Would you prefer 2 weeks of live Vengeance?

aetherix8 · August 14

Just wondering what the community thoughts would be if confronted with extended testing.

loosej · August 14

I'd prefer a poll where a yes/no question offers yes/no as possible answers.

The_Meathead · August 14

Just replace empty campaigns with a long-term testing mode

What I really want is current Cyrodiil without Pull Sets or ridiculously stacked Heals/Shields.

If testing and testing will get us there eventually, so be it, and honestly for a week-ish the novelty of Vengeance makes it kinda fun. Anything further or more frequent, and it would become tedium for me and I'd imagine most diehard PvP types.

Leaving Gray Host as is AND turning one of the barely populated Campaigns into a constant and evolving version of Vengeance would be more than fine, though. I think we would probably be surprised how quickly the interest dies off if there weren't specific rewards or incentives present, but I certainly wouldn't be against it as an option for those who want it and -more importantly- as a cemented place for testing to happen where it doesn't remove 'real' PvP during the period.

That said, I'm not sure the population in it would be enough to make it effective for that purpose.

aetherix8 · August 14

Absolutely, make it 3 weeks

loosej wrote: »

I'd prefer a poll where a yes/no question offers yes/no as possible answers.

First option kind of stands for 'yes', second for 'no'.

aetherix8 · August 14

Absolutely, make it 3 weeks

Now that there are more skills to choose from, one week on live doesn't seem enough to figure out the most suitable set up. Also, I missed the 2nd run of Vengeance coz real life, so 2-3 weeks test sounds good to me.

freespirit · August 14

Just replace empty campaigns with a long-term testing mode

Give people the option to choose.....

1:- Laggy unpredictable performance but all options available

2:- Better performance allowing for larger fights but streamlined choice of skills and gear.

aetherix8 · August 14

Absolutely, make it 3 weeks

The_Meathead wrote: »

What I really want is current Cyrodiil without Pull Sets or ridiculously stacked Heals/Shields.

If testing and testing will get us there eventually, so be it, and honestly for a week-ish the novelty of Vengeance makes it kinda fun. Anything further or more frequent, and it would become tedium for me and I'd imagine most diehard PvP types.

Leaving Gray Host as is AND turning one of the barely populated Campaigns into a constant and evolving version of Vengeance would be more than fine, though. I think we would probably be surprised how quickly the interest dies off if there weren't specific rewards or incentives present, but I certainly wouldn't be against it as an option for those who want it and -more importantly- as a cemented place for testing to happen where it doesn't remove 'real' PvP during the period.

That said, I'm not sure the population in it would be enough to make it effective for that purpose.

Lag is a big issue also imho, the most frustrating defeat. It is also the official main focus of these tests. But heals/shield stacking on top of pullprocs are broken as well, and I think ZOS will eventually try to fix/balance them for PvP, just not one by one, but based on test results maybe there is a major global redesign of sets necessary.

xylena_lazarow · August 14

Absolutely, make it 3 weeks

Rip the bandaid off, 2 weeks and it'll be clear whether any PvP in this game has a future.

reazea · August 14

aetherix8 wrote: »

Just wondering what the community thoughts would be if confronted with extended testing.

This is the most useless biased poll on this issue to date. Your poll options make it impossible to make a selection that reflects the reality of the situation.

How about ZOS just goes back to providing stable low lag performance like they used to provide? They can do it. They've done it in the past. They can do it again.

Performance after the new servers was fantastic with triple to quadruple the population cap we have today when they replaced the hardware.

We don't need vengeance. We need ZOS to invest in the fixes we know work.

reazea · August 14

freespirit wrote: »

Give people the option to choose.....

1:- Laggy unpredictable performance but all options available

2:- Better performance allowing for larger fights but streamlined choice of skills and gear.

This is a false choice.

ZOS can fix performance if they just made the investments required. They've done it before. They can do it again.

SolarRune · August 14

Other (develop your idea)

Currently Vengeance is just testing skills, all running longer campaigns is doing is lengthening the time it takes for them to develop the next phases, and ultimately lengthen the time for whatever the final form of vengeance will be.

valenwood_vegan · August 14

Other (develop your idea)

Did not find the poll options particularly useful so,

I think it's fine as it is, so long as they're continuing to make progress toward something.

As others have said, putting each Vengeance iteration up for longer seems like it would further draw out the testing process.

And it seems like participation in the testing has dropped significantly by the end of the first week, so I question what would be gained from extending the testing period.

Of course this answer takes the point of view that these are tests. Whether Vengeance or some form of it should be added alongside live Cyro (or replace it), is entirely another issue. Personally I'd like to see Vengeance added in place of one of the dead servers, once it's in its final form.

