Maintenance for the week of November 24:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – November 24

Community Update – Vengeance Testing & Cyrodiil

  • MISTFORMBZZZ
    MISTFORMBZZZ
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ratzkifal wrote: »
    Okay so a lot of comments are saying 'pvpers' hate Vengeance. Well, they are not making Vengeance for pvpers. Don't y'all get that?

    It is for PVErs, of which there are a lot, who love it. There are many more players like that than 'dedicated' pvpers. This game's design decisions always revolve around the largest player demographic- the casual gamer. And it's smart to. That's who pays the bills. It's a numbers game.

    Vengeance is super fun for casual pvp.

    They are going to let y'all hardcore pvpers enjoy your ball groups and other unbalanced ridiculousness in Grayhost. Be happy for that. Vengeance won't affect y'all at all. Unless of course...you secretly realize that a lot of Grayhosters actually want to leave for Vengeance?

    I have played all sorts of pvp since DAoC. I have spent a lot of time in all the Cyro campaigns. Grayhost is a 50-car pileup wreck. And they just admitted they are not going to fix it. Let's be honest with ourselves. It's time to move on.

    Bring on Vengeance!

    @SpiritKitten Where is my vengeance version of trials? I want the same rewards, but I don't want to put in the effort of getting good at the game. They should make a trial that you can complete with a group of 12 random PvPers that grants you the exact same rewards as doing veteran hardmode trifecta trial runs. Bring on Vengeance trials!

    This is the attitude of players that want Vengeance because real PvP is too tough for them. They just want to zerg and zerging is the only playstyle Vengeance enables. These players will obviously quit Gray Host, and I'm not blaming them for choosing the game mode most suited to their desires. I'm blaming ZOS for enabling this attitude and for downgrading the experience for the players that don't like Vengeance by splitting the population.

    100% this, the whole thing is outragous
    PS EU
  • StihlReign
    StihlReign
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    New mid-size PvP sounds like a complete waste of Dev time and money. It will be abandoned. It will be buggy, never tuned or updated, and over-run by a few comp groups that farm it into Oblivion.

    Why not improve IC? Or, get rid of the Cyrodiil PvE (it's everywhere), move the blocking Titans and open the center island?
    "O divine art of subtlety and secrecy!

    Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy’s fate in our hands.” – Ch. VI, v. 8-9. — Master Sun Tzu

    "You haven't beaten me you've sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke." — Ra's al Ghul

    He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious — Master Sun Tzu

    LoS
  • Muizer
    Muizer
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_Kevin

    Does 'keeping' current PvP in scenario 1 include a commitment to make efforts to maintain/improve PvP balance? Or would PvE become the main focus of balancing efforts for the shared combat model going forward, in the knowledge that there is an alternative mode for PvP?
    Please stop making requests for game features. ZOS have enough bad ideas as it is!
  • Storm27Stars
    Storm27Stars
    ✭✭✭
    StihlReign wrote: »
    New mid-size PvP sounds like a complete waste of Dev time and money. It will be abandoned. It will be buggy, never tuned or updated, and over-run by a few comp groups that farm it into Oblivion.

    Why not improve IC? Or, get rid of the Cyrodiil PvE (it's everywhere), move the blocking Titans and open the center island?

    I've been saying exactly that to my Mrs for years.

    Open up the centre island and link it somehow to IC. Would be great.
  • MincMincMinc
    MincMincMinc
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Having a veng and CP campaign makes the most sense as people have been saying since the first test. Right now eso doesn't have a learning environment for new players like it used to. So we are losing alot of new pvpers early on, where previously they used to have BwB loaded with players and a thriving nocp population.

    Considering we now know the live pvp population is 120 players per faction, our nocp and nonvet campaigns probably have less than 20 or 30 players on each faction at any given time. More than 10x lower than the old player caps they used to sit at when most of us veterans learned pvp.
    As expected zos is going to simply quit from doing the hard work to fix cyrodil pvp and will leave us with this. They barely tested changing mechanics and tick distribution rules like crosshealing or tick stacking which is what everyone hoped for when they announced the PvE and PvP split rules.

