Vaqual wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

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.

1.) I don't view PvP being different from PvE ruleset as a benefit and rather as a concession of defeat. A sign that combat design has gotten out of hand. PvE balance is arbitrary to begin with, as any mob or encounter can be scaled to match PvP power. The only roadblocks are ZOS' infamous "inclusivity" specs, Heavy Attack and Beam, which really disconnect player action and performance. And these specs are weak enough in PvP to not warrant a deeper divide between modes. Apart from that PvE is nerfeable without net-consequence, if encounter design respects player limitations.

2.) "Balancing could be better" is just the same copium people breathe in GH, but at least we get to play the full version of the game there.

For me personally there is nothing appealing or positive in the Vengeance campaign. If you have 900 buddies to play, good for you. But even new players are not going to unanimously support this mode. That is a fallacy that is also believed about no-CP or no-proc, but leveling and gearing advantages are part of the motivation for many - whereas "simple, accessible" doesn't outweigh the extremely evident lack of depth for a good chunk of the player base.

If PvP is supposed to thrive it needs to move forward in a good way, not backwards with compromises. If I only had the choice between Vengeance and not playing, I wouldn't play.

Yeah PvP actively regressing/devolving is the opposite of what we should be aiming for. Also, getting even less interest in that alternative while maintaining good performance should tell the devs exactly what the majority of the PvP community prefers. If we are willing to sacrifice performance and play in a not ideal environment over a PvP experience with relatively no performance issues, the message to the devs should be clear as day.

Vaqual wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

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.

1.) I don't view PvP being different from PvE ruleset as a benefit and rather as a concession of defeat. A sign that combat design has gotten out of hand. PvE balance is arbitrary to begin with, as any mob or encounter can be scaled to match PvP power. The only roadblocks are ZOS' infamous "inclusivity" specs, Heavy Attack and Beam, which really disconnect player action and performance. And these specs are weak enough in PvP to not warrant a deeper divide between modes. Apart from that PvE is nerfeable without net-consequence, if encounter design respects player limitations.

2.) "Balancing could be better" is just the same copium people breathe in GH, but at least we get to play the full version of the game there.

For me personally there is nothing appealing or positive in the Vengeance campaign. If you have 900 buddies to play, good for you. But even new players are not going to unanimously support this mode. That is a fallacy that is also believed about no-CP or no-proc, but leveling and gearing advantages are part of the motivation for many - whereas "simple, accessible" doesn't outweigh the extremely evident lack of depth for a good chunk of the player base.

If PvP is supposed to thrive it needs to move forward in a good way, not backwards with compromises. If I only had the choice between Vengeance and not playing, I wouldn't play.

Very well said and both very good points. The first is something I have said myself many times in many different forums threads and stream chats.

The second is where I believe most of the game's PvP community is.

What is unbalanced currently in Cyro, can you even name anything in Greyhost that is unbalanced? Ballgroups are not unbalanced if that is your only answer, groups of coordinated people who are optimized should win fights. Do you have any actual issue with balance?

The "full version of the game" is tri pop locked every single night despite latency issues and another campaign being available.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

What is unbalanced currently in Cyro, can you even name anything in Greyhost that is unbalanced? Ballgroups are not unbalanced if that is your only answer, groups of coordinated people who are optimized should win fights. Do you have any actual issue with balance?

Surely you aren't trying to tell me that nothing is unbalanced in Cyrodiil right now...

And no ballgroups are not balanced and even the other people here who hate Vengeance wouldn't ever try to say that.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

The "full version of the game" is tri pop locked every single night despite latency issues and another campaign being available.

Wow, one single campaign reliably gets just over 300 players in it per night! PvP must be thriving.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

What is unbalanced currently in Cyro, can you even name anything in Greyhost that is unbalanced? Ballgroups are not unbalanced if that is your only answer, groups of coordinated people who are optimized should win fights. Do you have any actual issue with balance?

Surely you aren't trying to tell me that nothing is unbalanced in Cyrodiil right now...

And no ballgroups are not balanced and even the other people here who hate Vengeance wouldn't ever try to say that.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

The "full version of the game" is tri pop locked every single night despite latency issues and another campaign being available.

