Community Update – Vengeance Testing & Cyrodiil

BejaProphet · 4:18AM

This kind of transparency gives me so much more hope for the long term life of this game.

MISTFORMBZZZ · 7:54AM

So you wanna stop trying to fix GH Cyrodiil, because we cant archive 900 people? Why not just trying to adjust it to 600 for example and keep trying?

colossalvoids · 10:00AM

Hopefully Kevin would gather some questions here after the break so I'd share some:

1. What are the customisation options considered for the permanent "Vengeance" ruleset currently, meaning potential armour sets, mundus stones, traits, enchantments etc. it also includes subclassing and scribing?

2. This one applies only if we would have sets: what are the rules for those, is that whole new or simplified version of the sets we have, what's about over performing sets we have currently which are identified as a major issue for the balance and player's enjoyment engaging with said meta set comp?

A sub question there: How it considers grouping in a context of ball groups existing currently as is, is the same behaviour encouraged in a new environment or infinitely stacking heals and shields wouldn't be the case and there's a priority to not make it happen again and leave groups with a benefit of communication and high levels of coordination instead of infinite power scaling added to that?

3. This one applies if the subclassing is going to be available: how we can be ensured that it won't follow the same trajectory that's already on live server: stacking 3 best skill lines instead of working inside your own class kit? What about players who want to maintain their class fantasy and mechanics and not being under a huge disadvantage for doing so?
As someone who detests this feature it's really important to know as it would basically determine if I'm playing this new ruleset or not.

4. Is more of a follow up to:

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.

Is that includes heal, shield stacking and other buff/healing related issues or simply for adjusting player health/damage done values?

Thanks.

Muizer · 10:00AM

Erickson9610 wrote: »

We have 4 Cyrodiil campaigns, and only one of them is active. One of the unused campaigns can be replaced with Vengeance — and since levels don't matter in Vengeance, my vote goes to replacing the Under 50 campaign.

I'm talking about the cost of maintenance and development of code. Allotment of hardware resources is a trivial matter by comparison.

Erickson9610 wrote: »

We already know that we're not getting updates to every feature every year (no updates to Companions, Scribing, Tales of Tribute, Infinite Archive, etcetera this year) so we'll just have to wait until there is a new initiative to update PvP content. We know we're getting a new PvP map next year and a new PvP progression system, so we have content to look forward to. And who knows, maybe balancing Vengeance will give ZOS a better understanding of how the rest of the game can be balanced.

Balance issues will always surface in competitive gameplay. From a dev's perspective you can turn that observation around: having to balance for competitive gameplay puts a serious brake on the devs freedom to introduce new things into the combat system.

So the question is, knowing there will be a dedicated PvP combat model in Vengeance, will ZOS take their foot off that brake? If subclassing is anything to go by, the answer is a resounding 'yes'.

That makes current Cyrodiil a legacy feature. Something that even if it isn't actually shut down is living on borrowed time, as things get added for the sake of casual PvE that progressively erode PvP balance.

Now arguably this has been going on for some time already. But Vengeance could be the 'seal of approval' on that approach. So I am very skeptical about the prospects of keeping current PvP going.

Sotha_Sil · 10:07AM

Amazing! Great! Finally!

MsGurrl · 12:17PM

I have difficulty believing that scenario 1 is the true end goal. It reminds me of how vengeance was “just a test”. Yet, here we are with zos stating that they will no longer work on actually fixing cyrodiil. For whatever reason, they also refuse to listen to the active PvP player base. AOE sets, cross healing uncapped seem and feel like a real issue. They have the means to actually observe the data but refuse to apply it to GH. This “lighter” version in vengeance is essentially them saying AOE sets drain the system, but refuse to accept that changes that they have made have irrevocably led us to this point where they now refuse to work on GH.
I’ll give them that a smaller scale GH of sorts might solve the problem of population size but at the same time, having it open whilst vengeance, GH, black reach etc are all open is also going to dilute the population further to the point where they’ll probably throw us all back into one campaign: likely, vengeance. If you think about it, we have a mid scale PvP- imperial city; yet most players enjoy a larger map, open world, and the THREE ALLIANCE WAR. All the initial trailers for this game brought us to a cyrodiil fight. You advertise this game that way, but now you want to end the three banner war in a very unceremonious manner just telling us it can’t be fixed notwithstanding that we are telling you what to do. Could you respond to those demands and tell us whether you will at least listen to the player base or if you cannot, at least tell us why you won’t try.
Stop adding campaigns when you can’t even work on the main campaign and won’t even try. It feels traitorous.
Also, the data you’ve given us is highly skewed. You’ve ran three tests thus far and mention mostly the first test. Of course the first test will showcase high population. People are curious. How many did you see in your third test? Also, even in the information about the first test, why do you only show two days? I never saw any full bar for these vengeance tests. Are these results also mainly from PC.. I recall the first test was PC only..

