No.

And I think it also makes sense to consolidate the PVP population into a single server for the health of the game, so long as it can be done without harming server performance. There's just not enough players playing anymore to support 4 different Cyrodil servers.

BXR_Lonestar wrote: »

No.

And I think it also makes sense to consolidate the PVP population into a single server for the health of the game, so long as it can be done without harming server performance. There's just not enough players playing anymore to support 4 different Cyrodil servers.

Yes, especially if ZOS decides to keep those increased population caps once testing is over. But who knows, if devs manage to fix Cyro both performance-wise and balance-wise, we might yet see population recovery.

One server for all. Faction lock is necessary.

aetherix8 wrote: »

Many more unlikely than likely. Please list the main reason that makes you believe that two versions are likely or unlikely. I know this was already discussed here and there; I would like to have all these arguments in one thread.

Your sole effort is to promote vengeance in any and every way possible.

Time to just let it go. ZOS has already decided what their going to do and that they're not going to tell us what that plan is. So just leave it alone. No reason to keep beating your dead horse and annoying the PvP community any further than you already have. Being a forum conflict entrepreneur just for the sake of getting away with it doesn't help anyone.

They currently maintain 4 versions of cyro and have for many years. I suppose it's possible they might reduce that but doesn't seem likely, especially down to just one.

soelslaev wrote: »

shadyjane62 wrote: »

One server for all. Faction lock is necessary.

Warden scroll runners are vital. No Falcon lock!

But yes to FALCON PAWWWWNCH!

They're already supporting two versions of Cyrodiil.

If you mean a dedicated server for Vengeance, then yes, that's the most likely direction they are taking. This will give us the choice of classic Cyro and Vengeance with its enormous zergs and lack of ball groups. I'm not sure which one I would use personally, Vengeance has gone too far with the restrictions, so if my build could be a little more flexible but still have the fun of Vengeance I'd likely find myself there. As it is now I prefer classic.

colossalvoids wrote: »

Depends on what a support means. Being left alone to balance itself out whilst the game continues to go the other direction? Probably, yes. But taking current Cyrodiil in a balance equation it not likely, maybe outside of some completely broken edge cases, so close to what we have on live already.

Muizer wrote: »

At the moment my bet would be on them keeping one server for PvP 'as is' and one for Vengeance. Vengeance will become the dedicated focus (for what that's worth) for PvP development whereas PvP 'as is' will track PvE in everything in terms of CP, abilities, gear etc. going forward. So, that's basically legacy mode for PvP 'as is': it will keep working until it doesn't. I guess whether you call that 'yes' or 'no' in the polls depends on your definition of 'support and maintain'. If it's just keeping software running then yes. If it means a commitment to expand and improve, then no.

I use 'support', in this context, in a sense that once a campaign is enabled, ZOS keeps working on it, by adjusting when necessary or adding new content. "A commitment to expand and improve" that should apply to all campaigns.

Thanks for sharing your insights. I'm somehow stuck at 50/50, although I used to be pretty sure that two versions were likely.

When I consider this question, I refer myself to the only precedent I know personally: proc and no-proc campaigns. The fact that ZOS did run two versions for a couple of years confirms that it is possible. But at the end, the no-proc campaign got deleted, and that negatively affects the likelihood of any future two versions.

Officially, no-proc had to go in order to achieve "a smoother on ramping experience from Battlegrounds to Cyrodiil", and the hammer returned to allow for "a more consistent Cyrodiil experience between all campaigns". We could assume that any future versions would have to fulfill these requirements: jumping between different campaigns and modes must be effortless in terms of inventory/gear, and all versions of Cyrodiil must share the same prominent features. Getting in and out of Vengeance is pretty smooth, but it lacks too many systems.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They already support multiple versions of all PvP.

Not in terms of the code they need to maintain.