Community Update – Vengeance Testing & Cyrodiil

Stamicka · November 24

All of this has at least some promise. I'm hoping it's executed well. This is the first time I've seen true transparency about population caps which is really refreshing.

I will say, getting the healing under control in Vengeance needs to be the #1 priority... like even before this December test. I'm one of the veteran PvPers who actually sees potential in Vengeance and even I won't be participating until the time to kill and ease of survivability is adjusted.

edward_frigidhands · November 24

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

With the next Vengeance test coming up in December, we wanted to give everyone an update on the Vengeance testing and where we’re headed with Cyrodiil. We recognize that you all have questions about next steps and what these tests mean for the future of Cyrodiil, and we’re here to answer some of those questions. We also want to give you as much context and info as possible, in the name of transparency.

The Goals
To recap where we started and where we’ve been with the Vengeance tests, earlier this year we set out to try some new things with Cyrodiil to address the following specific goals:
Significantly increase the player cap in a Cyrodiil campaign so that campaigns feel lively, full, and there’s lots of action to enjoy.
Cyrodiil was originally designed to support 900 total concurrent players (300 per alliance.) We have not been able to support those target numbers in the current non-Vengeance Cyrodiil campaigns. We are able to hit 900 total concurrent players with the Vengeance ruleset.

Reduce frustrating latency and related game performance issues in Cyrodiil, especially during large, sustained battles. And in turn, increase the fun and enjoyment.

Through testing, determine if overall Ability complexity is the main cause of server stress and game performance issues in Cyrodiil, especially during mass battles and in high-population campaigns.
We did test other potential causes of server stress and game performance issues in Cyrodiil during the Vengeance tests, such as item sets and procs, consumable items, siege weapons, quests, vendors, etc. Ability complexity was our primary suspected main cause factor, though.

Test Summaries
Since March, we have held three Vengeance tests. The next one will begin on December 3, 2025.

For the first test, which was on the PC EU and NA servers, we introduced the Vengeance ruleset including normalized character stats, attributes, consumables, and Vengeance-specific weapons for all classes. We also disabled things like the Champion System, all quests, item sets, and access to banks, vendors, and crafting nodes.

The specific goal of this test was to give us a starting point – to reduce things to the most basic level so we could evaluate the findings and begin adding things back in. At the end of this test, we saw the most players ever in Cyrodiil at one time in a single campaign, the largest sustained battles we’ve ever had in Cyrodiil, and the best overall game performance we’ve ever seen in Cyrodiil. By all accounts, we were on the right track based on our goals.

Survey results were also the most positive following this test compared to subsequent ones, with many participants saying they enjoyed the higher population, improved game performance/lower latency, and overall experience. The aligned Golden Pursuit was also noted as a positive. The loss of unique class/character builds and customization was (and continues to be) the biggest negative point.

For the second test, we welcomed the live console EU and NA server communities. The Vengeance ruleset was largely the same as the first test, with the addition of Vengeance versions of skills from all Weapon skill lines and the Assault and Support Skill lines to the available class templates.

The specific goal of this test was to build upon the baseline we set during the first test, slowly begin introducing more skill lines and abilities, and evaluate the results. At the end of this test, we saw similar results with better game performance, lower latency, higher population, and larger sustained battles than possible in other Cyrodiil campaigns.

This test overlapped with the Zeal of Zenithar event, which we recognize not everyone enjoyed.

Survey results for this test were similar in sentiment, leaning positive. Over 80% of participants rated the added skill lines favorably (“OK”, “Good”, or “Great”), sharing appreciation for the variety and balance, while also noting that there’s room to improve.

For the third test, we layered upon what we introduced in the two previous tests, and added in meatbag catapults, as well as performance-tailored skill lines for the Fighters Guild and Mages Guild, plus an armor skill line with active abilities for light, medium, and heavy armor. We also introduced certain progression and cosmetic systems into Vengeance, including Skyshards, mount selection, titles, and achievements.

Similar to the second test, our goal was to introduce more things that players enjoy and expect in a Cyrodiil campaign, and monitor the impact on latency, game performance, and overall experience.

We did not run a Golden Pursuit during this Vengeance test, and saw disappointment about that. We also ran this test during the Undaunted Celebration, which some players understandably noted they had higher interest in participating in versus this test. Even though population in Vengeance was lower during this test, it still performed well and participant numbers were still higher than our typical population caps in a normal Cyrodiil campaign.

Survey results for this test were more mixed than the results following the first two and we saw less positivity overall. More survey participants noted fatigue with the tests and a desire to be able to play their own unique characters and builds in Cyrodiil, and frustration that the test ran during another in-game event.

Test Learnings
Throughout the first three tests, we learned with certainty that in order to deliver a performant Cyrodiil, to support a large-scale PvP zone with mass-scale battles, the abilities, procs, passives, etc. must be lighter versions of the ones that exist in the rest of the game.

The set of four graphs below illustrate the differences in population as well as the server frames per second between the Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign and non-Vengeance Cyrodiil campaigns. (On the left of each graph is the non-Vengeance campaigns and on the right are the Vengeance campaigns, on the PC EU and PC NA servers.)

