 200–500 players from the current online population. Along with them, part of the economy will collapse, which will lead to further player loss.

If you keep making changes that reduce online numbers or push players away, eventually there will be no players left. And those who played once every three months will keep doing exactly that - playing once every three months.

What we have already: a guaranteed event page drop for people who want rewards for five minutes of gameplay. The result? A ruined event economy and zero reason to farm boxes, which led, surprise, surprise, to lower online numbers.

Arcanist: letting in newcomers and people who don’t want to spend time learning how to play. The result? Players with no skill can easily clear all the content they previously couldn’t, and then they leave.

And the list of concessions and pandering to those who don’t actually want to play the game can go on and on.
The outcome: a game made for people who don’t want to play it.

That is not entirely true. Sure, it is less evident when players leave one by one as opposed to the entire base at once, but the effects are still noticeable. Population is shrinking and PvPers are aware of it. Also, those who left took their wallet with them so there’s that impact too.

Some of the people who plan to move to other games should Veng be permanent (alongside GH) will be replaced by others coming back (and some will bring their friends).

Time will tell if we’re indeed witnessing the death of ESO PvP, or a new beginning.

The thesis you highlighted has nothing to do with what you're refuting. People who log in once every three months are basically people who have already stopped playing. That has nothing to do with the fact that PvE players are leaving the game in a thin trickle. PvP players also probably wouldn’t all quit at once if GH were shut down — some would still try playing Vengeance until they finally got disappointed. And that too would be the same one-by-one departure.

People who login every three month because the content they want to play is only available every 3 month didnt basicle already stop playing but use every opportunity to play the content they want to play.
Compare that to the players not bothering to come back or boycotting TESO after not being able to play for 1 week: They have really stopped played over a much smaller limitation than the limitation to a week every 3 month Vengeance players (that still come back for that week)have.

The people who want to play PvP are already doing so. Vengeance will not bring in new players and self populate from the PvE community. It just won't happen that way. Vengeance is the biggest bungle to date from ZOS on the PvP side of the coin, and this last year of content combined with the 10th anniversary grind and the writhing wall event and Solstice have been a bug ridden disasters on the PvE side of things. So ZOS is failing equally across the board right now. How long can a company keep that up and remain viable? ....we're about to find out.

Keep pretending all the players complaining and quitting over subclassing, ballgroups and all the other unbalanced build choices and problems from GreyHost not existing in Vengeance dont exist. Keep pretending no player ever quit GreyHost for problems not existent in Vengeance. Keep pretending every player testing out Cyrodiil or returning after years to PvP a few days already has Metabuild with newest mythic and wont be scarred off by first having to figure out and farm build.

Iriidius · December 22

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

StihlReign wrote: »

Small comped groups and experienced tanks don't typically sit directly on Rams in GH. They climb onto the ledge and siege from there. They'll let you burn 3 Rams, by then the door is either open or a few hits with a couple of Ballistas and it's done.

If they're not doing it this way, the group is typically inexperienced, immune to damage or doesn't really care if they get in. We asked the devs to address the ledge, similar to the bridge damage immunity... ~crickets

You can still be hit with siege from the ledge, this is a moot point. The vast majority of keeps have no spot where you can sit and not be hit by oils while ramming the door.

Maybe someone manages to setup and aim a single oil to hit players at the ledge and another for other ledge which you should still be able to outheal but you definitely cant hit players at the ledge with all 6 oils you can setup around grid.
And as group in voichchat it is also possible to have half your group run into ram only when it rams and stay out the other time.
Oil might still kill solobuilds but not ballgroups in this short time.
I never saw a keep that a ballgroup couldn’t take because maingate was oiled.

That's great and all but just like the comments before you, you aren't addressing what's being said, and to the surprise of nobody, the framing is also awful. You can hit them with a single oil? Be realistic, it just makes your argument look weak. You can hit them with more than just one and even if it was just one, which more are possible, but even if I grant you that incorrect point, you still aren't addressing the fact that it pushes them off the door which is my exact point. This statement alone "I never saw a keep that a ballgroup couldn’t take because maingate was oiled." is a lie or you've seen a ballgroup on a ram like twice in your life. You have NEVER seen a ballgroup leave because maingate was oiled? Be realistic, this is a horrible line of conversation.

You can setup 6 oils around outpost grid (and inner emp keeps are build like outpost) but most wont hit players on the ledge. To hit players at ledge you have to place siege near ledge and turn it towards ledge and there are much less spots for oil where you can hit them this way.
Even when it manages to stop ballgroup from using ram oil without anything behind in the inner keep wont stop a ballgroup from just shooting it open than run in once the maingate is open

Iriidius · December 22

Artisian0001 wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Siege is overpowered even with siege shield

??????????????????????????????????????????

nerf bishops buff rooks

I was just in GH and my friend and I beat a coordinated ballgroup 2v12, even though they had cross heals and siege shield because oils and scattershot are so strong!!

Artisian0001 wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

coordinated ballgroup

My words were "pug raid" but if that's what you consider a "coordinated ball group" then I guess that would explain a lot of what is going here.