But basically, imo they should stick to the short tests while they're testing, until they're ready to make it a persistent server, or whatever else the next step might be.

What I'd really like to see though, to the extent possible, is more communication about the specific progress made with the testing so far and a roadmap of where it's going.

ZOS_Hadeostry · August 14

Greetings,

After removing some unnecessary back and forth from this thread, we would like everyone to keep posts on the subject at hand, civil, and constructive.

If there may be any questions in regards to the rules, please feel free to review them here

WaywardArgonian · August 14

Just stop all the testing and let us forever endure the unbalanced laggy mode

No thanks.

JohnRingo · August 14

Just stop all the testing and let us forever endure the unbalanced laggy mode

Nope. Care Bear Land.

aetherix8 · August 15

Absolutely, make it 3 weeks

Those of you who vote for a permanent live testing server, how do you imagine it working? In my own extremely biased poll, I hesitated between 2 weeks and a separate live test server.

I set up for a longer Vengeance stretch instead of perma-test mostly because Vengeance is also testing significantly higher pop caps, and the most effective way to get all those players to participate is to close all the other campaigns. That could be solved by closing all the other options for a week (or two), then reopening them while keeping Vengeance available.

Also, Vengeance is not a proper mode (yet?), it’s a test environment, and leaving it accessible all the time would probably result in tons of threads/requests asking for changes/improvements that might not at all be part of the test and would maybe result in unhelpful noise.

JohnRingo · August 15

Just stop all the testing and let us forever endure the unbalanced laggy mode

aetherix8 wrote: »

Those of you who vote for a permanent live testing server, how do you imagine it working? In my own extremely biased poll, I hesitated between 2 weeks and a separate live test server.

I set up for a longer Vengeance stretch instead of perma-test mostly because Vengeance is also testing significantly higher pop caps, and the most effective way to get all those players to participate is to close all the other campaigns. That could be solved by closing all the other options for a week (or two), then reopening them while keeping Vengeance available.

Also, Vengeance is not a proper mode (yet?), it’s a test environment, and leaving it accessible all the time would probably result in tons of threads/requests asking for changes/improvements that might not at all be part of the test and would maybe result in unhelpful noise.

What?

MincMincMinc · August 15

Other (develop your idea)

I think the playerbase would prefer a more concise test where every 3 days they put in something new. Instead of doing a week of the same thing. However this is unlikely or unrealistic

The problem is that zos probably is going as fast as a company could, they aren't a small indie dev team able to openly communicate back and forth with their customers. The higherups know that its a blunder either way, people are going to be upset regardless. Do you go the slow and guaranteed route to test or do you rush like how the players want and risk coming up with nothing again?

Do a week test changing stuff in the backround without telling us..... So people wonder why we need a week for this
Then they spend 2 weeks going over data
Then a week waiting on the meeting to go over the data and then one to present the data
Then a followup meeting to come up with the plan for the 3rd test
All while the team is making the 2nd test already but has to wait for PTS cycles out of fear of something not working
Then the 2nd test happens, rinse and repeat

At some point they will get to adding in stat calculations towards skill tooltips. With that we would expect systems to be added in like mundus, enchants, basic non set gear. Racials........etc, until they eventually add in nonproc gear like hundings.......then stat proc gear like clever alch...........then effect proc gear like RoA, VD, Tarnished, Plaguebreak. Even here we are talking what 6+ tests down the line? Chances are this would only start happening once they work through core game systems like do AoE caps affect anything, do hot stacking affect anything, do achievements do anything, do status effects do anything?

I think they missed a big opportunity when they did the noproc pvp campaign. When players use the term proc generally they are talking about proc EFFECTS like tarnished or sloads. Many players hate that these sets undermine the ability GCD system and can easily ruin months of gameplay if one of these sets has a broken interaction. Atleast with stat sets, it is still on the player to do the output, unlike a guaranteed automatic light attack ult tooltip proc effect set or whatever is the flavor of the month.

aetherix8 · August 15

Absolutely, make it 3 weeks

MincMincMinc wrote: »

I think the playerbase would prefer a more concise test where every 3 days they put in something new. Instead of doing a week of the same thing. However this is unlikely or unrealistic

The problem is that zos probably is going as fast as a company could, they aren't a small indie dev team able to openly communicate back and forth with their customers. The higherups know that its a blunder either way, people are going to be upset regardless. Do you go the slow and guaranteed route to test or do you rush like how the players want and risk coming up with nothing again?
Do a week test changing stuff in the backround without telling us..... So people wonder why we need a week for this

