Community Update – Vengeance Testing & Cyrodiil

gronoxvx · 12:01AM

Tbh there isnt enough of a population to sustain both vengeance and gh. So i can see it being option 1 first, then eventually option 2 since the devs have spent so much time and money on it.

Edit: what they should do is boost up imp city since gh will eventually get removed

SneaK · 12:05AM

Sarannah wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the responses! Also for @SneaK

The bolded: To me it seems you feel the population in grey host cannot be sustained without all the 'casual PvPers' also being in there. But if players are given the choice, and they prefer another campaign where they can have more fun, isn't that their choice? And in turn also stating that they never wanted to be in grey host in the first place, when given the choice.

Now I get that ESO's PvP is unique and requires 'mastery' as you put it, but at the same time ESO's PvP has such a high barrier of entry, that for most players it isn't worth it. Especially for new players, they don't want to spend months training/gearing/skilling, they want to hop into the action straight away(all other competing MMO's offer this/maybe introduce load outs for grey host?). For these players having a vengeance campaign would be perfect, as they don't want to be/shouldn't be forced to be slaughtered over and over by veterans who have 10+ years of ESO PvP training under their belt. Maybe in some clever way vengeance can even be used as a stepping stone towards 'mastered PvP', as you called it. Maybe some changes to the IC could have players flow naturally from vengeance to IC to grey host's more mastered style of PvP. But this is just throwing out some ideas.

Besides challenge and competition that some players love, some other group of players also love fun, fairness/equal, and more casual PvP. Which is why having two different PvP styles running at the same time could even be a blessing.

Maybe the target audiences for grey host and vengeance are so incredibly different on their own, that neither campaign will have any effect on the other and it's populations. The only way to know for sure is to have these campaigns run side-by-side. Maybe ZOS could do a test during the christmas/new years period, where they have both campaigns running for one month(15 dec-15 jan). To see how the populations work, where specific players go, which is more popular, where new/seasonal players go, etc.

For the record, I think vengeance and grey host could live perfectly side by side, as I suspect their target audiences are so incredibly different. Some players seem to be panicking for no good reason. And I do not want grey host to die or be taken away!

PS: Personally I do think there is skill and builds and mastery involved in vengeance as well, but the tests were too short to come into any sort of meta vs countermeta play.
PPS: I doubt ZOS is lying about wanting to keep grey host. There seems to be no logical reason why they would want to alienate a paying portion of their playerbase.
PPPS: Some players seem to be panicking because of this announcement, but there is no reason to as the vengeance and grey host playerbases are completely different player groups.

I’ve moved on, I just want Vengeance rules for PvE now since that’s where I lag the most.

silentxthreat · 12:27AM

if you leave greyhost how it is and vengance as a choice we will just have another dead server like no cp. a lot of wasting time and money for nothing

Ratzkifal · 12:55AM

licenturion wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Just like in nature, you need a certain number of herbivores to sustain a healthy population of carnivores. And to get the herbivores to stay, the grass needs to be greener! Vengeance grass is stale, but there is an electric fence keeping out the wolves (meaning everyone loses).

While I find your analogies you make in this thread amusing, they don't really make a good case for non-hardcore players to support your cause. You basically say here 'we need casual victims to have fun'.

Since you like analogies. Think of a city football league:
- Gray Host is the premier division. It’s intense, competitive, and only the most skilled players thrive. Matches are brutal but rewarding.
- Vengeance is the amateur division. It’s still football, but the rules are simplified, the pace is slower, and newcomers don’t get crushed instantly.

If the league only had the premier division, most casual players would quit after being demolished every match. If it only had the amateur division, the skilled players would leave because there’s no challenge. But with both divisions running side by side, casuals can play at their level, enjoy the sport, and maybe one day climb into the premier division.

The choice keeps the league alive: casuals don’t feel excluded, veterans don’t feel bored, and the ecosystem sustains itself. Without that split, the league collapses because one group inevitably burns out. (which already happened with the current low PvP population).