HairyFairy · 12:30PM

I don't plan on coming back to ESO until PVP is in a better state. Reading this does make me feel like you are going in the right direction. I am fine with an entire overhaul and a new map that is larger then BG's sounds perfect.

I loved the vengeance tests. I think this is the best direction to move in because at the end of the day, all of us want to experience those mass scale battles and coordinated efforts to win fights. (just keep those ball group styles out of here)

I do want to say, from experiencing your campaigns over the years, I don't think your plan to keep two campaigns will work out.

Everyone flocks to Gray Host. Everyone will always go towards where the most action is leaving the other campaigns stale and dead..the leftovers of the main PVP community if you will.

The map is flipped yellow, blue, or red all night every night making the race to win a campaign useless.

Please reconsider this. It needs to be one campaign, the other will over time fall silent. The PVP community doesn't seem to be large enough to have both.

MsGurrl · 12:41PM

skinnycheeks wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

I’ve been playing Cyrodiil since 2015. We were all on old gen consoles and while performance wasn’t amazing it was definitely more playable than what we have today.

I’ll solve the dev’s performance headache for them. Remove aoe proc sets like vicious death, remove the 20 million vigor and regen ticks you can have active on you along with the thousand different shields you can stack and finally remove ballgroups and watch as Cyrodiil performance returns to normal

Problem solved. But alas, the devs won’t listen

Yeah this is along the lines with my thinking too. Having Vengeance is fine, but there are still solutions that could make Gray Host more performant. And even if it can never reach the 900 player count that Vengeance can, if it could still be worked on and get it to a spot with good performance with the current player cap, that could be nice too! Or if there could be small player cap increases over time as issues are resolved.

Basically, don't give up on making Gray Host better just because Vengeance has good performance.

Agreed. Thing is I believe vengeance had better performance bc in the second and especially the third test, far fewer people played it and instead wanted it done and over with so we could get back to our usual gaming. Notice they spoke very little about the second and third testing. And the surveys might not even be reflective of the population at large in that not all PvP players actually answered the surveys. I think many people were already feeling down because the idea had popped that they really wanted this vengeance campaign that the created.

reazea · 3:46PM

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!

Sure sounds like we should plan on scenario 2, which is a monumental blunder on the part of ZOS. Scenario 2 is the same thing as removing Cyrodiil from the game for all intents and purposes. The PvE players won't play any version of PvP and the PvP mains won't stick around for vengeance mode. Vengeance is a lose lose proposition.

And why is the player numbers axis on your graphs blurred out? Something is very not right with this presentation of data and accompanied statement.

reazea · 3:58PM

MsGurrl wrote: »

I have difficulty believing that scenario 1 is the true end goal. It reminds me of how vengeance was “just a test”. Yet, here we are with zos stating that they will no longer work on actually fixing cyrodiil. For whatever reason, they also refuse to listen to the active PvP player base. AOE sets, cross healing uncapped seem and feel like a real issue. They have the means to actually observe the data but refuse to apply it to GH. This “lighter” version in vengeance is essentially them saying AOE sets drain the system, but refuse to accept that changes that they have made have irrevocably led us to this point where they now refuse to work on GH.
I’ll give them that a smaller scale GH of sorts might solve the problem of population size but at the same time, having it open whilst vengeance, GH, black reach etc are all open is also going to dilute the population further to the point where they’ll probably throw us all back into one campaign: likely, vengeance. If you think about it, we have a mid scale PvP- imperial city; yet most players enjoy a larger map, open world, and the THREE ALLIANCE WAR. All the initial trailers for this game brought us to a cyrodiil fight. You advertise this game that way, but now you want to end the three banner war in a very unceremonious manner just telling us it can’t be fixed notwithstanding that we are telling you what to do. Could you respond to those demands and tell us whether you will at least listen to the player base or if you cannot, at least tell us why you won’t try.
Stop adding campaigns when you can’t even work on the main campaign and won’t even try. It feels traitorous.
Also, the data you’ve given us is highly skewed. You’ve ran three tests thus far and mention mostly the first test. Of course the first test will showcase high population. People are curious. How many did you see in your third test? Also, even in the information about the first test, why do you only show two days? I never saw any full bar for these vengeance tests. Are these results also mainly from PC.. I recall the first test was PC only..

