April 20th Vengeance Only..

JohnG · April 10

So who else will be taking a week off from ESO starting April 20th?

LPapirius · April 10

Maitsukas wrote: »

If they would stop doing these tests (as the very vocal anti-Vengeance players demand it), what should ZOS be doing instead? If the answer is nothing, then you've pretty much doomed Cyrodiil for everyone.

Vengeance is ZOS failing. It's ZOS refusing to fix the PvP system they told us for years they were working on fixing.

Vengeance is a betrayal of the PvP player base.

I and everyone I know will leave the game if vengeance is ever mandated. That means for any "test" going forward they better keep GH alive and well the whole time.

LPapirius · April 10

MincMincMinc wrote: »

React wrote: »

Vengeance has been confirmed to be coming as a permanent feature alongside GH with update 50, and they've even gone as far as making a large number of the "rewards" offered through the new PVP progression system vengeance-specific.

Still can't help but believe this is a terrible misstep in what is otherwise a stellar year for the studio. I've seen some people in favor of vengeance, but far more seem opposed, especially within the PVP community itself. As far as population goes, the last vengeance test was practically dead on PC NA after the first night, with GH having more players on it every single evening even when considering the different population caps.

I find myself wishing they'd have scrapped this altogether and focused their PVP-related efforts on improving the existing content, as well as further developing the upcoming mid-size zone and reward system.

They picked up on the notion of there needs to be a better entry into pvp because the old school concept of under50 into nocp into vet pvp doesnt work now that people level to cp160 within a week and only see population in the main campaign.

My biggest gripe is why did they do the vengeance perk system in such a goofy way. Why confuse new players even more by making a new convoluted system to learn? If I was designing vengeance I would have just made the perk system LOOK like fake gear unlocks and slottable gear only in pvp. They could have made essentially vengeance only gear that was basic noproc stat gear and simple stat gear effects like clever alchemist. A basic gear campaign like this actually could have been a good learning environment that is low investment. They could even redesign the alliance vendors and such to accommodate the new vengeance gear and etc.
Subclassing was probably already planned to get them through the class reworks so players had the cop-out where if they didn't have a DK they could still slot the OP meta dk skills on their character.

It seems like the "performance" aspect of the test was abandoned as we have seen that the DK and 2handed changes were already on their way a while ago. Meaning they began reworking way before any vengeance data was digested to make decisions off of. We never even tested interactions of set bonuses or stats with vengeance skills.....why would you start redesigning all of the skills in the game before you even knew how to design them to avoid performance issues with the rest of your systems?

The zos brass just put pvp on the backburner again like they have done every time in the past when they "fixed" cyrodil by reducing the player population cap. They could have chosen streamlined skills with light animations with no lag and 900 player full population cyrodil........ But instead they decided to turn the game into a hack and slash experience with Flamboyant overdone VFX complicated 5 paragraph proc skills and low server population lag >> need to reduce cyro population again >> Cyro is too big for 300 already, so we need a mini cyrodil so we can reduce the population again.

At a certain point we will see pve start to lag out and zos wont know what to do because they just kept digging the hole deeper.

Except vengeance is a totally different game mode. Nothing about vengeance would prepare a player for actual PvP.

LPapirius · April 10

xylena wrote: »

amiiegee wrote: »

Would rather have them doing nothing then splitting the shrinked community even more

Gray Host took a PvP community of thousands and reduced it to dozens.

But another idiotic "test" after a year of this crap is only souring people on Vengeance.

Vengeance is what sours people on vengeance. It's not a viable alternative to the normal live GH the PvP community logs in to play. ZOS told us for years "They're working on it", so that's what they should have done and be doing going forward. Not this vengeance abomination and betrayal.

xylena · April 10

LPapirius wrote: »

It's not a viable alternative to the normal live GH the PvP community logs in to play.

Who exactly is logging in for lag, ball groups, proc sets, and one shots? Not me.

I'm hearing they are moving forward with GH and Vengeance as the only two campaigns. I think this is a sound move, we are long overdue to condense the queue.

robwolf666 · April 10

JohnG wrote: »

So who else will be taking a week off from ESO starting April 20th?

Nope... It'll be the only time I go in to Cyrodiil to check it out. Hopefully they extend Vengeance to IC at some point.

freespirit · April 10

I used to PVP in GH a lot but the ball groups killed it for me.