Wow, one single campaign reliably gets just over 300 players in it per night! PvP must be thriving.

Unresponsive to the question. Try again. Name what you think is unbalanced. Try not to say "Wow surely you can't be serious" this isn't an answer to the question

There are many many posts on these forums pointing out balance issues in PvP. I've named a few of them in this thread.

First, subclassing is not balanced whatsoever. There's only a few viable ones in PvP, and some skill lines like Restoring Light are extremely problematic with subclassing. Sets aren't balanced with each other, just look at something like Amberplasm vs Wretched Vitality for a blatant example. I think status effects give way too much free damage. Proc sets are still a big issue. Heal stacking is absolutely broken. Health pools are way too high, it's not uncommon to see 40k health "damage" builds. Group buff sets are also broken, They can often be single barred and give benefits to the entire group without drawback. SPC or Olo for small groups gives 430 weapon damage, which alone would be good for a solo player. It only gets stronger the more people you add to your group.

Hybridization was a mistake, everyone has access to vigor and a burst heal and then a 3rd heal if they want. Scribing let's people have major vitality on top of all that.

All of this combined means that some players are like emperors compared to others. Especially when it comes to ballgroups. There's a lot of other stuff I didn't even touch on.

Point is, a lot is unbalanced, most people agree that it is unbalanced, and it has stayed unbalanced for several years now. If you really are making this claim in good faith, all it takes is reading the forums and you'll find great threads from different people highlighting balance issues. I have a hard time believing anyone thinks that PvP right now is balanced though.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

It's the biggest form of PvP in the game, more than the dying vengeance that was made solely to house more people, dead on it's own mission statement. Pop locked every single night on all 3 factions despite the added competition and performance issues.

The biggest form of PvP in the game has less than 400 players (and dropping) participating nightly down from 1000s. The bottom line is almost no one wants to PvP and there are very clear reasons for it. It won't improve till things are addressed.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

What is unbalanced currently in Cyro, can you even name anything in Greyhost that is unbalanced? Ballgroups are not unbalanced if that is your only answer, groups of coordinated people who are optimized should win fights. Do you have any actual issue with balance?

Surely you aren't trying to tell me that nothing is unbalanced in Cyrodiil right now...

And no ballgroups are not balanced and even the other people here who hate Vengeance wouldn't ever try to say that.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

The "full version of the game" is tri pop locked every single night despite latency issues and another campaign being available.

Wow, one single campaign reliably gets just over 300 players in it per night! PvP must be thriving.

Unresponsive to the question. Try again. Name what you think is unbalanced. Try not to say "Wow surely you can't be serious" this isn't an answer to the question

There are many many posts on these forums pointing out balance issues in PvP. There's a long list of balance issues and many posts that elaborate on them. I've named a few of them in this thread.

First, subclassing is not balanced whatsoever. There's only a few viable ones in PvP, and some skill lines like Restoring Light are extremely problematic with subclassing. Sets aren't balanced with each other, just look at something like Amberplasm vs Wretched Vitality for a blatant example. I think status effects give way too much free damage. Proc sets are still a big issue. Heal stacking is absolutely broken. Health pools are way too high, it's not uncommon to see 40k health "damage" builds. Group buff sets are also broken, They can often be single barred and give benefits to the entire group without drawback. SPC or Olo for small groups gives 430 weapon damage, which alone would be good for a solo player. It only gets stronger the more people you add to your group.

Hybridization was a mistake, everyone has access to vigor and a burst heal and then a 3rd heal if they want. Scribing let's people have major vitality on top of all that.

All of this combined means that some players are like emperors compared to others. Especially when it comes to ballgroups. There's a lot of other stuff I didn't even touch on.

Point is, a lot is unbalanced, most people agree that it is unbalanced, and it has stayed unbalanced for several years now. If you really are making this claim in good faith, all it takes is reading the forums and you'll find great friends from different people highlighting balance issues. I have a hard time believing anyone thinks that PvP right now is balanced though.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

It's the biggest form of PvP in the game, more than the dying vengeance that was made solely to house more people, dead on it's own mission statement. Pop locked every single night on all 3 factions despite the added competition and performance issues.