Then they spend 2 weeks going over data

Then a week waiting on the meeting to go over the data and then one to present the data

Then a followup meeting to come up with the plan for the 3rd test

All while the team is making the 2nd test already but has to wait for PTS cycles out of fear of something not working

Then the 2nd test happens, rinse and repeat

At some point they will get to adding in stat calculations towards skill tooltips. With that we would expect systems to be added in like mundus, enchants, basic non set gear. Racials........etc, until they eventually add in nonproc gear like hundings.......then stat proc gear like clever alch...........then effect proc gear like RoA, VD, Tarnished, Plaguebreak. Even here we are talking what 6+ tests down the line? Chances are this would only start happening once they work through core game systems like do AoE caps affect anything, do hot stacking affect anything, do achievements do anything, do status effects do anything?

I think they missed a big opportunity when they did the noproc pvp campaign. When players use the term proc generally they are talking about proc EFFECTS like tarnished or sloads. Many players hate that these sets undermine the ability GCD system and can easily ruin months of gameplay if one of these sets has a broken interaction. Atleast with stat sets, it is still on the player to do the output, unlike a guaranteed automatic light attack ult tooltip proc effect set or whatever is the flavor of the month.

That sounds like at least another year of testing, I hope devs can figure the performance part faster than that.

I agree on no-proc missed opportunity. But I’m trying to see some bright side too, I prefer devs test Vengeance and improve the performance (no-proc RW was laggy too, with less players and less to none ballgroups), than the half-baked and soon abandoned no-proc experiment.

AngryPenguin · August 15

Other (develop your idea)

I wish to never hear, see or think of vengeance mode again. ZOS should feel the same.

Just do what it takes to fix the game we already have. They've done it before, they can do it again.

meekmiko · August 16

Just replace empty campaigns with a long-term testing mode

I honestly think they should remove Under 50 and replace it with Vengeance.
You can be under 50 and be on par with everyone else in the server, so why not?

Edited to add: I absolutely loved Vengeance mode and would love to have it around all the time.

ADawg · August 19

Just stop all the testing and let us forever endure the unbalanced laggy mode

The_Meathead wrote: »

What I really want is current Cyrodiil without Pull Sets or ridiculously stacked Heals/Shields.

If testing and testing will get us there eventually, so be it, and honestly for a week-ish the novelty of Vengeance makes it kinda fun. Anything further or more frequent, and it would become tedium for me and I'd imagine most diehard PvP types.

Leaving Gray Host as is AND turning one of the barely populated Campaigns into a constant and evolving version of Vengeance would be more than fine, though. I think we would probably be surprised how quickly the interest dies off if there weren't specific rewards or incentives present, but I certainly wouldn't be against it as an option for those who want it and -more importantly- as a cemented place for testing to happen where it doesn't remove 'real' PvP during the period.

That said, I'm not sure the population in it would be enough to make it effective for that purpose.

We used to have that in No-Proc Ravenwatch

MincMincMinc · August 19

Other (develop your idea)

aetherix8 wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

I think the playerbase would prefer a more concise test where every 3 days they put in something new. Instead of doing a week of the same thing. However this is unlikely or unrealistic

The problem is that zos probably is going as fast as a company could, they aren't a small indie dev team able to openly communicate back and forth with their customers. The higherups know that its a blunder either way, people are going to be upset regardless. Do you go the slow and guaranteed route to test or do you rush like how the players want and risk coming up with nothing again?
Do a week test changing stuff in the backround without telling us..... So people wonder why we need a week for this

Then they spend 2 weeks going over data

Then a week waiting on the meeting to go over the data and then one to present the data

Then a followup meeting to come up with the plan for the 3rd test

All while the team is making the 2nd test already but has to wait for PTS cycles out of fear of something not working

Then the 2nd test happens, rinse and repeat

At some point they will get to adding in stat calculations towards skill tooltips. With that we would expect systems to be added in like mundus, enchants, basic non set gear. Racials........etc, until they eventually add in nonproc gear like hundings.......then stat proc gear like clever alch...........then effect proc gear like RoA, VD, Tarnished, Plaguebreak. Even here we are talking what 6+ tests down the line? Chances are this would only start happening once they work through core game systems like do AoE caps affect anything, do hot stacking affect anything, do achievements do anything, do status effects do anything?

I think they missed a big opportunity when they did the noproc pvp campaign. When players use the term proc generally they are talking about proc EFFECTS like tarnished or sloads. Many players hate that these sets undermine the ability GCD system and can easily ruin months of gameplay if one of these sets has a broken interaction. Atleast with stat sets, it is still on the player to do the output, unlike a guaranteed automatic light attack ult tooltip proc effect set or whatever is the flavor of the month.