I tried Vengeance first test and a bit the second but it got very boring very fast. I don't know the answer but replacing the other campaigns with Vengeance does not seem like the right answer for me at least!

heaven13 · April 11

freespirit wrote: »

I used to PVP in GH a lot but the ball groups killed it for me.

I tried Vengeance first test and a bit the second but it got very boring very fast. I don't know the answer but replacing the other campaigns with Vengeance does not seem like the right answer for me at least!

This is the boat I am in. I like different aspects of each. Vengeance I do like the large keep battles. It's what was always fun for me. But the actual game play gets stale pretty quickly and when alliances are unbalanced and numbers are all that matters, it also gets pretty boring. GH is largely ball groups and a few over-used proc set/skills. The smaller pop means there's fewer fights around, and fewer people to help try to repel BGs.

I think something in between would be ideal but with the hard stance of "Vengeance or GH, those are your only options", it feels like any meaningful lessons learned from Vengeance are being discarded as potential options for this possible third middle ground.

Necrotech_Master · April 11

tomofhyrule wrote: »

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

Brace yourself for an influx of pvers about to give you their wisdom on why Vengeance is better

Is Greyhost disabled again? Please say it isn’t

It is disabled again, for that week only.

It has also been confirmed that permaVengeance will drop in U50 alongside Grey Host as the two options

Will Blackreach still be up? It's going to really suck if there is nowhere for people to go if there is a queue to get into GH.

They said that only Vengeance and GH would be the options.

They did say that they'd look at adding a new campaign if the population demanded it, and gave the example of if both Vengeance and GH had long queues to get in. I do think a more realistic scenario is that GH has an hourslong queue and Vengeance is still at one bar, but they didn't say anything about that case.

to be fair, that situation already happens now lol

even just 2 weeks ago i saw GH queue at 80 during primetime and blackreach had 1-2 bars (all other camps were still 1 bar)

most people nowadays outside of events just use blackreach and IC as waiting rooms to get into grey host, even if the number of people queueing in grey host is 2/3 of a full camp in terms of population (120 pop caps, 80 people in the queue is 2/3 of a pop lock cap or probably 3 bars worth)

aetherix8 · April 11

SneaK wrote: »

Hi ZOS,

Stop doing this, the majority of your PvP base does not want this washed game mode. We don’t want to contribute anything to your “testing” because we are against it. Frankly, it’s a waste of time. With all the good that’s being done recently in the studio this is the remaining outlier of a team clinging to one last bad decision. It feels like we’re just being reminded to stay skeptical of the PvP dev team’s vacuum decision making philosophy.

*edit*
Can we test PvE Vengeance on April 20th too?

Basically, your best option is to participate as early as it goes live, and spam dmg aoes en masse.
If all PvPers and their grannies show up and help testing whether the cap of 6 will or will not melt down the servers, we might be done with that test in a couple of days.
Boycotts are pointless now, Vengeance will go live, so if you want to have GH back faster then help test this change.
Not to mention that this test is perhaps the most important - in a megazerg environment such as Vengeance we need bombing more than ever, and a cap of 3 on dmg aoe is ridiculous beyond belief.

aetherix8 · April 11

Kickimanjaro wrote: »

I trusted them when they said Vengeance was a test, but it is clear now that they intend to just add it as a separate mode to further split the community and "teach" people how to PvP in a way that doesn't apply outside that one specific gamemode...

I don’t get this “splitting the community” argument. Isn’t the community already split between multiple Cyro campaigns (mostly GH and BR nowadays), IC and BGs? Not to mention the split created by the removal of no-proc and the current state of GH that is driving players away?
Also judging by these forums, 99% of PvPers will stay in GH and Vengeance will be a PvEers’ (no skill zerglings and newbies) haven so again, what splitting of the PvP community. This argument doesn’t make sense.

L_Nici · April 11

aetherix8 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Hi ZOS,

Stop doing this, the majority of your PvP base does not want this washed game mode. We don’t want to contribute anything to your “testing” because we are against it. Frankly, it’s a waste of time. With all the good that’s being done recently in the studio this is the remaining outlier of a team clinging to one last bad decision. It feels like we’re just being reminded to stay skeptical of the PvP dev team’s vacuum decision making philosophy.