The biggest form of PvP in the game has less than 400 players (and dropping) participating nightly down from 1000s. The bottom line is almost no one wants to PvP and there are very clear reasons for it. It won't improve till things are addressed.

What is unbalanced about subclassing when everyone can have access to it? You aren't doing well in substantiating it. Subclassing is strong sure, but every single perron can get access to it. Sets are not all equal, correct, that doesn't inherently make PvP imbalanced. This is another moot point. "Oh well PvP is imbalanced because hundings rage exists which gives 300 weapon and spell damage but another set exists which gives more" Okay? Use that set then. That is not what something being imbalanced means definitionally when it comes to PvP. What proc sets are a huge issue?

You are saying all the combinations of these things can make someone an emperor, but literally every single person can do this except for people in groups, and guess what my entire first point was? People in groups will be strong. Sure, you can argue the ramping return of sets that give stats to people while only being on one person is strong, that is the only valid argument you made in your entire wall of text, but this is an MMO, play with friends.

"The bottom line is almost no one wants to PvP and there are very clear reasons for it." Tri pop locked, every single night, despite competition from a campaign you advocate for, even while that campaign is newer and has been advertised plenty, and has less people. Don't you see the irony there?

Alright I don't see much point in replying after I make this post so I won't. Clearly we don't agree and I'm just going to assume you're trolling anyway.

Basically your logic boils down to: "If everyone has access to the same things it's not unbalanced." So I'm guessing when you say "unbalanced", you don't mean "equally viable or effective". Cause you literally acknowledge that some sets are simply better than others and that's the opposite of balance...

So maybe you're saying "unbalanced" as in fair/skill based/well designed, but even then I don't think the logic holds up. Whether or not a game is skill based or fair doesn't have much to do with the fact that everyone technically has access to the same thing. Skill is about how much choices impact the outcome of the game.

So when healing gets out of hand or build differences start having more impact on the outcome of a game rather than actions, the game becomes less skill based and less fair. Procs, free damage from status effects, cross healing, and huge stat differences all contribute to a lowered skill ceiling and decreased skill expression overall.

Imagine you run into a player in relequen and pyrebrand when you have a more well rounded Cyrodiil based build on and you lose. I don't think that has much to do with skill. Technically you could just put on those sets just to fight them again, but then you're in a terrible Cyrodiil build. There's a lot ways in ESO where the build is the deciding factor and not skill, to me that's not balanced in the way you're using the word.

Same thing goes for excessive healing. So imagine you have a scenario where player A is on a full damage build lining up burst perfectly and generally playing well. Player B has some damage, but they have a lot of health and a lot of healing. In ESO, if Player B doesn't really react to incoming damage and sometimes doesn't even break free, they could still survive player A effortlessly. That's a balance issue, specifically with how effective defense is compared to offense. That's been an issue in ESO for many years.

No matter how you mean the word "balanced" that word does not describe ESO at all.

Stamicka wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

What is unbalanced currently in Cyro, can you even name anything in Greyhost that is unbalanced? Ballgroups are not unbalanced if that is your only answer, groups of coordinated people who are optimized should win fights. Do you have any actual issue with balance?

Surely you aren't trying to tell me that nothing is unbalanced in Cyrodiil right now...

And no ballgroups are not balanced and even the other people here who hate Vengeance wouldn't ever try to say that.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

The "full version of the game" is tri pop locked every single night despite latency issues and another campaign being available.

Wow, one single campaign reliably gets just over 300 players in it per night! PvP must be thriving.

Unresponsive to the question. Try again. Name what you think is unbalanced. Try not to say "Wow surely you can't be serious" this isn't an answer to the question

There are many many posts on these forums pointing out balance issues in PvP. There's a long list of balance issues and many posts that elaborate on them. I've named a few of them in this thread.

