Item Set Testing in Vengeance

Fidget1302 · July 17

aetherix8 wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Except it hasn’t been packed. The campaign has literally never filled during any of these tests.

Your continuous false claims completely discredit your whole argument.

22/09/2025 PC EU

04/12/2025 PC EU

20/04/2026 PC EU

The very first test was also pop locked, but I didn't consider it necessary to take screenshots at that time.

I think most are talking about the population status in Vengeance currently, as of July 2026. When ball groups and sweaties are being unkillable gods smashing everything in GH, I go to BR, but it's usually dead, so then I go to Vengeance, and it's also very, very dead when I go. The pop in Veng is decent at prime hours sometimes. Outside of that, it's dead as dead can be. The reason the devs are still pushing Veng down our throats is that they want so very badly to solve the performance issues that can ONLY be solved by updating servers. It's a lost cause. They will never fix it no matter how many Veng tests they run.

The last two tests they did, Veng performance for me was horrendous. I was having issues pop up that I haven't dealt with in YEARS. Content creators and streamers have posted vids of their time in Veng and how bad the performance and overall lack of variety are.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee · July 17

aetherix8 wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Except it hasn’t been packed. The campaign has literally never filled during any of these tests.

Your continuous false claims completely discredit your whole argument.

22/09/2025 PC EU

04/12/2025 PC EU

20/04/2026 PC EU

The very first test was also pop locked, but I didn't consider it necessary to take screenshots at that time.

Your screen shots literally prove my point, god am I arguing with humans even? Show me a single vengeance test queue please, you can’t. Once again proof that even with all of the artificial advantages stacked in favor of the campaign it fails to consistently fill the numbers it’s designed to support. Not to mention EU is by far the most populated vengeance server, PC NA doesn’t go past 2 bar during these tests.

quickblade418 · July 17

Ive been playing vengeance in the first campaign, we made a guild with newly met DC players and together our guild won the campaign for DC, I was emperor for a majority of it. I love the campaign so much, it reminds me a bit of ravenwatch but more unique. I just wanted to say that vengeance has alot of potential, but I dont think binging in the 15 thousands sets pieces in is a good idea in itself, maybe its just for testing purpose and never will be implement. If there was sets to implement, I would do mythics + monster sets only. I cant imagine the nightmare to balance out all the others sets for standarized stats as Vengeance (op regens, health etc) some sets that scales off those will benefit way too much. Just my two cents, peace

ZOS_Amy · July 17

We want to acknowledge all of the questions on why we're continuing to do these tests. Ultimately, we're still answering questions that will inform the future of PvP that can only be answered with a concentrated player population in a live environment.

Throughout Vengeance testing, we've been isolating different parts of ESO's combat systems to better understand what has the biggest impact on server performance during large-scale battles. What we've consistently seen is that reducing overall combat complexity allows Cyrodiil to support significantly more players with much better performance. Every ability in ESO can interact with passives, Champion Points, Item Sets, status effects, buffs, debuffs, and other systems. Each of those interactions requires additional server processing, and in large-scale PvP those checks add up quickly. That's why we're continuing these tests. We're testing and proving hypotheses in the environment that counts the most: the live game. Vengeance is still a testing environment, and to answer those questions with confidence, we need players participating in the same testing environment rather than split across multiple campaigns.

For those of you asking for Item Sets and to have more build options, this next round of testing is designed to answer exactly that question. Previous tests helped us establish a stable baseline. Now we're evaluating whether Item Sets can be reintroduced while preserving the performance improvements we've seen. If the data shows they don't meaningfully impact performance, that's a path we can explore further.

We also know there are players who enjoy Vengeance specifically because it offers a different gameplay experience than traditional Cyrodiil campaigns. Many of you have shared concerns about gameplay patterns associated with Item Sets and those concerns are just as important to this process. The goal isn't simply to restore systems because players asked for them. It's to understand what can be added back while preserving both the gameplay identity and the performance improvements that many of you have come to enjoy.

Whatever the outcome, this testing helps us make informed decisions about the future of PvP. If Item Sets prove to be compatible with those goals, that's something we'll be able to explore further. If they don't, that tells us something equally valuable and helps us evaluate other ways to expand build customization while maintaining the strengths Vengeance has demonstrated.

We know these temporary changes aren't how everyone wants to play, and we sincerely appreciate everyone who participates, shares feedback and helps us gather the data that will shape what comes next.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee · July 17

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

We want to acknowledge all of the questions on why we're continuing to do these tests. Ultimately, we're still answering questions that will inform the future of PvP that can only be answered with a concentrated player population in a live environment.

Throughout Vengeance testing, we've been isolating different parts of ESO's combat systems to better understand what has the biggest impact on server performance during large-scale battles. What we've consistently seen is that reducing overall combat complexity allows Cyrodiil to support significantly more players with much better performance. Every ability in ESO can interact with passives, Champion Points, Item Sets, status effects, buffs, debuffs, and other systems. Each of those interactions requires additional server processing, and in large-scale PvP those checks add up quickly. That's why we're continuing these tests. We're testing and proving hypotheses in the environment that counts the most: the live game. Vengeance is still a testing environment, and to answer those questions with confidence, we need players participating in the same testing environment rather than split across multiple campaigns.