While I 100 percent agree they should commit to keeping and improving Gray Host, they should also move forward with Vengeance. It is quite telling that the PvP people have been complaining nothing is done for PvP for years and now there are some clear initiatives like Vengeance, a brand new mode and new progression system, the hardcore PvP players are basically saying 'nope, hands off, leave everything as it is'.

@licenturion It is how this works. Online game ecosystems and the social dynamics within have long been studied. My plea is not for non-hardcore players to "support my cause". My cause, as is yours, as is ZOS', is to create a healthy and sustainable game environment that we all enjoy. PvPers do need casual victims to have fun. Casual PvPers need victims too, and so do hardcore PvPers. Removing the casual PvPers turns the community cannibalistic and causes rapid collapse (as seen in the population of Ravenwatch and Imperial City). So if ZOS cares about this game, they need to intervene and make the experience better for the non-hardcore crowd. It's not on the hardcore playerbase to be less hardcore to make things more bearable for others. ZOS needs to add incentives to go into Cyrodiil. ZOS needs to make it fun regardless of whether you win or lose. They need to add more and exciting rewards. They need to make the grass greener. This doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.

The problem with your football analogy is that fundamentally amateur division and premier division are still playing the same sport. Vengeance and Grayhost are not the same sport because the rules are fundamentally different. We can hope that some people will make the switch from Vengeance to Grayhost, but there really is no reason for that. Maybe if Vengeance had certain achievements and quest rewards remain disabled even after becoming standard (like the Emperor title), but I don't think I need to tell you that this sounds very unsatisfactory for the people who want Vengeance. I think we'd achieve better results by increasing the cap from below50 PvP to below 160CP to extend the period of time people can spend in the safety of the "amateur division" as you say. If we turned on Vengeance for below50 PvP only, then that could serve the same purpose as well, although I still doubt the effectiveness of it, since it is ultimately a different sport. There are issues with this game's learning curve in general. I think there is an argument to be made for the Impenetrable trait to be removed, just to make that first time PvP experience less harsh, but that's a whole different discussion. Point is: Vengeance is not really the "amateur division" of real PvP, nor should it be.

Another major flaw with your analogy is that football doesn't end in ties as frequently as ESO fights between two high skill players. Between two players of similar skill, duels can last forever, depending on the build. Imagine if most games in the premier league resulted in a draw. That gets boring fast. And not to mention, removing the bottom half of the playerbase only moves the issue elsewhere. You'd have a new bottom half of players - players who you previously identified as hardcore, who are now the bottom of the premier league barrel. All of your arguments aimed at protecting the casual players from the hardcore players suddenly apply to half of the hardcore players themselves, except they still don't enjoy Vengeance and will just quit. That's not the ecosystem sustaining itself. Rince and repeat, and that's half of the ecosystem collapsing.

Your last point I feel is a bit disingenuous. Nobody says "leave everything as it is" and many of the hardcore PvPers appreciated that vengeance was done ... for the purpose of testing. Now ZOS is pulling the rug from under us, saying sike! It's not a test after all! All the conspiracies about Vengeance becoming the new future of PvP are true! We are going to remove Grayhost if you aren't playing Vengeance because, as Jessica put it, these are the only two options. That's literally what they are saying - improving Grayhost is not something they are willing to look into. The best they can do is their new "midsized PvP" whatever that's supposed to be. And hey, maybe that'll be fun. Who knows. All I know is that they've abandoned Imperial City, they've abandoned Daedric Artifacts in Cyrodiil, they've abandoned Battlegrounds until recently and even the new BGs are already being neglected again. So I don't think it is a stretch to assume that they are going to abandon that new midsized PvP Grayhost alternative too. Let's hope I'm wrong about that, but I think you can understand why I'm not too thrilled.

Ratzkifal · 1:05AM

Stamicka wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

because PvP is only fun when other players are also playing.

I logged in for the Whitestrake's Mayhem event this summer and there was genuinely almost no PvP. As is, almost no one PvPs, even during events. Cyrodiil doesn't get or retain new players and fewer and fewer veterans seem to play as time goes on. There's systemic reasons for PvP's terrible participation rates. I won't get into it here, but if you care you can check out a thread I made in the past: click here.