    Its simply easier for them to make a new gamemode than deal with the negative feedback of changing or fixing everyone's past 10 year obsession. Regardless of the new mode, if they end up doing 12v12v12 or 24 or 36 man teams, the games will just still boil down to ballgroups with no counter because of the current balance of the game. Curious if it will be a BG instance match or an ongoing campaign like cyrodil. I still think a moba style pvpve gamemode would do well to blend and mix the split community and introduce players into pvp which IC fails to do because people are too scared to lose virtual currency.
    Zos should hire pvp consultants
  • colossalvoids
    colossalvoids
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    StihlReign wrote: »
    New mid-size PvP sounds like a complete waste of Dev time and money. It will be abandoned. It will be buggy, never tuned or updated, and over-run by a few comp groups that farm it into Oblivion.

    Why not improve IC? Or, get rid of the Cyrodiil PvE (it's everywhere), move the blocking Titans and open the center island?

    Honest question, how would you personally improve IC with current audience the game has? Not trying any gotcha here, just really do not see a way to make it any more appealing without something as damaging to the current PvP meta enjoyers as Vengeance is. Not talking ruleset, just scale of changes needed and how those would be hugely opposed by remained PvP players, as you can't drawn new players there without making it more appealing or at the very least not that punishing/unfair.
  • DenverRalphy
    DenverRalphy
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Muizer wrote: »
    @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_Kevin

    Does 'keeping' current PvP in scenario 1 include a commitment to make efforts to maintain/improve PvP balance? Or would PvE become the main focus of balancing efforts for the shared combat model going forward, in the knowledge that there is an alternative mode for PvP?

    Neither? Both?

    I can't help but think that with Vengeance becoming permanent resulting in PvP no longer requiring balancing efforts (or at least any real focus on it), and once Subclassing lands whereever it's gonna land, then both PvP and PvE combat can be put on cruise control. At least I suspect that's the goal.

    After Subclassing came out of nowhere, and Vengeance becoming permanant after initially being pitched as solely for testing purposes, I can't hep but think that this was a plan put in motion some time ago.
    Edited by DenverRalphy on 25 November 2025 13:43
  • ArctosCethlenn
    ArctosCethlenn
    ✭✭✭✭
    Having a veng and CP campaign makes the most sense as people have been saying since the first test. Right now eso doesn't have a learning environment for new players like it used to. So we are losing alot of new pvpers early on, where previously they used to have BwB loaded with players and a thriving nocp population.

    Honestly it'd make more sense to just remove CP from all forms of pvp. It contributes a lot to the balance issues in GH, particularly because of the amount of defensive power you get from champion points, and is a pretty big barrier to entry keeping new players out. Not having champion points wouldn't drive folks away from the game like vengeance will.
    Edited by ArctosCethlenn on 25 November 2025 13:55
  • Major_Mangle
    Major_Mangle
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    For once I'm glad about ZOS being more transparent about their intentions, been asking for this since the tests began. It's fairly clear that the intention is to make Vengeance the large scale default mode at this point. My guess is that it has to do with a future cross-play to allow old gen consoles to function properly when crossplay eventually happens. Makes sense seeing how they recently messed with animations with the reasoning to reduce the stress on the system.

    I don't want to be the one to say: " I told you so" regarding Vengeance.....but I did so....

    Told ya.... :D
    Ps4 EU 2016-2020
    PC/EU: 2020 -
  • StihlReign
    StihlReign
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    StihlReign wrote: »
    New mid-size PvP sounds like a complete waste of Dev time and money. It will be abandoned. It will be buggy, never tuned or updated, and over-run by a few comp groups that farm it into Oblivion.

    Why not improve IC? Or, get rid of the Cyrodiil PvE (it's everywhere), move the blocking Titans and open the center island?