Next Steps
For the test in December, we will introduce Vengeance-specific Perks and Loadout systems for character/class templates. These systems are designed to give you a bit more variety over your builds compared to what was available in previous Vengeance tests. Specifically, you will have more control over your stats with four pre-build stats packages called “Loadouts” and “Perks” are passives that give extra combat effectiveness and bonuses to your characters. The intent with these is to give characters a boost that is comparable to a single 5-piece item set that is purely passive, like Julianos.

We will also be adding a Vengeance-specific inventory, which will store all your Vengeance items. During this test, you will also be able to collect regular items while in the Vengeance campaign – those items will be placed into your regular inventory. Many systems that were previously turned off in Vengeance will also be turned back on including quests, vendors, and leaderboards. Scattershot and Oil Catapults will also join the available options for siege weapons, and Keep Recall Stones and Channeled Repair Kits will also be added.

We’ll share more detailed notes ahead of the December test. We’ll monitor the impact of these additional systems on latency and game performance, as we have during prior tests.

Lastly, the Gray Host campaign (as it is now) will be up during the second half of this Vengeance test and will monitor server performance for both campaigns. This comparison will allow us valuable side-by-side data. This will be our final “adding new things” test where we compare the game performance of Vengeance with what a campaign looks like with all the systems turned on.

We have another test or two planned for next year, for the sake of evaluating healing versus damage concerns. We’ll share more about those next year.

So where does this put us, and where do we as a dev team realistically think we’re headed for the future of Cyrodiil? With the caveat that the December test still needs to happen, we see two realistic paths forward:
Scenario 1: We would open a Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign sometime next year with a special ruleset based on the previous and upcoming tests, and leave Grey Host open as it is now.

Scenario 2: We would close all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and open one or two Vengeance ruleset campaigns sometime next year.

As a dev team, Scenario 1 is the one we strongly prefer and is the most likely. We want you to have a choice between playing in Vengeance or Gray Host, and would closely monitor both campaign populations to help inform any additional actions we should take moving forward.

We recognize that some of our players would prefer there be no changes to their characters, effectively how they are in the Gray Host Cyrodiil campaign, while enjoying the higher population and reduced latency/game performance issues of the Vengeance campaign. This is not something that will be possible. Based on what we have learned from the tests so far, we can offer one or the other, not both, and we want to be transparent about that.

Lastly, we do want to share a few early bits about some things that we are working on for PvP. You’ll hear a little more about these in January. For players who wish to enjoy a PvP experience that is more like Grey Host, we are in the early stages of working on a mid-size PvP space. It will be smaller than Cyrodiil but larger than our largest Battlegrounds, and offer enough room for 3-sided keep warfare and an overall similar experience to Cyrodiil. The goal with that will be to allow players to have their full suite of abilities, unique builds, equipment, etc. just like in Gray Host. We are also working on a PvP progression system that we’re excited to tell you a little more about early next year.

Thank you all for your continued feedback and support. Your participation in the Vengeance tests and related surveys has been greatly appreciated. We’d like to remind everyone that when we send out surveys where it’s important we are able to verify that participants played the content, we have to send out the surveys via email. Please consider opting in to these emails if you haven’t already, so you may be included in future survey sends. Thank you!

All of this is contingent on player choice btw. If the players reject their cheap solutions. They will be forced to invest in a new one.

Radiate77 · November 24

I would go with Scenario #3, honestly.

Announce 6 months in advance that Cyrodiil will be sunset, and full send that mid-scale Cyrodiil experience. Make it fully matchmade, and encourage it through use of that new progression system you guys have mentioned.

I enjoyed Vengeance for like a week, but never went back, as without all of our systems, the campaign just felt like a watered down experience. I don’t see any world in which people just accept Cyrodiil like this, most will move on, and those left will feel forced into it.

On top of that, with the admittance that Greyhost will never improve its performance, why waste space having it as an option? The illusion is shattered. We will never have a campaign that plays like the post-server refresh for an extended duration, so why bother?

I would rather our development go into fresh experiences that are evergreen, like that new PvP mode, than wasted on a dead end.

SneaK · November 24

edward_frigidhands wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

With the next Vengeance test coming up in December, we wanted to give everyone an update on the Vengeance testing and where we’re headed with Cyrodiil. We recognize that you all have questions about next steps and what these tests mean for the future of Cyrodiil, and we’re here to answer some of those questions. We also want to give you as much context and info as possible, in the name of transparency.

The Goals
To recap where we started and where we’ve been with the Vengeance tests, earlier this year we set out to try some new things with Cyrodiil to address the following specific goals:
Significantly increase the player cap in a Cyrodiil campaign so that campaigns feel lively, full, and there’s lots of action to enjoy.
Cyrodiil was originally designed to support 900 total concurrent players (300 per alliance.) We have not been able to support those target numbers in the current non-Vengeance Cyrodiil campaigns. We are able to hit 900 total concurrent players with the Vengeance ruleset.