You and others trying to make this point need to understand that whether they go through with Vengeance or not, PvP doesn't have much of a future anyway. It's basically dead already, in its current state it's losing players and gaining almost no new ones. Like it or not, it needs to get new players in who will stick around.

Ratzkifal wrote: »

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.

Both Vengeance and Gray Host are very low skill environments. Vengeance is low skill because surviving is effortless. The healing is so overturned that many fights simply don't end and it doesn't really matter which player lines up damage better. This is a very straightforward and easy problem to fix though, they can reduce healing, increase burst, or lower max health... even a combination of those things would work.

Gray Host on the other hand is low skill because 8 years of bad changes and broken sets have piled up. They have so much to address to save Gray Host from the death spiral it's on. I truly think it's at the point where they are better off starting fresh (sort of like Vengeance) than trying to fix the current state of PvP through tweaks. The power gap and the amount of build customization is unsustainable.

Ratzkifal wrote: »

All competitive games need casuals. That's just how healthy populations work. So if ZOS makes choices that move the casual players elsewhere but keeps out the hardcore players (by Vengeance simply not being enjoyable to them), then ZOS is making the conscious decision to kick out the hardcore playerbase.

ESO is not a competitive game whatsoever and in its current state appeals to a very specific and small group of players. New players and casuals have such a high bar to enter that they just don't. The people who are willing to give PvP a shot will decide it's not worth it when they see how bad the power gap is. The more competitive and serious PvP crowd would also be turned off by the power gap and broken sets because that lessens the importance of skill when fighting players on the same level.

So this leaves a population of players that basically likes to farm players who have half as strong of a build. These players also often ignore people who could pose a threat to them. That's obviously not fun for new/casual players and they'll either grow to hate PvP or never return. It's been like this for a long time. Most people in Imperial City or Cyrodiil would rather port out or run then to engage in any sort of PvP. That's telling. It's all completely unsustainable.

Not sure why you are replying to me. We aren't in disagreement here, or maybe I'm not understanding what you are trying to tell me. It's on ZOS to fix the population downward spiral and their solution is Vengeance. I'm saying that Vengeance isn't fixing anything.

On your last point, ESO is absolutely a competitive game, but not in the way that you are thinking of. It's not a professional esport competitive game. But PvP is a competitive game as opposed to a cooperative game, like Portal2's coop mode. When two PvPers encounter each other, they fight. That's a competition. Your remaining point remains valid, but again, that's not really on topic, so I don't think I get why you are bringing this up here. Unless you are speaking more broadly and are just quoting me for examples? Regardless, I think you're right, but that only tangentially relates to the issues discussed here. Vengeance isn't fixing anything. The status-quo is preferable to vengeance, but it also unsustainable and needs to be fixed. Vengeance just isn't it.

Parasaurolophus · 1:29AM

Few people here pay attention to the fact that ZoS has basically confirmed that the performance issue is too deep to ever really fix. Vengeance is just a band-aid, not a real solution, and a functional Cyrodiil is something we can essentially forget about forever.
But here’s what I want to say personally — I never liked Cyrodiil anyway and always preferred battlegrounds. Vengeance is fun only for the first couple of hours, then it gets boring fast, and I don’t believe this campaign will ever be popular.

Destai · 1:37AM

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote:

Scenario 1 is what we are working toward, in which case Grey Host would remain as it is now. Like noted in the original message, through the Vengeance tests we've done so far, we learned that in order to support our goals - a large-scale PvP zone with mass-scale battles and a much higher population - the abilities, procs, passives, etc. must be lighter versions of the ones that exist in the rest of the game. So we will be applying that to Vengeance, and giving those who prefer the current Grey Host ruleset that option.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Cyrodiil performance start to degrade once the calculations were moved server side? Wasn't that in like 2017? Is there any avenue to explore there rather than stripping down to Cyrodiil?