That sounds like at least another year of testing, I hope devs can figure the performance part faster than that.

I agree on no-proc missed opportunity. But I’m trying to see some bright side too, I prefer devs test Vengeance and improve the performance (no-proc RW was laggy too, with less players and less to none ballgroups), than the half-baked and soon abandoned no-proc experiment.

Well we say a year of testing but again put it in perspective. We have had poor server performance since the lighting patch in 2015>>>> it is now 2025 so thats 10 years or 520weeks or 3640 days of bad performance. The vast majority of the players only experienced largescale pvp within the vengeance test for the first time.

So out of 3640 days people who are complaining about the test maybe played what a few hours or even a couple of days? Even if they played every day for the 2 weeks of vengeance we are talking 14 out of 3640 days supposedly wasted with vengeance or 0.4% of their time over 10 years "wasted" by not allowing them to play a dysfunctional game.

MincMincMinc · August 19

Other (develop your idea)

AngryPenguin wrote: »

I wish to never hear, see or think of vengeance mode again. ZOS should feel the same.

Just do what it takes to fix the game we already have. They've done it before, they can do it again.

When lol, it was never fixed back to the original level?

"just do what it takes".....except you are also directly saying to not do what it takes. Pick one or the other, leave the game as is and let it decline until the mass exodus happens or let them fix it and allow you to be a part of the process.

You ever try to train a dog by yelling at them every time they do something wrong and then when they do something right do you also still yell at them?

Stamicka · August 19

Other (develop your idea)

Vengeance is too simple and it gets old pretty quickly, but I do prefer it over the current state of Cyrodiil which I don't enter at all anymore. I would likely get too bored of it to play much during the 2nd week.

The idea of a PvP environment with skills that behave differently than they do in the rest of the game, no subclassing, and ideally simple sets is a wonderful idea though. With tweaks it could be perfect. If entering Vengeance was like a time machine back to ESO in 2016 or 2017 without the overturned heavy armor and procs, I would want it to be permanent.

Right now it's quite a long ways from that, but it's closer than live Cyrodiil.

xylena_lazarow · August 19

Absolutely, make it 3 weeks

AngryPenguin wrote: »

Just do what it takes to fix the game we already have.

It would seem the devs looked at what it would take, and decided it more efficient and effective to start over.

You may not like Vengeance, but you're also not getting your favorite patch back either.

JustLovely · August 19

Just stop all the testing and let us forever endure the unbalanced laggy mode

MincMincMinc wrote: »

AngryPenguin wrote: »

I wish to never hear, see or think of vengeance mode again. ZOS should feel the same.

Just do what it takes to fix the game we already have. They've done it before, they can do it again.

When lol, it was never fixed back to the original level?

"just do what it takes".....except you are also directly saying to not do what it takes. Pick one or the other, leave the game as is and let it decline until the mass exodus happens or let them fix it and allow you to be a part of the process.

You ever try to train a dog by yelling at them every time they do something wrong and then when they do something right do you also still yell at them?

Performance was near perfect with much higher populations right after they replaced the physical server hardware. They could do that again. They should be doing that every 5 years at a minimum anyway.

MincMincMinc · August 19

Other (develop your idea)

JustLovely wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

AngryPenguin wrote: »

I wish to never hear, see or think of vengeance mode again. ZOS should feel the same.

Just do what it takes to fix the game we already have. They've done it before, they can do it again.

When lol, it was never fixed back to the original level?

"just do what it takes".....except you are also directly saying to not do what it takes. Pick one or the other, leave the game as is and let it decline until the mass exodus happens or let them fix it and allow you to be a part of the process.

You ever try to train a dog by yelling at them every time they do something wrong and then when they do something right do you also still yell at them?

Performance was near perfect with much higher populations right after they replaced the physical server hardware. They could do that again. They should be doing that every 5 years at a minimum anyway.

Again this is simply not true. There was no evidence of it. Zos even stated that the server upgrades would not affect performance. They were just maintenance avoidance.

The only difference you may have seen was that because the playerbase got diluted out of hype bringing in players to try the new server. While many of the guild or ball groups who lag the server had trouble getting in to group or simply didnt play for a day or two because of the downtime. We see the same effect on older MYM events where the lag inducing groups split up and are diluted to other servers because of the pugs filling each one. Notice how the previous few MyM were horribly laggy and felt no different? Simply PvE players have lost interest and have no rewards for participating.....so the server isn't diluted.

The Elder Scrolls Online

Would you prefer 2 weeks of live Vengeance?

Would you prefer 2 weeks of live Vengeance? 54 votes