Reduce frustrating latency and related game performance issues in Cyrodiil, especially during large, sustained battles. And in turn, increase the fun and enjoyment.

Through testing, determine if overall Ability complexity is the main cause of server stress and game performance issues in Cyrodiil, especially during mass battles and in high-population campaigns.
We did test other potential causes of server stress and game performance issues in Cyrodiil during the Vengeance tests, such as item sets and procs, consumable items, siege weapons, quests, vendors, etc. Ability complexity was our primary suspected main cause factor, though.

Test Summaries
Since March, we have held three Vengeance tests. The next one will begin on December 3, 2025.

For the first test, which was on the PC EU and NA servers, we introduced the Vengeance ruleset including normalized character stats, attributes, consumables, and Vengeance-specific weapons for all classes. We also disabled things like the Champion System, all quests, item sets, and access to banks, vendors, and crafting nodes.

The specific goal of this test was to give us a starting point – to reduce things to the most basic level so we could evaluate the findings and begin adding things back in. At the end of this test, we saw the most players ever in Cyrodiil at one time in a single campaign, the largest sustained battles we’ve ever had in Cyrodiil, and the best overall game performance we’ve ever seen in Cyrodiil. By all accounts, we were on the right track based on our goals.

Survey results were also the most positive following this test compared to subsequent ones, with many participants saying they enjoyed the higher population, improved game performance/lower latency, and overall experience. The aligned Golden Pursuit was also noted as a positive. The loss of unique class/character builds and customization was (and continues to be) the biggest negative point.

For the second test, we welcomed the live console EU and NA server communities. The Vengeance ruleset was largely the same as the first test, with the addition of Vengeance versions of skills from all Weapon skill lines and the Assault and Support Skill lines to the available class templates.

The specific goal of this test was to build upon the baseline we set during the first test, slowly begin introducing more skill lines and abilities, and evaluate the results. At the end of this test, we saw similar results with better game performance, lower latency, higher population, and larger sustained battles than possible in other Cyrodiil campaigns.

This test overlapped with the Zeal of Zenithar event, which we recognize not everyone enjoyed.

Survey results for this test were similar in sentiment, leaning positive. Over 80% of participants rated the added skill lines favorably (“OK”, “Good”, or “Great”), sharing appreciation for the variety and balance, while also noting that there’s room to improve.

For the third test, we layered upon what we introduced in the two previous tests, and added in meatbag catapults, as well as performance-tailored skill lines for the Fighters Guild and Mages Guild, plus an armor skill line with active abilities for light, medium, and heavy armor. We also introduced certain progression and cosmetic systems into Vengeance, including Skyshards, mount selection, titles, and achievements.

Similar to the second test, our goal was to introduce more things that players enjoy and expect in a Cyrodiil campaign, and monitor the impact on latency, game performance, and overall experience.

We did not run a Golden Pursuit during this Vengeance test, and saw disappointment about that. We also ran this test during the Undaunted Celebration, which some players understandably noted they had higher interest in participating in versus this test. Even though population in Vengeance was lower during this test, it still performed well and participant numbers were still higher than our typical population caps in a normal Cyrodiil campaign.

Survey results for this test were more mixed than the results following the first two and we saw less positivity overall. More survey participants noted fatigue with the tests and a desire to be able to play their own unique characters and builds in Cyrodiil, and frustration that the test ran during another in-game event.

Test Learnings
Throughout the first three tests, we learned with certainty that in order to deliver a performant Cyrodiil, to support a large-scale PvP zone with mass-scale battles, the abilities, procs, passives, etc. must be lighter versions of the ones that exist in the rest of the game.

The set of four graphs below illustrate the differences in population as well as the server frames per second between the Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign and non-Vengeance Cyrodiil campaigns. (On the left of each graph is the non-Vengeance campaigns and on the right are the Vengeance campaigns, on the PC EU and PC NA servers.)

Next Steps
For the test in December, we will introduce Vengeance-specific Perks and Loadout systems for character/class templates. These systems are designed to give you a bit more variety over your builds compared to what was available in previous Vengeance tests. Specifically, you will have more control over your stats with four pre-build stats packages called “Loadouts” and “Perks” are passives that give extra combat effectiveness and bonuses to your characters. The intent with these is to give characters a boost that is comparable to a single 5-piece item set that is purely passive, like Julianos.

We will also be adding a Vengeance-specific inventory, which will store all your Vengeance items. During this test, you will also be able to collect regular items while in the Vengeance campaign – those items will be placed into your regular inventory. Many systems that were previously turned off in Vengeance will also be turned back on including quests, vendors, and leaderboards. Scattershot and Oil Catapults will also join the available options for siege weapons, and Keep Recall Stones and Channeled Repair Kits will also be added.

We’ll share more detailed notes ahead of the December test. We’ll monitor the impact of these additional systems on latency and game performance, as we have during prior tests.

Lastly, the Gray Host campaign (as it is now) will be up during the second half of this Vengeance test and will monitor server performance for both campaigns. This comparison will allow us valuable side-by-side data. This will be our final “adding new things” test where we compare the game performance of Vengeance with what a campaign looks like with all the systems turned on.