Ratzkifal · 1:49AM

Destai wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote:

Scenario 1 is what we are working toward, in which case Grey Host would remain as it is now. Like noted in the original message, through the Vengeance tests we've done so far, we learned that in order to support our goals - a large-scale PvP zone with mass-scale battles and a much higher population - the abilities, procs, passives, etc. must be lighter versions of the ones that exist in the rest of the game. So we will be applying that to Vengeance, and giving those who prefer the current Grey Host ruleset that option.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Cyrodiil performance start to degrade once the calculations were moved server side? Wasn't that in like 2017? Is there any avenue to explore there rather than stripping down to Cyrodiil?

I think the issue there was before that we've had more cheating. Still, maybe not the worst idea to explore at this stage.

laniakea_0 · 1:50AM

First and foremost, it's good to see that the Vengeance tests are yeilding answers.
But let's address this:

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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.

This is a problem.
It's not unexpected that a continually updated game would accumulate flaws that make it all less consistent but it still needs to be solved. splitting the rule-set is going to have the biggest impact on internal consistency, yet. I welcome the approach of offering separate campaigns, it'll tide players over for a while, but it cannot stay this way. the ultimate goal needs to be a gameplay rule-set that's consistent and seamless across the entire game. We also shouldn't neglect the fact that the Cyrodiil issues don't exist in isolation. there are a number of gameplay related problems across the game and in one way or another they all connect. In my honest opinion: Remaking the entire gameplay system from scratch is unavoidable! In order for the game to perform well, it needs to account for every new system you've added these past 10 years since launch and that needs to be the long term strategy if you seek lasting improvements.

Ratzkifal · 2:09AM

laniakea_0 wrote: »

First and foremost, it's good to see that the Vengeance test are yeilding answers.
But let's address this:

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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.

This is a problem.
It's not unexpected that a continually updated game would accumulate flaws that make it all less consistent but it still needs to be solved. splitting the rule-set is going to have the biggest impact on internal consistency, yet. I welcome the approach of offering separate campaigns, it'll tide players over for a while, but it cannot stay this way. the ultimate goal needs to be a gameplay rule-set that's consistent and seamless across the entire game. We also shouldn't neglect the fact that the Cyrodiil issues don't exist in isolation. there are a number of gameplay related problems across the game and in one way or another they all connect. In my honest opinion: Remaking the entire gameplay system from scratch is unavoidable. In order for the game to perform well, it needs to account for every new system you've added these past 10 years since launch and that needs to be the long term strategy if you seek lasting improvements.

I think you hit the nail on the head.
Also, riddle me this: Console and PC parity must be preserved at all costs, housing on PC must be limited to what consoles can handle. But introducing two competing systems of PvP is fine? The more I think about Scenario 1, the more it sounds like Scenario 2 was always the goal and Scenario 1 is just the PR statement. If noCP PvP taught us anything, then that maintaining two different rule-sets of PvP at the same time means that one rule-set gets ignored in balance discussions. I wonder which rule-set of PvP ZOS is going to be thinking about in the future. Maybe they'll take the same approach as they did with subclassing - "You don't like the state of balance? Try subclassing Vengeance!"

laniakea_0 · 2:16AM

Ratzkifal wrote: »

laniakea_0 wrote: »

First and foremost, it's good to see that the Vengeance test are yeilding answers.
But let's address this:

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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.

This is a problem.
It's not unexpected that a continually updated game would accumulate flaws that make it all less consistent but it still needs to be solved. splitting the rule-set is going to have the biggest impact on internal consistency, yet. I welcome the approach of offering separate campaigns, it'll tide players over for a while, but it cannot stay this way. the ultimate goal needs to be a gameplay rule-set that's consistent and seamless across the entire game. We also shouldn't neglect the fact that the Cyrodiil issues don't exist in isolation. there are a number of gameplay related problems across the game and in one way or another they all connect. In my honest opinion: Remaking the entire gameplay system from scratch is unavoidable. In order for the game to perform well, it needs to account for every new system you've added these past 10 years since launch and that needs to be the long term strategy if you seek lasting improvements.