*edit*
Can we test PvE Vengeance on April 20th too?

Basically, your best option is to participate as early as it goes live, and spam dmg aoes en masse.
If all PvPers and their grannies show up and help testing whether the cap of 6 will or will not melt down the servers, we might be done with that test in a couple of days.
Boycotts are pointless now, Vengeance will go live, so if you want to have GH back faster then help test this change.
Not to mention that this test is perhaps the most important - in a megazerg environment such as Vengeance we need bombing more than ever, and a cap of 3 on dmg aoe is ridiculous beyond belief.

Yeah well, its Vengeance, just one of many things missing, that would make it anything else than a numbers game.

L_Nici · April 11

aetherix8 wrote: »

Kickimanjaro wrote: »

I trusted them when they said Vengeance was a test, but it is clear now that they intend to just add it as a separate mode to further split the community and "teach" people how to PvP in a way that doesn't apply outside that one specific gamemode...

I don’t get this “splitting the community” argument. Isn’t the community already split between multiple Cyro campaigns (mostly GH and BR nowadays), IC and BGs? Not to mention the split created by the removal of no-proc and the current state of GH that is driving players away?
Also judging by these forums, 99% of PvPers will stay in GH and Vengeance will be a PvEers’ (no skill zerglings and newbies) haven so again, what splitting of the PvP community. This argument doesn’t make sense.

PvP against PvE is also a split of the community. The PvP Community itself won't get split much over Vengeance, the majority doesn't want it.

aetherix8 · April 11

L_Nici wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

Kickimanjaro wrote: »

I trusted them when they said Vengeance was a test, but it is clear now that they intend to just add it as a separate mode to further split the community and "teach" people how to PvP in a way that doesn't apply outside that one specific gamemode...

I don’t get this “splitting the community” argument. Isn’t the community already split between multiple Cyro campaigns (mostly GH and BR nowadays), IC and BGs? Not to mention the split created by the removal of no-proc and the current state of GH that is driving players away?
Also judging by these forums, 99% of PvPers will stay in GH and Vengeance will be a PvEers’ (no skill zerglings and newbies) haven so again, what splitting of the PvP community. This argument doesn’t make sense.

PvP against PvE is also a split of the community. The PvP Community itself won't get split much over Vengeance, the majority doesn't want it.

That is precisely why “splitting the community” argument is invalid.
But it is an argument that was repeated over and over again some months ago, mostly by Vengeance opponents, who at the same time claim that PvPers won’t play it. Same goes for the artificial PvE/PvP division.
So it’s either one or the other.

aetherix8 · April 11

L_Nici wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Hi ZOS,

Stop doing this, the majority of your PvP base does not want this washed game mode. We don’t want to contribute anything to your “testing” because we are against it. Frankly, it’s a waste of time. With all the good that’s being done recently in the studio this is the remaining outlier of a team clinging to one last bad decision. It feels like we’re just being reminded to stay skeptical of the PvP dev team’s vacuum decision making philosophy.

*edit*
Can we test PvE Vengeance on April 20th too?

Basically, your best option is to participate as early as it goes live, and spam dmg aoes en masse.
If all PvPers and their grannies show up and help testing whether the cap of 6 will or will not melt down the servers, we might be done with that test in a couple of days.
Boycotts are pointless now, Vengeance will go live, so if you want to have GH back faster then help test this change.
Not to mention that this test is perhaps the most important - in a megazerg environment such as Vengeance we need bombing more than ever, and a cap of 3 on dmg aoe is ridiculous beyond belief.

Yeah well, its Vengeance, just one of many things missing, that would make it anything else than a numbers game.

It doesn’t change the fact that high participation may shorten the test and GH might be back much faster than in one week.

moderatelyfatman · April 11

xylena wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

It's not a viable alternative to the normal live GH the PvP community logs in to play.

Who exactly is logging in for lag, ball groups, proc sets, and one shots? Not me.

I'm hearing they are moving forward with GH and Vengeance as the only two campaigns. I think this is a sound move, we are long overdue to condense the queue.