I'm now 100% convinced a mandated vengeance campaign was the intended end point all along.

ZOS could fix Cyrodiil performance if they wanted to. They're choosing not to. That's the problem.

I'm so glad I've only spent about $50 on ESO since U35. And now I know not to ever spend another dime on anything Bethesda. So I guess it's good to know even though I'm very disappointed in these management decisions and the disrespect ZOS maintains for it's customers.

reazea · 4:04PM

MsGurrl wrote: »

skinnycheeks wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

I’ve been playing Cyrodiil since 2015. We were all on old gen consoles and while performance wasn’t amazing it was definitely more playable than what we have today.

I’ll solve the dev’s performance headache for them. Remove aoe proc sets like vicious death, remove the 20 million vigor and regen ticks you can have active on you along with the thousand different shields you can stack and finally remove ballgroups and watch as Cyrodiil performance returns to normal

Problem solved. But alas, the devs won’t listen

Yeah this is along the lines with my thinking too. Having Vengeance is fine, but there are still solutions that could make Gray Host more performant. And even if it can never reach the 900 player count that Vengeance can, if it could still be worked on and get it to a spot with good performance with the current player cap, that could be nice too! Or if there could be small player cap increases over time as issues are resolved.

Basically, don't give up on making Gray Host better just because Vengeance has good performance.

Agreed. Thing is I believe vengeance had better performance bc in the second and especially the third test, far fewer people played it and instead wanted it done and over with so we could get back to our usual gaming. Notice they spoke very little about the second and third testing. And the surveys might not even be reflective of the population at large in that not all PvP players actually answered the surveys. I think many people were already feeling down because the idea had popped that they really wanted this vengeance campaign that the created.

Ya, the last vengeance campaign was dead even during prime time. And performance wasn't any better than live grey host. ZOS clearly isn't presenting data from the latest test. They're clearly pushing a narrative here that isn't backed up with the latest data. This whole statement looks and feels like an effort to soften us up for the inevitable scenario 2.

MsGurrl · 4:24PM

Sidewaves89 wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Sidewaves89 wrote: »

So basically you gave up on trying to improve performance in current campaigns. If Scenario 2 come true what's the point for pvp players in buying new DLCs if sets won't work there?

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.

But there were a short period of time (maybe 3-5 months) after datacenter hardware replacements in 2022 (NA) and 2023 (EU) when the performance in Cyro was almost normal, but then for some reason it gradually degraded to almost its pre-update state. We still don't know why it happened.

Probably all them added AOE sets

reazea · 4:38PM

I just realized something very important to this discussion.

Vengeance 1 was sold to us as being a test system so they could gather data and improve normal live Cyrodiil.

With this post Jessica is saying ZOS will not be making any effort to improve normal live Cyrodiil at any point in the future and they're developing vengeance to probably replace grey host.

So the statement that vengeance was an effort to improve live Cyrodiil was never a true statement. ....just like we've been pointing out all along.

peacenote · 4:43PM

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

So you wanna stop trying to fix GH Cyrodiil, because we cant archive 900 people? Why not just trying to adjust it to 600 for example and keep trying?

Right?!? This is my #1 question. I'm not sure how we went from "please fix things like the stuck in combat bug" to "we MUST have the most number of players in battle to make Cyrodiil epic at the cost of all other things that have made it fun over the years." Yes, there was some short-lived enthusiasm for the larger battles in the first Vengeance tests, but it got old really, really fast because everything was so dumbed down.