I think you hit the nail on the head.
Also, riddle me this: Console and PC parity must be preserved at all costs, housing on PC must be limited to what consoles can handle. But introducing two competing systems of PvP is fine? The more I think about Scenario 1, the more it sounds like Scenario 2 was always the goal and Scenario 1 is just the PR statement. If noCP PvP taught us anything, then that maintaining two different rule-sets of PvP at the same time means that one rule-set gets ignored in balance discussions. I wonder which rule-set of PvP ZOS is going to be thinking about in the future. Maybe they'll take the same approach as they did with subclassing - "You don't like the state of balance? Try subclassing Vengeance!"

well... multiple campaigns isn't exactly a new thing, server capacity for it appears to exist. and hopefully, the point of vengeance would be that it doesn't really need to be balanced as much. it really depends on what new content they want to regularly add to it. but I would agree that it's far from ideal.

ThoraxtheDark · 2:18AM

This is very promising .

Ratzkifal · 2:21AM

laniakea_0 wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

laniakea_0 wrote: »

First and foremost, it's good to see that the Vengeance test are yeilding answers.
But let's address this:

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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.

This is a problem.
It's not unexpected that a continually updated game would accumulate flaws that make it all less consistent but it still needs to be solved. splitting the rule-set is going to have the biggest impact on internal consistency, yet. I welcome the approach of offering separate campaigns, it'll tide players over for a while, but it cannot stay this way. the ultimate goal needs to be a gameplay rule-set that's consistent and seamless across the entire game. We also shouldn't neglect the fact that the Cyrodiil issues don't exist in isolation. there are a number of gameplay related problems across the game and in one way or another they all connect. In my honest opinion: Remaking the entire gameplay system from scratch is unavoidable. In order for the game to perform well, it needs to account for every new system you've added these past 10 years since launch and that needs to be the long term strategy if you seek lasting improvements.

I think you hit the nail on the head.
Also, riddle me this: Console and PC parity must be preserved at all costs, housing on PC must be limited to what consoles can handle. But introducing two competing systems of PvP is fine? The more I think about Scenario 1, the more it sounds like Scenario 2 was always the goal and Scenario 1 is just the PR statement. If noCP PvP taught us anything, then that maintaining two different rule-sets of PvP at the same time means that one rule-set gets ignored in balance discussions. I wonder which rule-set of PvP ZOS is going to be thinking about in the future. Maybe they'll take the same approach as they did with subclassing - "You don't like the state of balance? Try subclassing Vengeance!"

well... multiple campaigns isn't exactly a new thing, server capacity for it appears to exist. and hopefully, the point of vengeance would be that it doesn't really need to be balanced. it really depends on what new content they want to regularly add to it. but I would agree that it's far from ideal.

Ultimately we can only hope for the best. In my fast food analogy from earlier, we can only hope that despite how delicious the fast food appears to be, people will listen to the fitness gurus and stay healthy. If they add Vengeance but people simply don't play it and remain on Grayhost, we'll see how ZOS responds. Will they keep Vengeance as a dead campaign, just like Ravenwatch? Will they make some excuse and shut down Gray Host anyway, citing some "positive feedback" they were getting from who knows where. Only time will tell.

Erickson9610 · 2:25AM

I hope both Vengeance and Gray Host can exist simultaneously. Hopefully we get Crossplay soon so there won't be any issue with maintaining a stable population — plus, I get the feeling that console players would prefer Vengeance in a post-Crossplay ESO, since the skill gap between a gamepad and keyboard+mouse is too large.

l_AmWar · 4:08AM

so you're saying that you can't fix it at all. But can make changes to how skills work within Cyro or a pvp zone. Vs how they act while not in a PVP zone. And this has been a recent change, not something that's been deep rooted into the code that you "can't figure out." Lets look at merc resolve for instance. Stacks only work while in combat in PVP areas. Where in PVE areas, you can have 10 stacks running around for 32hours non stop and it'll stay that way until you use it or switch toons. So what causes this to take place? If its possible to make changes to certain skills recently, then it should be possible to make changes to any skill. This statement seems more like a "you just dont want to." Type of statement. It's pretty cut and dry. Battle Spirit, is implied in PVP zones. It can be used to make changes to how skills work inside Cyrodiil and out side of it. Hear us out now, Can we please have one thing changed. CROSS HEALING And cross buffing in groups. That's it. Change how the healing effects and buff effects apply to others outside of yourself. Most that are reading this is already aimed at, BALL GROUPS! They are our biggest issues in Grey Host, They are the ones that are pinging the server on repeat with casting cross heals and buffs in 8-12 man groups. Now I get most players in the game might not have any clue whats causing the issues, but some do and have been trying to reach out to help give ideas and possible reasons. Only to fall on automated responses from AI help desk servants. These 2 things can increase the entire PVP server performance, Please try to see if it's wrong or not.