Actually, I think have only GH and not Blackreach is a terrible idea. This will drive regular PvPers away during peak hours as they will have nothing to do if GH is pop-locked.

xylena · April 11

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

This will drive regular PvPers away during peak hours as they will have nothing to do if GH is pop-locked.

Oh no, like 12 guys are gonna log out, how will the game survive.

A lot more than that will try Vengeance and actually like it, or at least find it "good enough" for waiting in queue. There are a significant number of players who log into GH because it's the only game in town, not because they love ball groups, proc sets, and one shots.

SneaK · April 11

aetherix8 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Hi ZOS,

Stop doing this, the majority of your PvP base does not want this washed game mode. We don’t want to contribute anything to your “testing” because we are against it. Frankly, it’s a waste of time. With all the good that’s being done recently in the studio this is the remaining outlier of a team clinging to one last bad decision. It feels like we’re just being reminded to stay skeptical of the PvP dev team’s vacuum decision making philosophy.

*edit*
Can we test PvE Vengeance on April 20th too?

Basically, your best option is to participate as early as it goes live, and spam dmg aoes en masse.
If all PvPers and their grannies show up and help testing whether the cap of 6 will or will not melt down the servers, we might be done with that test in a couple of days.
Boycotts are pointless now, Vengeance will go live, so if you want to have GH back faster then help test this change.
Not to mention that this test is perhaps the most important - in a megazerg environment such as Vengeance we need bombing more than ever, and a cap of 3 on dmg aoe is ridiculous beyond belief.

Ah yes, that’s right…. Hancho always has a reason or incentive for us to play Vengeance, in this case it’s so we can get GH back faster lol. What a joke. No thanks, hope they limit your AoEs to one person and yall can enjoy those Megabanger battles you mentioned at 61fps.

LPapirius · April 11

xylena wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

It's not a viable alternative to the normal live GH the PvP community logs in to play.

Who exactly is logging in for lag, ball groups, proc sets, and one shots? Not me.

I'm hearing they are moving forward with GH and Vengeance as the only two campaigns. I think this is a sound move, we are long overdue to condense the queue.

Queue last night was 130. You are a very small minority of PvP players that like vengeance...which won't bring back the days before people knew who the toxic ones were to be avoided.

LPapirius · April 11

aetherix8 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Hi ZOS,

Stop doing this, the majority of your PvP base does not want this washed game mode. We don’t want to contribute anything to your “testing” because we are against it. Frankly, it’s a waste of time. With all the good that’s being done recently in the studio this is the remaining outlier of a team clinging to one last bad decision. It feels like we’re just being reminded to stay skeptical of the PvP dev team’s vacuum decision making philosophy.

*edit*
Can we test PvE Vengeance on April 20th too?

Basically, your best option is to participate as early as it goes live, and spam dmg aoes en masse.
If all PvPers and their grannies show up and help testing whether the cap of 6 will or will not melt down the servers, we might be done with that test in a couple of days.
Boycotts are pointless now, Vengeance will go live, so if you want to have GH back faster then help test this change.
Not to mention that this test is perhaps the most important - in a megazerg environment such as Vengeance we need bombing more than ever, and a cap of 3 on dmg aoe is ridiculous beyond belief.

It's not a boycott. I just hate vengeance so I will never again play it. Only a very tiny minority of the PvP player base will ever touch vengeance again now that we know ZOS lied about their intentions with vengeance from the very beginning.

LPapirius · April 11

aetherix8 wrote: »

L_Nici wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Hi ZOS,

Stop doing this, the majority of your PvP base does not want this washed game mode. We don’t want to contribute anything to your “testing” because we are against it. Frankly, it’s a waste of time. With all the good that’s being done recently in the studio this is the remaining outlier of a team clinging to one last bad decision. It feels like we’re just being reminded to stay skeptical of the PvP dev team’s vacuum decision making philosophy.

*edit*
Can we test PvE Vengeance on April 20th too?

Basically, your best option is to participate as early as it goes live, and spam dmg aoes en masse.
If all PvPers and their grannies show up and help testing whether the cap of 6 will or will not melt down the servers, we might be done with that test in a couple of days.
Boycotts are pointless now, Vengeance will go live, so if you want to have GH back faster then help test this change.
Not to mention that this test is perhaps the most important - in a megazerg environment such as Vengeance we need bombing more than ever, and a cap of 3 on dmg aoe is ridiculous beyond belief.