We have another test or two planned for next year, for the sake of evaluating healing versus damage concerns. We’ll share more about those next year.

So where does this put us, and where do we as a dev team realistically think we’re headed for the future of Cyrodiil? With the caveat that the December test still needs to happen, we see two realistic paths forward:
Scenario 1: We would open a Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign sometime next year with a special ruleset based on the previous and upcoming tests, and leave Grey Host open as it is now.

Scenario 2: We would close all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and open one or two Vengeance ruleset campaigns sometime next year.

As a dev team, Scenario 1 is the one we strongly prefer and is the most likely. We want you to have a choice between playing in Vengeance or Gray Host, and would closely monitor both campaign populations to help inform any additional actions we should take moving forward.

We recognize that some of our players would prefer there be no changes to their characters, effectively how they are in the Gray Host Cyrodiil campaign, while enjoying the higher population and reduced latency/game performance issues of the Vengeance campaign. This is not something that will be possible. Based on what we have learned from the tests so far, we can offer one or the other, not both, and we want to be transparent about that.

Lastly, we do want to share a few early bits about some things that we are working on for PvP. You’ll hear a little more about these in January. For players who wish to enjoy a PvP experience that is more like Grey Host, we are in the early stages of working on a mid-size PvP space. It will be smaller than Cyrodiil but larger than our largest Battlegrounds, and offer enough room for 3-sided keep warfare and an overall similar experience to Cyrodiil. The goal with that will be to allow players to have their full suite of abilities, unique builds, equipment, etc. just like in Gray Host. We are also working on a PvP progression system that we’re excited to tell you a little more about early next year.

Thank you all for your continued feedback and support. Your participation in the Vengeance tests and related surveys has been greatly appreciated. We’d like to remind everyone that when we send out surveys where it’s important we are able to verify that participants played the content, we have to send out the surveys via email. Please consider opting in to these emails if you haven’t already, so you may be included in future survey sends. Thank you!

All of this is contingent on player choice btw. If the players reject their cheap solutions. They will be forced to invest in a new one.

I wish this were true. But historically they’ve not considered anything anyone does/says/doesnt doesn’t do when pushing updates.

loosej · November 24

React wrote: »

Why are the numbers on the graphs blurred out and made to be illegible?

I'd love to see an analysis of the people who participated in these surveys which apparently showed how much they preferred vengeance. I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of people who actually filled out these surveys are those who almost never step foot in cyrodiil, and likely will never step foot in cyrodiil even with the vengeance ruleset unless you provide some similar incentive like you did during the tests (double AP, golden pursuits, etc).

What I'm implying is that you're taking the opinions of non-PVP players, which seem to be in contrast to those of the vocal majority of actual PVP players, and re-designing the PVP environment to suit their needs rather than those of the die hard loyalist who have stuck with PVP all these years.

It is a shame to see. I'm interested to see if you address the elephant in the room during the upcoming part 3 of the PVP Q&A, which is the nature of ball groups and how stacking HOTS/Shields/bufff sets in that setting impact performance. It really feels like this is an issue that should have been addressed years ago to study it's impact on performance, rather than taking this sledgehammer approach that is vengeance.

Now, I am happy to hear about a new "mid size" pvp zone. This is something that has been requested for years now. However, we already have a zone that is beautifully designed and fills this exact niche - the imperial city and imperial city sewers. This area as a whole is the best designed open world PVP zone I've played in any game with a huge variety of terrains and environments, a mix of enemies to attract a wider crowd, etc. It's simply fallen out of popularity due to a lack of updates for years now. While I absolutely would not turn down receiving a new mid size PVP zone (with the normal "cyrodiil" rulesets!), I am not at all confident the team will deliver something with a good design and format after the recent disaster that is the battleground rework.

I'd instead encourage the team to work with what they have and do a massive imperial city overhaul. Take the beautifully designed area that is the city and sewers, and give it a new facelift with a new ranking system, factionless small-group based format, and a variety of new rewards and mechanics. I wrote a very detailed post back in 2023 describing the changes I'd make to accomplish what I think would be a popular mid-sized gamemode with imperial city, which I'll link here.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/620139/in-depth-imperial-city-rework-idea-the-pvp-content-eso-needs-in-2023/p1

Some very good points, I'd honestly even forgotten about IC because I've always refused to go there unless there was some reward I really, really wanted. But in order to not further dilute the existing pvp players, making IC an attractive game mode would also be a good option instead of adding a new game mode. Not that it will happen though, the new mode has been announced so they've at the very least been working on it for some time now.

My main, and honestly only, gripe with IC has always been the way currencies are generated vs the way you can lose them. TV is generated by going after PvE objectives, while AP is generated by going after PvP objectives. To me it makes no sense that killing another player robs them of half their TV and leaves their AP untouched, it should be the other way around.

Kinmont · November 24

And what about the people who choose not to play in GH? - you have said nothing about that cohort. They’re not going to go for kindergarten pvp in some half-way house. Or are you going to funnel the other campaigns into GH and have worse queues? Those who play there won’t want pvp-lite.