    Honest question, how would you personally improve IC with current audience the game has? Not trying any gotcha here, just really do not see a way to make it any more appealing without something as damaging to the current PvP meta enjoyers as Vengeance is. Not talking ruleset, just scale of changes needed and how those would be hugely opposed by remained PvP players, as you can't drawn new players there without making it more appealing or at the very least not that punishing/unfair.

    Remove PvP from current IC. Take the upper level IC copy it remove the NPCs and move it to the center of Cyrodiil. Remove the dungeons and PvE from Cyrodiil, convert the area terrain and add minor NPCs. Add a bridge lowering mechanism to the 3 bridges, tie it to RSS held (6 keeps or whatever system is the most fair). Let everyone fight in the center city for RSS, and eventually EMP (based on RSS held, King of the Mountain or whatever system is the most fair).

    Add new NPCs to Cyrodiil Keeps and Cyro IC Upper City - the Sentry's (from Clockwork City) will spawn and begin a path [x seconds] after the RSS is taken. (Sentry's should also roam Cyro IC Upper City).

    Players deserve a rest and a bit of relief, and safe planning space after a victory.
    "O divine art of subtlety and secrecy!

    Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy’s fate in our hands.” – Ch. VI, v. 8-9. — Master Sun Tzu

    "You haven't beaten me you've sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke." — Ra's al Ghul

    He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious — Master Sun Tzu

    LoS
  • ILikeToFingerPaint
    ILikeToFingerPaint
    Soul Shriven
    Devs,

    Yes you've done all this testing with the Vengeance tests, but you know what key part you missed? None of you have logged into this game that you make a living on and played it. If you had, you would notice that the Cyrodiil zone chat, as a vast majority, HATES Vengeance. Why are you so worried about the game's performance not accommodating your target player count when, even at peak times, Cyrodiil sees maybe two bars of population these days?

    You know what you really need to be working on; it's the system that has made the player counts be the lowest I've ever seen in this game: SUBCLASSING. There are people outside your own dev team that have offered their input on the subclassing system that have been ignored. Personally, I like subclassing but I am more than willing to see it go away to bring back some of the player count. Both pvp and pve side are miserable because there's simply nobody playing anymore. We need you to drop this Vengeance idea that no one wants and to work on the issues that are eventually going to kill this game. The state of the game can't handle another major update where it's half a zone and nothing but game breaking bugs.

    Your players are your most valuable insight on a decent direction for the game. Listen to the veterans.
  • SneaK
    SneaK
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sarannah wrote: »
    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)

    In your experience maybe.. PvE is where I lag the most, I’m on a new gen Xbox.

    I did make a post about it. The answer is Vengeance ruleset in PvE, that’s the solution there as well.

    Thanks.
    "IMO"
    Aldmeri Dominion
    Bosmer Nightblade AR 32 - Altmer Templar AR 26 - Dunmer Dragonknight AR 18 - Altmer Sorcerer AR 20 - Khajiit Dragonknight AR 18
    (+3 not worth mentioning, yet)
  • Orbital78
    Orbital78
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The only time I consistently lag is in Greyhost when AD and DF are all faction stacked (major fights) or multiple ball groups. Sometimes the server just straight drops me to login.

    I do always get a weird hitch when the final boss of Red Petal Basion spawns too. I thought I was crashing at first.

    Overall on my mid tier rig things are smooth in most scenarios except major events when you get 25+ players at an incursion and your rushing in. That is probably my settings and dated hardware, as it takes more time to render and I'm rarely disconnected due to it.
  • lostineternity
    lostineternity
    ✭✭✭✭
    Muizer wrote: »
    @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_Kevin

    Does 'keeping' current PvP in scenario 1 include a commitment to make efforts to maintain/improve PvP balance? Or would PvE become the main focus of balancing efforts for the shared combat model going forward, in the knowledge that there is an alternative mode for PvP?

    Let's be honest, they didn't do anything to PVP balance for the last 5 years and absolutely killed what left with multiclassing.
    There is literally 0% probability that they will start make any changes now with 2 pvp modes available.
    Edited by lostineternity on 25 November 2025 14:53
  • MincMincMinc
    MincMincMinc
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Having a veng and CP campaign makes the most sense as people have been saying since the first test. Right now eso doesn't have a learning environment for new players like it used to. So we are losing alot of new pvpers early on, where previously they used to have BwB loaded with players and a thriving nocp population.