First, subclassing is not balanced whatsoever. There's only a few viable ones in PvP, and some skill lines like Restoring Light are extremely problematic with subclassing. Sets aren't balanced with each other, just look at something like Amberplasm vs Wretched Vitality for a blatant example. I think status effects give way too much free damage. Proc sets are still a big issue. Heal stacking is absolutely broken. Health pools are way too high, it's not uncommon to see 40k health "damage" builds. Group buff sets are also broken, They can often be single barred and give benefits to the entire group without drawback. SPC or Olo for small groups gives 430 weapon damage, which alone would be good for a solo player. It only gets stronger the more people you add to your group.

Hybridization was a mistake, everyone has access to vigor and a burst heal and then a 3rd heal if they want. Scribing let's people have major vitality on top of all that.

All of this combined means that some players are like emperors compared to others. Especially when it comes to ballgroups. There's a lot of other stuff I didn't even touch on.

Point is, a lot is unbalanced, most people agree that it is unbalanced, and it has stayed unbalanced for several years now. If you really are making this claim in good faith, all it takes is reading the forums and you'll find great friends from different people highlighting balance issues. I have a hard time believing anyone thinks that PvP right now is balanced though.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

It's the biggest form of PvP in the game, more than the dying vengeance that was made solely to house more people, dead on it's own mission statement. Pop locked every single night on all 3 factions despite the added competition and performance issues.

The biggest form of PvP in the game has less than 400 players (and dropping) participating nightly down from 1000s. The bottom line is almost no one wants to PvP and there are very clear reasons for it. It won't improve till things are addressed.

What is unbalanced about subclassing when everyone can have access to it? You aren't doing well in substantiating it. Subclassing is strong sure, but every single perron can get access to it. Sets are not all equal, correct, that doesn't inherently make PvP imbalanced. This is another moot point. "Oh well PvP is imbalanced because hundings rage exists which gives 300 weapon and spell damage but another set exists which gives more" Okay? Use that set then. That is not what something being imbalanced means definitionally when it comes to PvP. What proc sets are a huge issue?

You are saying all the combinations of these things can make someone an emperor, but literally every single person can do this except for people in groups, and guess what my entire first point was? People in groups will be strong. Sure, you can argue the ramping return of sets that give stats to people while only being on one person is strong, that is the only valid argument you made in your entire wall of text, but this is an MMO, play with friends.

"The bottom line is almost no one wants to PvP and there are very clear reasons for it." Tri pop locked, every single night, despite competition from a campaign you advocate for, even while that campaign is newer and has been advertised plenty, and has less people. Don't you see the irony there?

Alright I don't see much point in replying after I make this post so I won't. Clearly we don't agree and I'm just going to assume you're trolling anyway.

Basically your logic boils down to: "If everyone has access to the same things it's not unbalanced." So I'm guessing when you say "unbalanced", you don't mean "equally viable or effective". Cause you literally acknowledge that some sets are simply better than others and that's the opposite of balance...

So maybe you're saying "unbalanced" as in fair/skill based/well designed, but even then I don't think the logic holds up. Whether or not a game is skill based or fair doesn't have much to do with the fact that everyone technically has access to the same thing. Skill is about how much choices impact the outcome of the game.

So when healing gets out of hand or build differences start having more impact on the outcome of a game rather than actions, the game becomes less skill based and less fair. Procs, free damage from status effects, cross healing, and huge stat differences all contribute to a lowered skill ceiling and decreased skill expression overall.

Imagine you run into a player in relequen and pyrebrand when you have a more well rounded Cyrodiil based build on and you lose. I don't think that has much to do with skill. Technically you could just put on those sets just to fight them again, but then you're in a terrible Cyrodiil build. There's a lot ways in ESO where the build is the deciding factor and not skill, to me that's not balanced in the way you're using the word.

Same thing goes for excessive healing. So imagine you have a scenario where player A is on a full damage build lining up burst perfectly and generally playing well. Player B has some damage, but they have a lot of health and a lot of healing. In ESO, if Player B doesn't really react to incoming damage and sometimes doesn't even break free, they could still survive player A effortlessly. That's a balance issue, specifically with how effective defense is compared to offense. That's been an issue in ESO for many years.

No matter how you mean the word "balanced" that word does not describe ESO at all.