The cognitive dissonance is strong. HOW can the same devs who served up scribing, subclassing, and boatloads of new sets every update not see how Vengeance is the exact opposite of those features? Most players who enjoy the complexity of the game will not find a PvP mode that limits creativity and builds to be interesting for long at all. I'm not saying those other items weren't released without issues, but it's like sub-teams are working completely isolated in silos without taking a moment to collaborate, look at the bigger picture, and align with the overall game strategy and what their community members actually find to be fun and fulfilling gameplay.

I play almost every aspect of ESO today. I PvP and I PvE. And I know that I have zero desire to play in a templated, PvP environment... which is why I've basically paused engaging with PvP until this process completed. I didn't want to get too "into" exploring PvP builds with subclassing only to have it be ripped away, which frankly seems inevitable based on how I interpret this announcement. Yes, technically there are two options listed, but the writing's on the wall. And as transparent as this announcement is, and as much as ZOS is obviously allowed to change their minds whenever they want on their game, I do remember all the assurances that the Vengeance campaign was just a test. I also remember someone writing a comment that there's no way ZOS would put all of that effort into adjusted abilities for each class and this whole different mode if it was just a test. I can't help but feel that, while they may be communicating truthfully now, that we were initially misled about intentions... and that bothers me a lot. There is no option listed that doesn't say "Open a Vengeance Campaign." Nor does it say, anywhere in this message, that due to positive feedback or outcomes of the tests that they actively changed their minds about considering the Vengeance mode as simply a test. All of a sudden, we're magically just here.

I certainly don't know what everyone is thinking, and can't read everyone's minds, but I think there is an analysis to be done here on the survey feedback that clearly illustrates the sentiments of the community in response to the tests. Some quotes (emphasis mine):

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

For the first test...
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.

Ah, the first test. Back when everyone believed that "this was just a test" so they enthusiastically told ZOS which things were improved in this campaign. I felt the need to provide feedback that the lack of builds and customization was not fun, just in case ZOS would take the enthusiasm as a signal that Vengeance mode as-is was better than a fully functioning Cyrodiil. Apparently, I wasn't the only one. It is really important for ZOS to understand that most of the feedback given was through the lens of "this would be awesome IF we could get these improvements in real Cyrodiil" not "oh my gosh, this is way cooler than what we had before!"

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

For the second test...
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.

I remember the skill line question being a red flag to me here. Why do we need to rate them if it's just a test? I don't know if the participant numbers went down, but I'd guess that most of the "real" PvP'ers did not spend as much time in this test as the first one (I know I didn't), but, again, most of us believed that "this was just a test" so feedback submitted was under the banner of "in this test environment, this is what was good" as opposed to "in this environment, which could replace what we have, this is why we like it BETTER than GH."

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

For the third test...
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.

I appreciate the honesty about "less positivity," but this little paragraph really says it all. People want to play their unique characters and builds in Cyrodiil. I think it was starting to become more obvious to people, at this time, that Vengeance just might not be a test.

If you look at these three little feedback paragraphs back-to-back, I truly don't understand how the conclusion isn't "let's take what we learned and do everything we can to improve performance in Cyrodiil, even if it isn't quite as good as the Vengeance tests" as opposed to "open up a Vengeance campaign or ONLY Vengeance campaigns." In my opinion, it's disingenuous to gather data about a "test" and then use some of that data to justify turning the test into one of two or the only option available in the future. People might have answered the questions differently, and might have been more negative and clear about their desire for customization and builds, if they knew it was an option that we'd lose them.

It's kind of like giving everyone in the population with a vehicle a Hot Wheels toy car with a new color, and then putting out a survey to ask if people like the new color, and then using the survey results which stated the new color was "cool" to justify seizing everyone's real vehicles, leaving them only with the Hot Wheels toy car. Just because the survey-takers liked the toy car's color doesn't mean they liked it better than their real vehicle!

If ZOS is determined to go down this path... well, it's their game. But I object to positive feedback solicited in a different context being cited and somewhat implying that this is how we got here. ZOS should just own it, and be clear that this is what they want to do and that they're going to do it. Because overall, I don't think it's what the community wants and if we were asked that question directly in the tests ("Did you enjoy playing in this test, AS-IS, more than GH Cyrodiil, and would you consider it an improvement if it were to replace it?"), they'd have that feedback. Instead, this feels more like the AwA fiasco, where we were told "it was what we all wanted" when in reality it was done for performance. And, just like AwA, there will be people that will like the Vengeance campaigns, but overall the changes don't seem like they are being done to improve the game for the target audience currently enjoying the functionality.