Fidget1302 · 4:25AM

@ZOS_JessicaFolsom

I know you devs get a lot of flak from us PvPers, and I myself have tossed flak as well, but I gotta say thank you and the devs for trying to find a solution to the Cyrodiil conundrum. I know the best answer is updated/new servers, but I am sure those cost too much money, or there may be other coding issues that would mess it up, etc.

I agree with you that scenario 1 is the best possible outcome. I've been playing since 2018 on PC/NA and have seen a slew of tests you guys have done over the years, and I was here when the devs at the time decided to turn Ravenwatch into basically what we would now call a mini-vengenance type campaign. It was fun for all of like 3 months, then it died and died quickly. It was so bad that the devs at the time had to revert it. The same would happen to PvP if you went with scenario 2. Not to mention, Blackreac and Ravenwatch are currently dead campaigns, so you might as well shed them and roll with GH and Vengeance. It'd be a great balance.

As an aside, you could also possibly, at some point next year, run cross-healing/Hots cap tests in GH. Devs did this back in 2019 I think, and it was wonderful. Performance was NOTICEABLY better. The performance issues weren't completely solved, but that week of testing, just by capping crossheals, made SUCH a difference. Even the unkillable ballgrounds were still strong, but not unkillable like they are now. It was more balanced. More PVE'ers filtered in. And fights weren't as one-sided.

Vaqual · 4:26AM

I think the continuity between game modes is an immensely important feature of this game. This is why no-proc Ravenwatch was a step in the wrong direction, why "Against Monsters/Players" is an unsatisfying solution, why exclusively no-CP BGs are not living up to their potential - and why Vengeance will fail just as Ravenwatch did. Players tend to gravitate to the rulesets that allow for growth - where the invested time and effort have consequences. Leveling, gearing, build crafting and training are therefore substantial parts of a well-rounded PvP-environment and they are needed to complement the raw tactical combat.

If I want to play PvP I wont waste my time in PvP-light™. If the game has become bloated, clean up the bloat. There is no need for PvE powercreep dictating the pace in PvP. PvE encounters can be modulated to match the power requirements of player encounters. If your systems can not handle the complexity, then figure out what is truly important for the game.

Yet another campaign, with yet another ruleset, for yet another subgroup of players is not going to make the game better. You are steering towards a lose-lose scenario.

Orbital78 · 6:10AM

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote:

Scenario 1 is what we are working toward, in which case Grey Host would remain as it is now. Like noted in the original message, through the Vengeance tests we've done so far, we learned that in order to support our goals - a large-scale PvP zone with mass-scale battles and a much higher population - the abilities, procs, passives, etc. must be lighter versions of the ones that exist in the rest of the game. So we will be applying that to Vengeance, and giving those who prefer the current Grey Host ruleset that option.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Cyrodiil performance start to degrade once the calculations were moved server side? Wasn't that in like 2017? Is there any avenue to explore there rather than stripping down to Cyrodiil?

I think the issue there was before that we've had more cheating. Still, maybe not the worst idea to explore at this stage.

We already have people flying around and injecting stats it seems.