Yeah well, its Vengeance, just one of many things missing, that would make it anything else than a numbers game.

It doesn’t change the fact that high participation may shorten the test and GH might be back much faster than in one week.

It's not a test and participation rates will change nothing. ZOS is already ignoring the vast majority of the feedback regarding vengeance.

LPapirius · April 11

xylena wrote: »

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

This will drive regular PvPers away during peak hours as they will have nothing to do if GH is pop-locked.

Oh no, like 12 guys are gonna log out, how will the game survive.

A lot more than that will try Vengeance and actually like it, or at least find it "good enough" for waiting in queue. There are a significant number of players who log into GH because it's the only game in town, not because they love ball groups, proc sets, and one shots.

You haven't logged into Cyrodiil on live for more than a year. You aren't seeing how Cyrodiil populations have risen in that time or seen the nightly 50-150 queues that we have now.

Now that vengeance has been out of the picture for a while some of the PvP community is returning.

Rohamad_Ali · April 11

No worries, I'll go on vacation. See you after.

Necrotech_Master · April 11

LPapirius wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

It's not a viable alternative to the normal live GH the PvP community logs in to play.

Who exactly is logging in for lag, ball groups, proc sets, and one shots? Not me.

I'm hearing they are moving forward with GH and Vengeance as the only two campaigns. I think this is a sound move, we are long overdue to condense the queue.

Queue last night was 130. You are a very small minority of PvP players that like vengeance...which won't bring back the days before people knew who the toxic ones were to be avoided.

this is what makes no sense to me, 120 people is a full poplock of a 2nd campaign, if every single one of those people went to blackreach, it would be poplocked with queue too (assuming all factions had similar queues)

if the queue to grey host is over like 20-30, i sometimes wont even bother queuing for it because why wait in a queue when theres another campaign without a queue

YandereGirlfriend · April 11

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

It's not a viable alternative to the normal live GH the PvP community logs in to play.

Who exactly is logging in for lag, ball groups, proc sets, and one shots? Not me.

I'm hearing they are moving forward with GH and Vengeance as the only two campaigns. I think this is a sound move, we are long overdue to condense the queue.

Queue last night was 130. You are a very small minority of PvP players that like vengeance...which won't bring back the days before people knew who the toxic ones were to be avoided.

this is what makes no sense to me, 120 people is a full poplock of a 2nd campaign, if every single one of those people went to blackreach, it would be poplocked with queue too (assuming all factions had similar queues)

if the queue to grey host is over like 20-30, i sometimes wont even bother queuing for it because why wait in a queue when theres another campaign without a queue

Honestly, I think that the the proliferation of add-ons and other methods to keep you logged into your queue while IRL AFK for long periods of time contribute a lot to this effect.

That is a domain that I really would not mind some developer attention toward.

xylena · April 11

LPapirius wrote: »

Queue last night was 130.

You are a very small minority of PvP players that like vengeance

You haven't logged into Cyrodiil on live for more than a year.

Whoa 3 digits worth of players, up there with Fortnite and CoD /s

Is the pop cap even 3 digits? Of course Vengeance enjoyers would be a minority of active PvPers, because the target audience for Vengeance is the thousands who quit or who were never able to access PvP to begin with. They're leaving GH up for the 130 that still want it.

I don't log in because forum complaints mean little if you keep playing anyway. When play numbers keep dropping, the devs take notice, like they have in making drastic PvP changes.

moderatelyfatman · 4:39AM

xylena wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

Queue last night was 130.

You are a very small minority of PvP players that like vengeance

You haven't logged into Cyrodiil on live for more than a year.

Whoa 3 digits worth of players, up there with Fortnite and CoD /s

Is the pop cap even 3 digits? Of course Vengeance enjoyers would be a minority of active PvPers, because the target audience for Vengeance is the thousands who quit or who were never able to access PvP to begin with. They're leaving GH up for the 130 that still want it.

I don't log in because forum complaints mean little if you keep playing anyway. When play numbers keep dropping, the devs take notice, like they have in making drastic PvP changes.

I don't think the changes to Cyrodiil were necessarily due to dropping player numbers. The fact that they've done so little for long term players over the years is why we're in this mess to begin with. I think the devs looked at games like CoD and Fortnite and wondered if they could do their own version in ESO and pull in the thinnest slice of that crowd.