    Honestly it'd make more sense to just remove CP from all forms of pvp. It contributes a lot to the balance issues in GH, particularly because of the amount of defensive power you get from champion points, and is a pretty big barrier to entry keeping new players out. Not having champion points wouldn't drive folks away from the game like vengeance will.

    The problem is something like vengeance even with the right team that knows the answers would take multiple years to develop. Which at that point they would have been essentially recoding the entire game......why not make a new game at that point? Are they the right team for the job, just look at what is happening right now with the game. One team is doing performance tests to cut back on calculations, while another content team is releasing a proc set thatll do multiple procs and aoe overtime timers on 12 allies.

    The new pvp mode concept is probably because they realize the servers can't handle the 120players per faction and they need to downsize greyhost to 60 players on an appropriately sized map. If you think PR wise, people are going to hate any change you make to their 10 year old obsession, so why not make a new thing entirely.
    Zos should hire pvp consultants
  • Melivar
    Melivar
    ✭✭✭
    Love the initial post including all the detail and transparency involved. Between this and the recent summary post on the withering wall event feedback communication is looking up so keep that up.

    I am all for a full time Vengeance campaign side by side with keeping the primary Gray Host campaign running as well. This gives everyone the option to at least play close to their way.

    While the Vengeance ruleset could be useful in helping PVE overland difficulty be a thing or help with event lag particularly at world bosses, those suggesting that trials and dungeons need it are just striking out.
  • Stridig
    Stridig
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I wish I took screenshots of all the times we were told vengeance is not going to be a mode and that is was for testing purposes only.
    Enemy to many
    Friend to all
  • aetherix8
    aetherix8
    ✭✭✭✭
    Thank you for this post @ZOS_JessicaFolsom and big thanks to the team for all the work you’ve been putting into PvP this year. It’s definitely necessary that players get some more clarity on the future of Cyrodiil. I’m crossing my fingers for the success of Scenario 1, and for more such updates as this project keeps advancing.
    PC EU - V4hn1
  • loosej
    loosej
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Stridig wrote: »
    I wish I took screenshots of all the times we were told vengeance is not going to be a mode and that is was for testing purposes only.

    Windows would have kicked you to the login screen for spamming.
    Consistency: It's only a virtue if you're not a screwup (source: despair.com)
  • JustLovely
    JustLovely
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.)

    qdmiz4jb326w.png

    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!

    Um, sorry. I played vengeance mode and there were nowhere near 900 people playing at one time ever. (is ZOS combining the players from both NA and EU servers into the same graph here?) The most recent "tests" had fewer players than normal live has.

    And FPS is primarily the result of the players hardware; their video card if on PC. The problem leading to performance issues is lag. That is from ZOS server end bottlenecks and other issues related to connection to the server. So I'm not understanding the relevance of your graphs.

    Mandated vengeance mode will be the death of PvP in ESO. I read this post as fair warning ZOS is moving toward mandated vengeance sometime next year....in part due to the misleading performance graphs.



    Edited by JustLovely on 25 November 2025 18:34
  • Radiate77
    Radiate77
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    There is only one way in which Vengeance hits the ground running; with Crossplay.

    Releasing the campaign without a playerbase to fill it will be a disaster.
    Edited by Radiate77 on 25 November 2025 17:57
  • RaidingTraiding
    RaidingTraiding
    ✭✭✭
    imPDA wrote: »
    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.

    i played a lot of ravenwatch and always keep an eye on the pops and will pop in to see for myself. (for pc na at least) no proc never healed that campaign, it slowly died when it was introduced and it was already dead by the time procs returned. at that point the damage was already done. i agree that vengeance will definitely turn into another dead campaign if its implemented.
  • JustLovely
    JustLovely
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Stridig wrote: »
    I wish I took screenshots of all the times we were told vengeance is not going to be a mode and that is was for testing purposes only.