HoneyBunBadgers · 6:32AM

I have been playing ESO since 2016 and love to PvP in Cyrodiil, I have put thousands of hours and a lot of money into this game, but if they ever get rid of Gray Host then that will really make me want to stop playing the game and take my money elsewhere as that is the PvP that I signed up for not the watered down version that is vengeance. I do not like vengeance at all and I won't play it. During the last 2 vengeance tests I avoided Cyrodiil entirely because I don't find it fun to have skills work completely different than the rest of the game, or not be able to use my build that I worked hard to create. All of the limitations of vengeance drove me away from the game and I do not want to see ZOS get rid of Gray Host ever. I appreciate the communication from this post, but overall I am getting more and more concerned with the state of the game. Why are there only 2 options; to keep gray host as is and add vengeance as a second campaign option or just only have vengeance as the only campaign? I thought the point of vengeance was to learn how to improve performance for gray host? Shouldn't ZOS continue to improve game performance to make Gray Host better? Why does it sound like they are admitting that they can't do anything to improve performance at all and giving up on that goal and instead pushing for a barebones experience that replaces the Cyrodiil experience we are passionate about in the name of "performance"? I play Gray Host because it is a lot of fun, I want ZOS to continue working on ways to improve upon Gray Host while keeping it consistent with the rest of the game how it has always been. Why is it not possible to improve the performance of Gray Host? Surely there has to be other options and solutions to explore instead of pushing vengeance onto the community.

Overall ZOS has really been disappointing me a lot lately, First this year's season pass and the lack of content, then the addition of subclassing destroying balance ultimately limiting builds, and the recent disaster of the writing wall event, and now ZOS is saying that they can't do anything to improve Gray Host and instead they are just going to give us Vengeance?!? I love this game, it is my favorite game ever but this year has been a massive failure on ZOS' part, dividing the community, driving many players away from the game, destroying balance, more bugs than ever, overhyping content and massively underdelivering, the very noticeable lack of content this year, with everything going on this year it is getting harder and harder to support this game as I don't like the direction it is going in at all. I know this year is supposed to be a "year of transition", so hopefully ZOS delivers big time next year as they need to show their player base what they have in store for us, tell us what the direction of the game will be and how they will address all of the long standing issues the player base has and rebuild trust and good faith with the community as many have lost hope for the future of this game. If ZOS wants this to be a "30 year game" then they have to fix many of the games major issues and find real long term solutions and answers to the problems instead of removing things from the game in order to put a band aid on top of a major issue and calling it a solution. I think ZOS needs reprioritize certain things going forward, because it seems like their vision doesn't align with their communities wants and desires and it's clear by all of the feedback that lately customer expectations haven't been met. I hope that ZOS continues to improve and really deliver next year with a triumphant return to what made the game special to begin with and I hope that everyone is blown away with what ZOS has been working on now that this "transition year" is over and there isn't an excuse anymore. Next year ZOS has to deliver a lot, put out quality content that is fun and engaging and a decent amount of it as well as improving performance, lots of bug fixes and quality of life improvements and really balance the combat and address the many issues that came with subclassing or I fear that more and more will give up on this game. I don't really post on here much but I wanted to voice my frustrations and opinions as I love this game and want it to succeed. I don't want to end on a sad note either so I'll just say that I hope that ZOS continues to listen to the community and our feedback and improve and build upon the best MMO ever, and I am keeping an open mind to the future of ESO and I hope that all of the communities concerns are addressed and fixed and that we have some amazing content coming up that ZOS is cooking up right now. Have a great Thanksgiving everyone and I'll see you in Tamriel

hoangdz · 6:35AM

This is what I'm looking forward too. I've been saying for years that Cyrodiil is way too large for the current player base, and a smaller version is 100% needed. Less horse traveling time, less space => more fights. It's like IC but without the doors and load screens between districts.

VixxVexx · 7:53AM

Anything but addressing the actual problem, classic. You need to deal with cross healing and shield stacking.

You know why Vengeance performs better? Because there's no groups running around with a dozen instances of the same 3 hots.

loosej · 7:59AM

Destai wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote:

Scenario 1 is what we are working toward, in which case Grey Host would remain as it is now. Like noted in the original message, through the Vengeance tests we've done so far, we learned that in order to support our goals - a large-scale PvP zone with mass-scale battles and a much higher population - the abilities, procs, passives, etc. must be lighter versions of the ones that exist in the rest of the game. So we will be applying that to Vengeance, and giving those who prefer the current Grey Host ruleset that option.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Cyrodiil performance start to degrade once the calculations were moved server side? Wasn't that in like 2017? Is there any avenue to explore there rather than stripping down to Cyrodiil?