Vengeance gets flooded with pve players who like that they don’t die within 30 seconds, then they go on the forums and say what a great experience it was. I know that some regular groups choose not to engage with it, so the data isn’t valid in terms of your pvp players.

And remember the mantra ‘play as you want’: it’s been heralded as one of the key elements of ESO - not just ESO pve. Forcing option 2 on people is not ‘play as you want’, it’s taking away choice.

Ratzkifal · November 24

I can't say I am surprised to be reading this. Especially the unwillingness to even attempt to fix Gray Host speaks volumes. We've had performance tests before. The test that had cross-healing removed showed a clear performance improvement. We know the overabundance of cross-healing is part of the issue. Anyone who has duelled a bash build before knows that some builds can absolutely tank the performance.
You haven't even seriously attempted to disincentivise playstyles that negatively and disproportionally impact performance, and yet here you are, presenting us with an ultimatum only two options - Vengeance or Vengeance - when it is obvious that neither of these two options are what players want. "Play Vengeance or else!"
After years of punishment, lack of updates and generally being the punching bag and scapegoat of every balance discussion ever, the PvP community is already struggling. I'm sure you, ZOS, know better than all of us that the window of population reaching the cap has become shorter and shorter over time. And your best case scenario, your best solution, is to split the PvP playerbase?
Attempting Scenario 1 will inevitably result in Scenario 2 becoming reality, and Scenario 2 is the Scenario where people are quitting the game. I'm sure your midsized-PvP update, that you'll release soon(TM) is going to be so great, and won't get abandoned at all like Imperial City or even your current new Battlegrounds that you've already been neglecting. Forgive me for not being excited.
The underlying issue is this. PvP used to be able to support large scale battles. Abilities in this game used to be just as complex as they are now. Arguably they were even more complex in the past, considering the removal of certain functionality or the constant updates of recoding, presumably improving, abilities in the name of performance improvements some years ago. So now our technology is better than it was, the population is smaller than it was and our abilities are presumably a lighter load than they used to be. How can you stand here and attemp to sell us (literally) a version of Cyrodiil that is more dumbed down than at launch? Are we still in the Beta - nay - Alpha version of the game??

This is why I'm not recommending ESO to any of my friends.

Orbital78 · November 24

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Scenario 1: We would open a Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign sometime next year with a special ruleset based on the previous and upcoming tests, and leave Grey Host open as it is now.

Scenario 2: We would close all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and open one or two Vengeance ruleset campaigns sometime next year.

Awesome actual large scale fairly lag free Cyrodiil finally. I will abandon Grey Host for sure.

RaidingTraiding · November 24

People shouldn't blame other people for lag. Yes there are things over performing that should be addressed (plenty of other posts on this), but nerfing things won't solve the core issue. In the past there were way more players and groups on with way more heals going off at once and the servers could handle it way better than now. We shouldn't settle for half as solutions like vengeance, clearly zos no longer wants to pay for decent hardware and better coding so we're stuck with stuff like vengeance and other dumb stuff like animation changes nobody asked for.

It's just a death spiral at this point, zos will continue to make these types of brain dead decisions which will keep driving people away. the less people playing the less they can justify spending money on maintaining cyrodiil. maybe when theres only 10 people left in cyro will we have a lag free experience. i mean we have that now, its called ravenwatch, that's the future of cyrodiil if vengeance becomes the only campaign.

xFocused · November 24

I guess I don’t fully understand why it seems that instead of improving grey host, the plan is to axe it entirely and make Vengeance the default mode.

You’re going to lose a huge chunk of the population with this decision. Grey Host has all the potential to be amazing but it’s almost like you guys don’t read these forums and listen to the community who pay monthly for this game and who play it continuously.

Ball groups need a much needed nerf to stacking heals and shields, class identity needs to be a thing again, subclassing in PvP is so unnecessary in this case, rewards could be much better than what they currently are, the list goes on and on…

I get you guys want vengeance to be the next area of focus and honestly, I enjoyed it for the most part but maybe make it like a Blackreach campaign and keep GH the central hub for PvP, but actually address the issues GH faces as stated all across these forums.

With that being said, if GH is killed off you most likely won’t have to worry about population capping for vengeance 🤷🏼‍♂️

MipMip · November 24

I love it that you lean towards Scenario 1 - I will be playing in Grey Host for sure.

Also I am very curious about this midscale mini Cyrodiil - sounds interesting! Hopefully it will have the GH ruleset.

edward_frigidhands · November 24

MipMip wrote: »

I love it that you lean towards Scenario 1 - I will be playing in Grey Host for sure.

Also I am very curious about this midscale mini Cyrodiil - sounds interesting! Hopefully it will have the GH ruleset.

The "ruleset" is literally just the actual game.

Divine1976 · November 24

Been playing since 2016 paying for ESO+ and expansions. I'd quit the the game immediately if you axe Grey host.