To conclude, I guess the other questions I'd like answered are: "When was it decided that Vengeance was going to be an outcome of these tests? When you reference the 'most players ever in Cyrodiil at one time,' have you thought about how many people present in Vengeance would have stayed in regular PvP if they had a choice during that time period? Perhaps should you try a Vengeance test alongside GH being available, to see if enough people really select Vengeance over another option and are interested in using it long term? Why, if only one campaign can remain, must it be Vengeance only, if the community prefers a fully featured environment? Wouldn't it make sense to test the two against each other, and monitor those volumes, before making the final decision and landing on "only two options?"

MsGurrl · 4:46PM

reazea wrote: »

I just realized something very important to this discussion.

Vengeance 1 was sold to us as being a test system so they could gather data and improve normal live Cyrodiil.

With this post Jessica is saying ZOS will not be making any effort to improve normal live Cyrodiil.

So the statement that vengeance was an effort to improve live Cyrodiil was never a true statement. ....just like we've been pointing out all along.

Yes. Exactly what many had already noticed by the second and especially by the third test. They’re essentially trying to ween us off cyrodiil and replace it by pre-made content. I don’t blame them but a lot of this stems from all these changes they made in particular the AOE sets like VD and DC, added to that the uncapped cross healing, excessive shield stacking, plus the classing system, probably all have contribute to poor performance. They haven’t shown much interest in further developing cyrodiil as they have with PvE. The map looks exactly the same with little changed feature and at this point they probably can’t even add any of that because it’ll disrupt the servers even more.
So yea.. they’re just trying to slowly ween us off.

Lord_Graas · 4:49PM

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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

Because it's the only event that takes place in the summer and doesn't repeat. If you hold Jester's Festival or Witches Festival event in the summer, they'll also be the least popular among players. Even Anniversary Jubilee. Personally, I like Zeal of Zenithar more than any other. Only the New Life Festival is the absolute winner.

Maybe you should move this event back in the schedule? For example, to September? And only hold repeatable events in the summer: Undaunted Celebration, Whitestrake's Mayhem, DLC-themed events.

MsGurrl · 4:51PM

SneaK wrote: »

loosej wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

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.
[/list]
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.

Are we actually supposed to believe ZOS prefers scenario #1????

There has been absolutely (ABSOLUTELY) zero evidence to support the claim that you prefer to keep Cyrodiil as is for PvPrs. This is truly remarkable, we knew all along the intention of Vengenace was to enact scenario #2. The fact that y'all are now finally saying it, but still drudging our hope along is wild. Just tell us what is happening! Do we stop playing the game or not? That’s what it boils down to. Are you investing in us the same as we are to you? The answer is historically no, but at what point do you do good on the fan base that came to ESO for Cyrodiil.

If I were to make a guess, they'll probably start with scenario 1, and hope that the GH crowd moves to the new game mode so that in time they can switch to scenario 2 without upsetting a large part of what's left of the current pvp mains. If the new game mode can offer the live cyro experience without the performance issues, that would probably be the best path forward.

Just being honest. I’m on an Xbox Series X, I don’t see the performance problems everyone talks about. I remember on the old gen I did. The issues I see aren’t even related to Cyrodiil, I lag out from time to time in my menu or in dungeons. I never lag out in Cyrodiil.

And also, “the best path forward” for who? We have a decade of memories in Cyrodiil and still log in nightly making more. A new “smaller” mode cannot replace what we have.

Tired of the smoke and mirrors.

I think a lot of us feel this way.

reazea · 5:07PM

This statement from ZOS makes it clear those of us who despise vengeance and will never play any version of vengeance have only one option now:

We have to boycott participation in all vengeance going forward and hope ZOS figures out vengeance is a fail in every way.

reazea · 5:14PM

@ZOS_JessicaFolsom

Can we please see the data from the second and third tests and their associated surveys?