Creating a PvP game mode where the calculations were done by the client was an optimistic choice, to put it mildly. Any sane developer will have told management the problems this would create from the start, and the only reason to design it like that regardless will have been lower server costs.

Removing the calculations from the server won't be an option. I obviously don't know what the eso codebase looks like, apart from what I've seen when interacting with the API, but I do have a background in software development and one way I could see performance improve is by doing the calculations on both ends. If both client and server do the calculations and the client sends periodic checksums of the results for the server to verify, this could result in a very slight reduction in network traffic and smoother gameplay. But it would definitely increase the amount of CPU power required for the server (same calculations + extra for the checksums) and cost tons of development hours, so I wouldn't expect that to ever happen.

merevie · 8:41AM

Many of us are beta veteran players and still have videos and screenshots of the mass fights we all used to have in Pvp.

Since Zos spent about $500 adding the hammer and changing door code, and nothing else in the last decade.so how did it magically get destroyed by lag.. what gives?

And are they planning on doing whatever that is MORE in the Pve side until nothing at all works?

Where's the accountability?

And now after all these tests, after YEARS of testing, they are like, nah, we can't fix it. Whose product is it? Why not? It worked before just fine.

They've made enough money and made enough promises -and they front up with actually, we won't fix Pvp. We'll just introduce a Pve friendly version and get your whole decade long community to mass delete their guilds and games?

'Let down' doesn't even come close to what these Devs have done to the Pvp community. Maybe AI can do better and Microsoft was right about their cuts. It can't do worse.

lostineternity · 9:25AM

I still don't see an answer for the question that was asked multiple times here why they lied whole year about "it's just a test"

Sarannah · 10:09AM

SneaK wrote: »

I’ve moved on, I just want Vengeance rules for PvE now since that’s where I lag the most.

Most players do not experience any lag in PvE at all, try changing or turning down some graphic settings. (Maybe make a separate thread for this problem to try and get it fixed)

Major_Toughness · 10:16AM

Why blur out the scale of the population graph?

Unless you are hiding the true values that does nothing.

kind_hero · 10:37AM

This is good news... The only PvP I really like in ESO is the large scale battles. I remember how they were 8-10 years ago. "Vengeance" brought back some of that experience. The poor performance and the prevalence of ball groups made me stay away from Cyrodiil.

This doesn't mean I like a PvP version where I play a template char, however, I would be fine if more templates would be available, including Alliance appearance like scout/knight/battlemage etc, and some degree of build customization. I consider the experience of playing in large groups more important than having the exact copy of the PvE world in PvP.

An other pain point for me regarding Cyrodiil is the annoying horse simulator we have to play more often than we should. There should be some context specific teleports, like teleport to a tent, portal spell by a forward team, controlled gate, delve etc. I am not sure how feasible this would be, but traveling between keeps and conflict hot spots is annoying! That's why Imperial City is sometimes more fun to play.

StihlReign · 11:10AM

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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.

This interesting. Quick question...

What changes should be made to characters in Grey Host to enjoy a higher population and reduced latency/game performance issues? Do we know the changes that provide the highest threshold and what that number is?

Have all of the tested scenarios failed for Grey Host performance/pop increases?

ie. The code rewrite, the server upgrades, removing the PvE dungeons from Cyro and instead adding above-ground PvE interactions (mini-Bosses). None of these improve performance if offered in conjunction with AOE caps, and healing/shield/buff stacking reductions, etc.? Have these types of options/scenarios been ruled out/failed?

colossalvoids · 11:10AM

I'll be short here without my precious opinions as there's nothing to talk about really yet, but it's cool that after 10 years we're getting better communication and pretty straightforward talk. Hope it won't get another decade to walk the walk also, as talks is all we're getting each and every year. But the style definitely improved.

StihlReign · 11:15AM

Sarannah wrote: »

PPS: I doubt ZOS is lying about wanting to keep grey host. There seems to be no logical reason why they would want to alienate a paying portion of their playerbase.
PPPS: Some players seem to be panicking because of this announcement, but there is no reason to as the vengeance and grey host playerbases are completely different player groups.

The devs haven't treated it this way. They've separated the groups and pitted them against each other.