Ingenon · November 24

Looking at the two options, I would prefer Option 1. Leave Grey Host as it is for players who prefer it. I don't play in the Grey Host campaign, and I don't want it taken away from those that prefer it. I have played in Vengeance test campaign on PS/NA during tests 2 and 3. And I expect to continue to play in the Vengeance campaign once it becomes a permanent available choice. The large fights and the chaos of lots of players participating is fun, in my opinion. I realize that one good PvP player will best me one versus one almost every time in Vengeance, but I still feel like I am contributing if I travel around with a group in Vengeance. YMMV.

edward_frigidhands · November 24

Divine1976 wrote: »

Been playing since 2016 paying for ESO+ and expansions. I'd quit the the game immediately if you axe Grey host.

Same. Although I am going to be cancelling the sub after this announcement. They obviously don't need the money if they are going to cut corners on the solutions.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · November 24

@ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_Kevin

Firstly thank you both and the PVP team for the detailed and interesting post. Even if I don't agree with some of the comments made this is exactly the type of communication most PVPers have been asking for when these tests happen. (of course we'll always ask for more

but its a great start)

I would like to ask a few follow up questions based on the report from the PVP team about the tests.

1) I understand that the team has stated that Greyhost can never be performant with higher player numbers in their eyes. However as players we have seen a massive increase to performance around the time that the servers first got upgraded on both NA and EU. This performance slowly over time degraded but was seen on both servers directly after the upgrades. To us players it feels like directly after the upgrade the servers were on a higher performance mode or package and they have been downgraded. It could also be as a result of more and more sets being added like Mara's balm etc but this wouldn't really explain why things got better on EU after their upgrades considering the upgrades were quite far apart and NA performance was already degrading by the time EU got their upgrade. why does the team think this performance downgrade happened after the upgrades to the servers were initially so rewarding performance wise?

2) From the communities mind PVP combat balance is a core reason why performance suffers during primetime. As more and more players log in and group up 'group sets' and 'sticky' HoTs and shields increase and also cause groups to be unbalanced in comparison to the overall population - This leads to much prolonged fights as well as discontent within the community. Has the team considered that adjusting balance might also show performance gains if done correctly?

3) Similar to 2) player 'speed' has been increased which also coincided with performance issues. Vengeance removed a lot of this speed increase (CP and Swift on Jewels) Does the team think this could be related? A lot of the time abilities wont work correctly due to range issues with player speed.

4) The Buff/Debuff system has some systemic flaws with performance (similar to comment 2) debuffs and stuns often get 'stuck' on characters for 49000 days during periods of poor performance. It seems to me that perhaps the 2 are linked (with debuffs and buffs constantly being reapplied clogging up the server) - hence why you are seeing performance gain from vengeance because of the 'lower complexity of skills removing so many buffs - along with the aoe cap also affecting the buffs/debuffs'.

5) Is the team not concerned that adding in essentially a 'bg' version of Cyrodiil with vastly detract from the already extremely unhealthy population? - Honestly I think at this point players would likely prefer a 'classic+' style cyrodiil with higher pop caps and lag than the majority of the changes being discussed.

If the team is only able to answer 1 question please answer question 1).

edward_frigidhands · November 24

xFocused wrote: »

With that being said, if GH is killed off you most likely won’t have to worry about population capping for vengeance 🤷🏼‍♂️

SneaK · November 24

Here’s a thought

What good is the craft bag and access to DLC if you play ESO for PvP and no gear is required????

Maybe that would resonate with ZOS since money is involved.

This would destroy the in-game economy even further too.

Sarannah · November 24

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

You know exactly how bad liked Vengeance is by a big chunk of the pvp community, perhaps the majority but still pushing this path, is outragous

This may actually be a good thing for PvP! (scenario 1)
Because if grey host keeps the same PvP population as now(those who dislike vengeance as multiple players are stating) while running parallel with vengeance with a healthy population, it means the vengeance campaign was successful in attracting many more PvE players into PvP. Tripling the PvP population, assuming vengeance and grey host are both healthy. Which in turn could benefit the entire PvP population as a whole, including grey host.

Why does it seem the PvP community is against running vengeance parallel to grey host, if as stated, PvPers would stay on grey host anyways? This seems like a fear that grey host would die, basically saying that even many of the players in grey host don't actually want to be in grey host.

Really don't understand why PvP players who feel grey host is the only worthwhile PvP are worried about a parallel running vengeance campaign, because if grey host players go to vengeance that means they didn't want to be in grey host anyways. More PvP options for everyone.

PS: Two different types of Cyrodiil pvp running at the same time, seems like a good thing to me. Especially if both have a healthy player population.

StihlReign · November 24

Save PvE. Fix PvP...

Remove cross-healing, heal and shield stacking. Promote skilled gameplay. Fix resto staffs. The devs can probably tone down the over-tuned players, sets and NPCs if they'd address heal and shield stacking...give every NPC crit resist to make the game 'harder' for those who need it and remove battle spirit.

Just tune the game. The tests all show or corroborate the same thing. sigh

Why is this taking so long...
EDIT: Spelling

JonesHeathen · November 24

I said it once and I will say it again.