    It's pretty clear after reading Jessica's post that a mandated vengeance mode was the plan from the start.
  • StihlReign
    StihlReign
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    First Light 5th Day

    Five days remaining in the campaign, Grey Host in Cyrodiil. I turned in one quest.

    Current earned AP: 3402
    Overall Rank: 4580
    Alliance Rank: 1487

    Interesting...almost 4600 participants in this campaign this month.
    "O divine art of subtlety and secrecy!

    Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy’s fate in our hands.” – Ch. VI, v. 8-9. — Master Sun Tzu

    "You haven't beaten me you've sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke." — Ra's al Ghul

    He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious — Master Sun Tzu

    LoS
  • JustLovely
    JustLovely
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    VixxVexx wrote: »
    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.

    This is what we've been telling them for years now. But they went with vengeance instead of the easy fixes.
  • mzprx
    mzprx
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    i am not sure as to why you wouldn't listen to your community. we play the game (PvP mode) and we see what causes issues. the game runs fine until ball groups log in. then it goes down the drain. why, you may ask? as many people have already mentioned here, or in many other posts, it's not the fact that players get a group together and play. it's the amount of crosshealing, shields and AoE/DoT abilities those groups can have running on each member (and opponents) at the same time. a decent ball group will have 12 yellow Vigors running all the time on each member, plus shields, other HoTs, they will also spam a ton of shields and AoEs as they run around. just the amount of crosshealing is the reason why a ball group isn't just very hard to deal with, it is an entity you need the whole server to kill. and, Divines forbid, if two ball groups meet... all Oblivion breaks loose with the performance.

    now, when you run your next set of tests, why would you not test the performance with the crosshealing turned off? just this one thing would (IMHO) improve the performance dramatically. make a rule in the Battle Spirit that one player can have one instance of any healing ability running at one time. try it. i bet you'll find the results intriguing.
    EU/NA @Schwifty9 (DC)

    owner of the Imgakin monkey
  • JustLovely
    JustLovely
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    We need an explanation as to why on these performance graphs the player number axis is blurred out.
  • minnowfaun
    minnowfaun
    ✭✭✭
    • 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

    I suggest you test a vengeance campaign with no GP and GH and BR along side it. You've had to brib or force people into vengeance campaigns which you should understand gives you massively skewed results. Or perhaps you cooked to get the results you wanted.

    Blackreach needs to stay as a middle option.

    Vengeance only is not only unacceptable it's a disappointment.

    I am really regretting buying hunters glade.
  • thedocbwarren
    thedocbwarren
    ✭✭✭
    Could the PVE side get moved to its own location? Seems one of the issues is the combining of the two and making the game a polluted mess. Bad software/hardware design IMHO. Or is it not worth it. I've never been there due to the PVP stuff so have no idea.
  • imPDA
    imPDA
    ✭✭✭
    JustLovely wrote: »
    We need an explanation as to why on these performance graphs the player number axis is blurred out.

    That's a good question. I initially thought it might be because the numbers on the chart do not correspond to the actual values on the axes and it would be really clear without the blur, but it turns out it aligns pretty well.

    uh7fcRT.png

    As you can see, 18mm on the ruler corresponds to 900 players, which is 50 players per ruler mm. The lower cap at 360 aligns almost perfectly - 7mm * 50 = 350, which is close to 360. It's not an accurate measurement for sure, but everything looks legit so far.

    But why blur it for real? It raises another suspicion: what if the values are not as advertised? For example, what if there are no 360 players in GH now, but 300 or even less? Let's assume the chart grid tick is 200, so 200 = 5mm (40 people per ruler mm). This would mean the lower (current) cap is around 7mm * 40 = 280 people and the new higher cap is 18 * 40 = 720. Could this be the truth? I don't know - it's hard to tell since the numbers are strongly blurred. I like to analyze things and decided to share this picture :)

    Btw, as I remember, this chart was shown on Twitch after the first test, right? Does somebody have a recording of this stream?
Sign In or Register to comment.