What I said has nothing to do with what you said. My friend and I beat a coordinated 12 man together while they had siege shield up because siege is so strong. The healing debuff that was stacking on them made it impossible for them to do anything and we just sieged them from the safety of the keep and there was nothing they could do. Even though they run around beating on everyone else, all it took was 2 of us with some siege.

Even 12 skilled PUGs/Randoms/Zergsurfer usually dont get wiped by 2 players with oils and scattershots, a ballgroup must be unimaginable bad to wipe to that. Sure this wasnt a casual Trialgroup?
Somehow the less soloplayers and the more ballgroups there are the more overpowered soloplayer and the weaker ballgroups get called in discussions because every soloplayer to disagree has quitted and ballgroup can spread their narrative.

LPapirius · December 22

Iriidius wrote: »

edward_frigidhands 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.

GH caps out at 360 players at the moment according to the developers but its not always the same people in the campaign at all times since different players from different time zones with different schedules play the game.

So it wouldn't be correct to say GH has 100 or so players. It wouldn't even be correct to say that number is 360.

Additionally, you want to consider the fact that there are Blackreach players who do not want to play Vengeance and there is a Gray Host campaign on every ESO server. This includes PC NA, PC EU, XBox NA, Xbox EU, Playstation NA and Playstation EU.

Add players from all of the above mentioned servers who prefer the Gray Host campaign and you are looking at a lot more than 100 players.

This is kind of the issue when discussing the subject with people who want this new mode. Not enough people want to play it and they want ZOS to kill other modes so people who hate this game mode go play it. Which is nonsensical because they dont like it and they will just go play another video game title or the new mini-keep zone instead of going into the Vengeance campaign.

However you slice it, you can't make people play a game or content in the game that they don't want to play.

I understand you prefer the Vengeance game mode and it is completely fine if you like that.

It is just toxic however if you're trying to get other game modes that other people prefer deleted with the misconception that this will change their minds about playing the one you prefer.

Xylena is one of very few Vengeance players that actually ask to remove GreyHost. Most Vengeance players asks for Vengeance as addition rather than replacement for GreyHost while overwhelming majority of GreyHost players want remove Vengeance even if it could coexist with GreyHost without negative effect for GreyHost so they are the toxic ones. Taking away a gamemode when most players will rather quit than play the other is stupid idea.
However GreyHost regulars overestimate their importance very much when they want to coerce ZOS to stop Vengeance by threatening to quit. Same players are just telling other PvPers quitting over ballgroups, subclassing and other GreyHost problems that they and their opinion dont matter because they are PvE players and should stop defending Vengeance as they falsify results.

As a player who got 4 Overlords in Blackreach I dont consider Blackreach a loss because the campaign is beyond lost rarely reaching any bars with DC and AD gatekeeping the other and EP most of the day.

The understanding displayed in your posts suggest you are not remotely familiar with the PvP community.

Artisian0001 · December 22

Iriidius wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

StihlReign wrote: »

Small comped groups and experienced tanks don't typically sit directly on Rams in GH. They climb onto the ledge and siege from there. They'll let you burn 3 Rams, by then the door is either open or a few hits with a couple of Ballistas and it's done.

If they're not doing it this way, the group is typically inexperienced, immune to damage or doesn't really care if they get in. We asked the devs to address the ledge, similar to the bridge damage immunity... ~crickets

You can still be hit with siege from the ledge, this is a moot point. The vast majority of keeps have no spot where you can sit and not be hit by oils while ramming the door.

Maybe someone manages to setup and aim a single oil to hit players at the ledge and another for other ledge which you should still be able to outheal but you definitely cant hit players at the ledge with all 6 oils you can setup around grid.
And as group in voichchat it is also possible to have half your group run into ram only when it rams and stay out the other time.
Oil might still kill solobuilds but not ballgroups in this short time.
I never saw a keep that a ballgroup couldn’t take because maingate was oiled.

That's great and all but just like the comments before you, you aren't addressing what's being said, and to the surprise of nobody, the framing is also awful. You can hit them with a single oil? Be realistic, it just makes your argument look weak. You can hit them with more than just one and even if it was just one, which more are possible, but even if I grant you that incorrect point, you still aren't addressing the fact that it pushes them off the door which is my exact point. This statement alone "I never saw a keep that a ballgroup couldn’t take because maingate was oiled." is a lie or you've seen a ballgroup on a ram like twice in your life. You have NEVER seen a ballgroup leave because maingate was oiled? Be realistic, this is a horrible line of conversation.

You can setup 6 oils around outpost grid (and inner emp keeps are build like outpost) but most wont hit players on the ledge. To hit players at ledge you have to place siege near ledge and turn it towards ledge and there are much less spots for oil where you can hit them this way.
Even when it manages to stop ballgroup from using ram oil without anything behind in the inner keep wont stop a ballgroup from just shooting it open than run in once the maingate is open

You can hit more than 1 even when people are on the ledge. Also, my entire point was pointing out how strong siege was, oil especially. Pushing them off the door was all I said, and it can successfully be done by 4 people or even less to the best coordinated 12 man ballgroups.