If the hardware cannot handle the software, do not downgrade the software, upgrade the hardware.

Vengeance kills all the flare that ESO PvP has, it's as simple as that.

Artistbma · November 24

I have not logged into the forums in years but felt obligated to say something after reading this deeply disappointing post.

I have been an avid PvPer in this game since 2014. I've sunken thousands and thousands of hours into Cyrodiil, Battlegrounds, duels, my PvP guilds, etc.

I was incredibly put off by last year's changes to Battlegrounds. They were incredibly half-baked and reeked of a lack of consultation with your core PvP base. 4v4 is absolutely horrendous from a competition standpoint as the vast majority of the time one team crushes the other, leading to matches that feel like a chore, particularly when somebody on the losing team decides they don't even want to jump out of their safezone because they're getting eviscerated so badly. 4v4v4 did not have this problem because a worse team still had an opportunity to win a match through strategy. And 8v8 is just a nonsensical Mario Party button-smashing fest that clearly caters to the lowest common denominator. I played many, many of these Battlegrounds matches hoping that I'd eventually see the value of the changes and enjoy it more, but that never happened, and eventually I just lost interest in playing something that was clearly made by people who don't PvP anywhere near as much as I do.

Still, thankfully, I had Cyrodiil. I've had Cyrodiil for over a decade now, and it continues to be a source of tons of enjoyment for me, even with all the extensive failures on the part of the dev team to give it the proper attention it deserves for many, many years. When Vengeance was first announced I thought it was gimmicky but I'd try it out. It was gimmicky. I had a little bit of fun but ultimately got super bored because of how restrictive the ruleset is.

If I wanted to play Kits PvP I'd go log back on a Minecraft server and pick a kit with a sword! Woopee!

This is not and never has been the allure of ESO PvP, what keeps the same players like myself coming back year after year after year after year after year.

I cannot believe that it's even on the table to remove all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and only have a Vengeance campaign as the singular option. Frankly, I can't even believe the "good" option involves removing every campaign other than Gray Host. Instead of constantly trying to shuttle your dwindling PvP player base into smaller and smaller arenas, maybe consider talking to those few PvPers who are still here after a decade to figure out how to improve the existing Cyrodiil playset. Just to reiterate: Scenario 2 is utterly ridiculous and shouldn't even be on the table. And Scenario 1 is bad. If you wanna cut out Ravenwatch and Icereach due to lack of use, fine, whatever. But cutting us down to a single normal Cyrodiil campaign is a horrible idea.

Clearly the devs don't even care, but I feel obligated as somebody who has been a dedicated Cyrodiil player for 11 years and has earned hundreds of millions of alliance points, taken hundreds of thousands of objectives, killed hundreds of thousands of players: if you remove everything but Vengeance, I will quit. When other players have quit due to the other horrendous changes to PvP over the past couple years, I thought they were overreacting. But if you don't even provide us with the option to continue to participate in Cyrodiil as it currently exists, I'm done with ESO PvP, and maybe ESO altogether.

11 years.

Thanks.

imPDA · November 24

I am glad to see an attempt to be transparent, but I am sad to hear you can't fix what you've broken. I remember great times playing in healthy Cyrodiil years ago, in big battles with almost no lag. Then dark times came: first, lag became unplayable (I played on Ravenwatch), and I left the game. Then you introduced no-proc, and it healed the campaign a bit; I returned and spent a year playing almost every day. Then you returned procs, and now it is completely dead again. Now you are going to kill Grayhost.

My prediction: Vengeance is a second Ravenwatch - abandoned, hardly populated, dominated by one faction of casual players who will be able to recruit 24-48 players to play 3 days a week against the doors of empty keeps in the evening, and dominated by a second faction who will nightcap the map. Grayhost will still be laggy.

I truly hate Vengeance in its current state and taking into consideration the fact that nothing else will be added to Vengeance and it is going to keep the loadout and perks system, I will not be there. I'm interested to hear about mid-size PvP, but if it has nothing similar to Cyrodiil in its current state, I will not be there as well.

SneaK · November 24

Sarannah wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

You know exactly how bad liked Vengeance is by a big chunk of the pvp community, perhaps the majority but still pushing this path, is outragous

This may actually be a good thing for PvP! (scenario 1)
Because if grey host keeps the same PvP population as now(those who dislike vengeance as multiple players are stating) while running parallel with vengeance with a healthy population, it means the vengeance campaign was successful in attracting many more PvE players into PvP. Tripling the PvP population, assuming vengeance and grey host are both healthy. Which in turn could benefit the entire PvP population as a whole, including grey host.

Why does it seem the PvP community is against running vengeance parallel to grey host, if as stated, PvPers would stay on grey host anyways? This seems like a fear that grey host would die, basically saying that even many of the players in grey host don't actually want to be in grey host.

Really don't understand why PvP players who feel grey host is the only worthwhile PvP are worried about a parallel running vengeance campaign, because if grey host players go to vengeance that means they didn't want to be in grey host anyways. More PvP options for everyone.