I'm just curious though: would you prefer Vengeance or a cleaned up version of Gray Host where a lot of the problems you describe actually get addressed (not necessarily gone but much much less of an issue)?

aetherix8 · 7:25AM

SneaK wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Hi ZOS,

Stop doing this, the majority of your PvP base does not want this washed game mode. We don’t want to contribute anything to your “testing” because we are against it. Frankly, it’s a waste of time. With all the good that’s being done recently in the studio this is the remaining outlier of a team clinging to one last bad decision. It feels like we’re just being reminded to stay skeptical of the PvP dev team’s vacuum decision making philosophy.

*edit*
Can we test PvE Vengeance on April 20th too?

Basically, your best option is to participate as early as it goes live, and spam dmg aoes en masse.
If all PvPers and their grannies show up and help testing whether the cap of 6 will or will not melt down the servers, we might be done with that test in a couple of days.
Boycotts are pointless now, Vengeance will go live, so if you want to have GH back faster then help test this change.
Not to mention that this test is perhaps the most important - in a megazerg environment such as Vengeance we need bombing more than ever, and a cap of 3 on dmg aoe is ridiculous beyond belief.

Ah yes, that’s right…. Hancho always has a reason or incentive for us to play Vengeance, in this case it’s so we can get GH back faster lol. What a joke. No thanks, hope they limit your AoEs to one person and yall can enjoy those Megabanger battles you mentioned at 61fps.

You can show your bad faith all you want, but the point stands: whining about a one-week test is pathetic when there is a practical solution to shorten its duration.

xylena · 10:11AM

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

I'm just curious though: would you prefer Vengeance or a cleaned up version of Gray Host where a lot of the problems you describe actually get addressed (not necessarily gone but much much less of an issue)?

I would prefer radical change to a "cleaned up" GH, but check back with me in 2 years after they've overhauled all 7 classes and (hopefully) adjusted the busted sets/stats. In my perfect world the game would still have the 2014 soft cap system to prevent broken minmaxing.

Lucasl402 · 3:37PM

aetherix8 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Hi ZOS,

Stop doing this, the majority of your PvP base does not want this washed game mode. We don’t want to contribute anything to your “testing” because we are against it. Frankly, it’s a waste of time. With all the good that’s being done recently in the studio this is the remaining outlier of a team clinging to one last bad decision. It feels like we’re just being reminded to stay skeptical of the PvP dev team’s vacuum decision making philosophy.

*edit*
Can we test PvE Vengeance on April 20th too?

Basically, your best option is to participate as early as it goes live, and spam dmg aoes en masse.
If all PvPers and their grannies show up and help testing whether the cap of 6 will or will not melt down the servers, we might be done with that test in a couple of days.
Boycotts are pointless now, Vengeance will go live, so if you want to have GH back faster then help test this change.
Not to mention that this test is perhaps the most important - in a megazerg environment such as Vengeance we need bombing more than ever, and a cap of 3 on dmg aoe is ridiculous beyond belief.

Ah yes, that’s right…. Hancho always has a reason or incentive for us to play Vengeance, in this case it’s so we can get GH back faster lol. What a joke. No thanks, hope they limit your AoEs to one person and yall can enjoy those Megabanger battles you mentioned at 61fps.

You can show your bad faith all you want, but the point stands: whining about a one-week test is pathetic when there is a practical solution to shorten its duration.

Vengeance is not a test.

Vengeance is not a solution to any problem that exists in ESO.

Vengeance is a distratction and ZOS neglecting to do what they've always told us they were doing. Specifically they've always told us they're working on fixing issues in live Cyrodiil and they told us that for over a decade. ZOS has an obligation to do what they've always told us they were doing.

Vengeance is ZOS telling us to look somewhere else while they fail to even ATTEMPT to do what they've always told us they were doing.

There is NOTHING practical about vengeance. It's just ZOS refusing to do what they've always told us they were doing.

Vengeance is a total betrayal of the loyal PvP player base.

The bad faith is coming from ZOS and their minions that go along with their deception and lies. (yes, ZOS lied about vengeance being a test from day 1 and they've publicly admitted this)