Population during the last vengeance test was way lower than live Cyrodiil grey host normally is. And the pop cap was no where near 900 as it may have been for the first instance of vengeance. (I'm done calling vengeance a test because ZOS has confirmed it's not a test but rather the development of a new game mode as we've always feared)

tomofhyrule · 5:49PM

peacenote wrote: »

Perhaps should you try a Vengeance test alongside GH being available, to see if enough people really select Vengeance over another option and are interested in using it long term? Why, if only one campaign can remain, must it be Vengeance only, if the community prefers a fully featured environment? Wouldn't it make sense to test the two against each other, and monitor those volumes, before making the final decision and landing on "only two options?"

This is the concept of the Vengeance test next week, at least partly. They said they plan to host GH alongside Vengeance for the latter half of the test.

I am not happy with ZOS’s decision at all, and - after the unwelcome BG reworks last year, the disappointing non-answers on the Reddit AMA, and the utter balancing catastrophe that was Subclassing and the lack of any effort to address it since, not to mention the constant march toward homogenization with respect to hybridization - it’s obvious why the playerbase is extremely unhappy with a certain Combat Team and especially its lead right now. And now instead of trying to fix problems, we’re just getting hints that the answer will be to… ignore them more and move on to something else? I would hope that we’d eventually get Wheeler to have a Q&A with the community without constantly getting served softballs, but we don’t even have that Cyro Q&A from last year yet.

My one - one - ray of hope here is that, since BGs and IC will still use standard rules (even as unpopulated as they are) and they’re implying that this new mode will also be standard rules, that Grey Host then won’t be completely ignored. There will still be a reason for them to attempt to balance the game for those modes, which will de facto help balance Grey Host. (Now as to whether the team intends to balance the game or even can do so is a different issue).
In fact, if Vengeance is as is, it may therefore not even need to be addressed in the future - they could drop it and forget it (unless we get a new Class or something that they add in), while the standard PvP modes could still at least get balance work done.

But the fact that the only Vengeance test that was hitting pop cap when there was a Golden Pursuit (and everyone was in the “ooh, let’s see the new thing” phase) pushing people into it suggests that it’s not going to be capped normally. Any permanent campaign must necessarily overlap with events and non-relevant Golden Pursuits, so that needs to be considered.

The best thing for PvPers to do now is make sure they are there for the second half of the upcoming Vengeance test to show that they would prefer GH over Vengeance. Maybe if the team sees that GH - even with its flaws - is still favored over Vengeance by the majority of hardcore PvPers, then they may need to shift their priorities again. A mode which is specifically designed as “PvP for non-PvPers” may not be able to hold up once those non-PvPers have had their fill.

I do still think there are some things they could do for Cyrodiil that would help. I still don’t understand why the “limit players to having one of each HoT ticking at a time” concept was never considered, despite being begged for for years by now. They also seriously need to fix the bonuses to encourage underdog alliances to come in instead of making it so a one-color map will just stay that way for the whole month. But it feels bad that it seems the only thing they consider is “here’s a set that you could farm for if you weren’t constantly getting rekt by balls that could possibly be a zergbuster, assuming you were in a ball yourself.”

StihlReign · 7:23PM

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

So you wanna stop trying to fix GH Cyrodiil, because we cant archive 900 people? Why not just trying to adjust it to 600 for example and keep trying?

Not sure they really care about Cyrodiil - it feels more like they don't want to 'fix' (change) combat.

Nothing we do to NPCs is a problem except killing them too fast enmasse. Sets in this category are nerfed, typically with a note and some reference to the server. PvPers then complain because the same sets initially killed Cyrodiil's more oppressive groups, meanwhile the groups become efficient with those nerfed sets and kill the server through relentless farming. Subclassing, no tuning.

The devs have been receptive to a few PvP changes but that tends to taper off if they impact PvE groups.

To improve Cyrodiil, healing and damage would need to change, which affects PvE. If PvE combat is perfect without PvPs influence, and ESO is essentially a solo RP MMO, we're probably seeing the end of ESO PvP without some pretty directed changes to base game combat. The devs built Template PvP to solve the PvP problem. Play how you want PvP => template.

PvE, no more worries. Beeeam

I'm guessing BGs will be on the chopping block shortly, it feels like the devs have moved on...