PS: Two different types of Cyrodiil pvp running at the same time, seems like a good thing to me. Especially if both have a healthy player population.

Because no one is buying that they plan to keep GH, they basically said they aren’t investing into balancing anything and are focused on performance in Vengeance, and that they can’t fix GH (despite reasonable suggestions by players). If they split the population they’ll eventually turn off GH to get all the numbers into Vengeance. And to further expedite that, they’ll add the mid size mode which will cut the population even more, then they’ll really justify one mode to rule them all, which is a dumbed down version of what we should be able to play. We’ll end up without a Cyrodiil where you can bring in builds and play the way you want to.

On the flip side, if they’d prioritize crossplay, they’d see numbers in all three modes. But they don’t have their priorities together.

PapaTankers · November 24

Alright. Im all for more options and would happily play vengeance, but direction seems a bit confusing to me. We don't really have enough players to fill 360 population cap campaigns. What makes you think adding a 900 population cap campaign would ultimately accomplish? As in what is the point of supporting such a high population if its just going to feel as empty as other campaigns?
On top of that you are adding another game mode. Wouldn't it actually make most sense to add only 1 unified option and pushing all the resources into that one option to make sure its able to preform? Current "roadmap" only seems to divide playerbase even more.

SummersetCitizen · November 24

I really don’t like anything about this, but I am tremendously grateful you were honest about it.

Ratzkifal · November 24

Sarannah wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

You know exactly how bad liked Vengeance is by a big chunk of the pvp community, perhaps the majority but still pushing this path, is outragous

This may actually be a good thing for PvP! (scenario 1)
Because if grey host keeps the same PvP population as now(those who dislike vengeance as multiple players are stating) while running parallel with vengeance with a healthy population, it means the vengeance campaign was successful in attracting many more PvE players into PvP. Tripling the PvP population, assuming vengeance and grey host are both healthy. Which in turn could benefit the entire PvP population as a whole, including grey host.

Why does it seem the PvP community is against running vengeance parallel to grey host, if as stated, PvPers would stay on grey host anyways? This seems like a fear that grey host would die, basically saying that even many of the players in grey host don't actually want to be in grey host.

Really don't understand why PvP players who feel grey host is the only worthwhile PvP are worried about a parallel running vengeance campaign, because if grey host players go to vengeance that means they didn't want to be in grey host anyways. More PvP options for everyone.

PS: Two different types of Cyrodiil pvp running at the same time, seems like a good thing to me. Especially if both have a healthy player population.

@Sarannah because PvP is only fun when other players are also playing. I prefer Ravenwatch, but if nobody is in Ravenwatch, then Ravenwatch is a dead campaign and not fun. So I'm playing in Gray Host, even though I'd really prefer being in Ravenwatch. This familiar dynamic between Ravenwatch and Gray Host will apply to Vengeance vs Gray Host too. If all the casual PvPers (zerglings) log into Vengeance instead because they can zerg without the fear of some bomb build or an experienced group decimating them, then Gray Host population will suffer, wither and die. This wouldn't be an issue if the PvP population as a whole is big enough to keep all campaigns at population cap for most of the day - but that's not the case anymore. Introducing Vengeance parallel to Gray Host risks killing Gray Host entirely.
So why is that a bad thing? Because people will quit the game over it. Vengeance isn't Ravenwatch. This is a downward spiral, because Vengeance doesn't give you the same opportunity of mastery that regular PvP does. In Gray Host/Ravenwatch you can still learn to play your build better, change your set (or CP) in new ways to try and get an edge over others. There is mastery involved in that, and this self-improvement aspect is at the core of what many PvPers enjoy about PvP in the first place - challenge and competition. There is no challenge, less competition and less mastery involved in a dumbed down version of PvP, where everyone's build is the same and all skills deal "standard damage". That's why adding Vengeance is not the same and that's why people reject the very idea of it.

Yudo · November 24

We worked on it for so long, if we do not release it we will get fired.

Ratzkifal · November 24

Yudo wrote: »

We worked on it for so long, if we do not release it we will get fired.

They should name the Vengeance campaign Sunk-cost-fallacy.

imPDA · November 24

I have been mostly silent all these years, watching the Vengeance tests and laughing together with friends about the test ideas I saw on the forum and about cheerful comments like "Vengeance is the thing ESO needs." But it was probably a mistake, and I should have expressed myself earlier and asked others to do the same. But I am doing it now.

If you disagree - I understand. I know there are different types of players, and somebody would prefer simpler gameplay. I was a noob too; I walked the tough path of learning how to play in Cyrodiil. And I have to admit, it is very unique gameplay, very different from other games and I like it very much, so basically, Cyrodiil (and occasional BGs) made me stay with this game since Summerset. Probably, if more people share their thoughts, it will reveal that not that many people support Vengeance (probably?).

Q: Will you still introduce your scenario 1 or 2 if Vengeance is empty during the second part of the tests (with an active Grayhost at the same time)?

P.S. And by the way, lag is probably not the biggest problem of the game. People still play Cyrodiil pretty actively even with lag, just saying.