When you can't logically respond to something you make the assumption someone is trolling because you don't understand the definition of balance in a PvP game. Also, just because you choose to go with a set and someone else chooses to use relequen and you happen upon them, it isn't a lack of balance, it's just a difference in choice. If someone is going out with the express intent of 1v1ing people they could be in relequen, if you are playing a group and get caught in the back with your group build on and die, it's not lack of balance, again, just a huge misunderstanding from you. If you are in a pure burst build you should be punished for not bursting someone, if you are on a sustained damage build and play well you will punish people in a sustained fight. You can't just blanket say heals are too strong and heals out heal damage because that isn't true. If someone is strong enough to sit there and tank and heal all your damage, while they are loosely specced into damage, and still kill you, you are playing poorly or just in a bad build.

It's always funny to me talking to someone who won't at all actually engage with reality. ESO is over 10 years old, nobody expects or would in good faith argue that a video game that is 10 years old should be growing in size. Your entire argument regarding that portion hinges on the declining PvP population of a mode that has been out for a decade. Meanwhile, the version you advocate for has been out for a fraction of the time, advertised constantly, and interest in that small period of time has already fizzled out, when the entire point of the campaign was to be a platform for these much larger populations to play... but the vast majority of the server doesn't even care to. You say it's dying yet advocate for something that has already died, where it the logic in that? There isn't any. To add on, most of us don't even care about vengeance existing, I said multiple times to allow it, it's just that resources shouldn't be poured into it when the community, by and large, does not want to play it.

Stamicka wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

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.

1.) I don't view PvP being different from PvE ruleset as a benefit and rather as a concession of defeat. A sign that combat design has gotten out of hand. PvE balance is arbitrary to begin with, as any mob or encounter can be scaled to match PvP power. The only roadblocks are ZOS' infamous "inclusivity" specs, Heavy Attack and Beam, which really disconnect player action and performance. And these specs are weak enough in PvP to not warrant a deeper divide between modes. Apart from that PvE is nerfeable without net-consequence, if encounter design respects player limitations.

It's not a concession of defeat for PvE and PvP to have different balancing... that's a very bizarre claim. On a basic level, PvP is a burst based environment and in PvE since some enemies have a lot of health, average damage is more meaningful.

If one set grants 50% uptime of 600 weapon damage and another set gives 300 weapon damage at all times, their effectiveness in PvP vs PvE would be very different. Think Clever Alchemist vs Hundings Rage. In a sustained PvE fight without immunity phases these sets might have similar performance. In PvP, a set like Clever Alchemist could be much much stronger than Hunding's Rage, granted the wearer saved their ult/burst for the Clever Alchemist window.

So saying that PvE balance is "arbitrary" and suggesting that "(PVE) encounters can be scaled to match PvP power" isn't very practical at all. It wouldn't make much sense for a PvE boss to go from 100 - 0 just because you timed one burst correctly. It doesn't make much sense for PvP fights to behave like a PvE parse either. They're fundamentally very different modes that need different sets and balancing.

Suggesting that ZOS should change all PvE encounters for PvP balance instead of just separating them is so crazy to me. I don't think that that is a reasonable suggestion at all. There absolutely would be consequences in PvE if they did this, I'm not sure why you're saying there wouldn't be.

Vaqual wrote: »

2.) "Balancing could be better" is just the same copium people breathe in GH, but at least we get to play the full version of the game there.

It's not the same because whether you want to admit it or not, balance in live Cyrodiil is limited by PvE's need for balance or what could be accomplished through battle spirit. When the balancing is separate, they could do whatever they wanted with PvP balance without worrying about the rest of the game.

The "full version of the game" you're referring to is extremely broken and clearly no one wants to play it either.

Vaqual wrote: »

If PvP is supposed to thrive it needs to move forward in a good way, not backwards with compromises.

I mean... great slogan, but how? Moving Cyrodiil forward involves improving balance, getting population caps up, fixing performance, and getting lapsed players back or getting an influx of a lot of new players. You need something actionable and practical to make that happen, otherwise it's just words.

Since we've seen Vengeance with our own eyes and the groundwork is already there, I think it actually is the most actionable and practical path forward. Again, not Vengeance with it's current balance, but a separate environment with PvP specific balancing, sets, and rules.

(Sorry in advance for the poor formatting, did this on the phone.)

As you say there are different priorities based on the combat encounter, yet technically nothing prevents PvE fights to be designed with the same priorities as a PvP fight. As long as ZOS doesn't insist on pushing the boundaries of what a PvE encounter should demand from player builds based on outlier performance it won't be a very difficult to stay within the same a certain "power bracket". To stay with your example, it isn't only possible that both sets you mentioned can perform well on different encounters, but it is also highly likely that the margins in unequal fights wouldn't alter the outcome to a point that both sets would need a PvP/PvE rebalanced version (see people doing "naked" runs).

The key aspect is that you as a player can choose from a plethora of tools (sets, abilities, CP, mundus, glyphs, weapon types, abilities) to tackle something according to your preferences. Being able to move from PvP to PvE with the same kit is a massive asset for an MMO that should not easily be given up. Whether this will be optimal doesn't matter nearly as much. Making bad decisions is part of the experience, that is what makes information valuable and what entices a player to get invested. Having nothing to explore is boring. Learning two or three rulesets is tedious. Getting changed hopping in and out of PvP is tedious. Giving up your characters identity between modes just blows. A couple issues might get fixed that way. But those issues are fixable anyway, without sacrificing to much for it.

I absolutely disagree that the modes are fundamentally different*. It may appear so due to the high mitigation uptime (block, evade, movement), healing and counter pressure in PvP, but the objective and the toolset are the same.Will it feel the same for a brainless PvE-DPS player sitting back and beam-killing everything before mechanics kick in? No. Does he still have to adapt to the pacing of PvP even in Vengeance? Yes.
Of course we can argue about the details of what is useful or not in PvE or PvP, but I can easily come up with a handful of solutions for most problem cases that do not involve scrapping the basis of the combat system - and I pretty much expect that the people who do this for a living can do it, too.

*Regarding your other examples: A PvE boss can be designed to have block and dodge windows and you would immediately see burst specs perform well. And pressure is a valid tool in PvP, if you can balance the rest of the build accordingly and if cleanses were balanced right (free netch lol).

If the players want to approximate Vengeance power levels for GH (TTK, etc.) due to popular demand that is another topic. However, moving forward in a good way means for me not taking away the one aspect that makes this game stand out to deliver a generic PvP experience that is in no way better to the current model. I want to emphasize this point - and I don't mean to take away from your opinion there - but there is no appeal in Vengeance for me. There is nothing in it that I like. I won't be moving in any direction with it.

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?

Exactly

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

Because Vengeance has no future and Zos is pushing a path of destruction and wasting ressources by continuing to work on it

That ZOS is still investing into vengeance is a very bad sign for the future of ESO.

Hopefully (doubtful) they will see the population and obvious discontent from the community and focus on Greyhost instead.

Iriidius wrote: »

Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?

RW is already here, Vengenace - not. It is question more like "should dudes invest more into developing it or should it be cancelled?" It will not be cancelled tho, it will most likely replace RW and BR altogether and never be touched again (as RW previously).

LPapirius wrote: »

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.

You are good example of threatening to quit if ZOS releases Vengeance while pretending everyone who prefers it over GreyHost is not interested in or playing any form of PvP and not a loss if they quit. You consider your own opinion fact and everyone who disagrees as unable to understand it when some understand enaugh to know you are defending your own advantage over other players.
If I am not remotely familiar with PvP community than what you consider PvP community is only a faction of players in PvP.

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

CatoUnchained wrote: »

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]

Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?

Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.

You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.

Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.

ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

CatoUnchained wrote: »

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]

Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?

Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.

You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.

Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.

ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.

No.

This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.

Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.

fizzybeef wrote: »

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

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




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

Either way. Its a fail.

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Iriidius wrote: »

CatoUnchained wrote: »

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]

Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?

Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.

You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.

Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.

ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.

No.

This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.

Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.

fizzybeef wrote: »

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

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




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

Either way. Its a fail.

You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.

It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.