For those of you asking for Item Sets and to have more build options, this next round of testing is designed to answer exactly that question. Previous tests helped us establish a stable baseline. Now we're evaluating whether Item Sets can be reintroduced while preserving the performance improvements we've seen. If the data shows they don't meaningfully impact performance, that's a path we can explore further.

We also know there are players who enjoy Vengeance specifically because it offers a different gameplay experience than traditional Cyrodiil campaigns. Many of you have shared concerns about gameplay patterns associated with Item Sets and those concerns are just as important to this process. The goal isn't simply to restore systems because players asked for them. It's to understand what can be added back while preserving both the gameplay identity and the performance improvements that many of you have come to enjoy.

Whatever the outcome, this testing helps us make informed decisions about the future of PvP. If Item Sets prove to be compatible with those goals, that's something we'll be able to explore further. If they don't, that tells us something equally valuable and helps us evaluate other ways to expand build customization while maintaining the strengths Vengeance has demonstrated.

We know these temporary changes aren't how everyone wants to play, and we sincerely appreciate everyone who participates, shares feedback and helps us gather the data that will shape what comes next.

@ZOS_Amy

Thank you for finally providing more insight into the reasoning behind these tests. Unfortunately, this post only reinforces the concerns many of us have had for over a year now.

Throughout this response, Gray Host is barely mentioned, while Vengeance itself is repeatedly referenced as having a distinct “gameplay identity,” “strengths,” and a playerbase whose preferences should be preserved. Phrases such as:

“preserving both the gameplay identity and the performance improvements…”

and

“maintaining the strengths Vengeance has demonstrated”

make it increasingly difficult to believe that these tests are primarily about improving traditional Cyrodiil.

To many of us, this reads as though the focus has shifted from fixing Gray Host to developing Vengeance into the future of PvP.

Last year, these tests were presented as an effort to determine what was causing lag in Cyrodiil and how those findings could eventually improve the experience in our main campaign. Yet after more than a year, there has been virtually no communication explaining how the data gathered from Vengeance has directly benefited Gray Host. Instead, we continue seeing further iterations of Vengeance itself.

If the intention truly is to improve Gray Host, then please explain specifically how these tests are being applied to it and why the main campaign continues to be removed in order to conduct them.

Gray Host remains the most populated and most played PvP campaign. Many of us continue paying for and supporting this game specifically to play that experience. Repeatedly taking it away to further tests for a ruleset that a large portion of the PvP community has shown little interest in is becoming increasingly frustrating.

At this point, many players feel that Gray Host is being sidelined while development resources are being directed toward a game mode they never asked for.

If you wish to continue developing Vengeance, then please do so without removing the main campaign from those of us who simply want to play traditional Cyrodiil.

Once again, I encourage players who share these concerns to consider not participating in next week’s tests. Participation numbers are feedback too, and if the community disagrees with the continued removal of Gray Host, then that sentiment should be reflected both on the forums and in-game.

BodhiLady · July 17

I appreciate the response but ignoring the fact very very few people want this to happen, let alone happen by shutting down the actual popular pvp campaign is borderline insulting.

Dyngrin · July 17

Most of the comments in this thread are not questions but requests/demands that ZOS changes its upcoming Vengeance plans.

1. "...seen is that reducing overall combat complexity..." --- Instead of building up from scratch, I suggest you simply remove all AoE abilities in Gray Host since they are a multiplier of an ability's complexity. There are too many spam-able AoEs in the game anyway and removing them would see the end of Ball Groups.

2. "Vengeance is still a testing environment..." --- And yet you plan to remove Gray Host for this latest testing which is in a PRODUCTION environment. Removing Gray Host will not have those playing there go to Vengeance from what I've seen in the many previous tests. The comments in this thread reinforce this prediction.

So as a paying customer (ESO Plus, probably not for long), I request that Gray Host remain open during the upcoming Vengeance tests.

--Dyn

gammelscroll · July 17

Fix greyhost instead! Balanced classes and fix lag ,exploit and everything thats going on in greyhost.
Now one play vengeance...
Why cant you ever listen to players voices??

MorallyBipolar · July 17

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

Hello All,

As part of our ongoing PvP work in ESO, we will be testing the addition of Item Sets in the Vengeance campaign next week. For this test, most Item Set "final bonuses" will be active as we look at server performance. This includes Mythics, Monster masks and shoulders, and five- or three-piece set "final bonuses." Other stats from Item Set bonuses will not be active during this test, even though the UI displays them as enabled.

Some sets are currently not providing bonuses, and this is a known issue, though the majority are.

With this test, both the Gray Host and Blackreach Cyrodiil campaigns will be closed from July 20th to July 27th, unless it is determined that we need to turn them back on due to performance issues in Vengeance.

As always, please let us know your thoughts and feedback during the testing period.

HUGE MISTAKE!

Just when I thought ZOS couldn't be any more tone deaf to their customer base, this happens.

@ZOS_Kevin
@ZOS_Amy

MorallyBipolar · July 17

AdonisJorge wrote: »

ToddIngram wrote: »

rlindsey912nub18_ESO wrote: »

Catering to pvers is why the game is in it’s current state lowering the ceiling and raising the floor.Good and bad players are not equal

AdonisJorge wrote: »

PVP community here is one of the worst that i have seen, want a balanced PVP but do not want their busted sets and builds affected by the balance. Let the Greyhost cease to exist if needed, if these people do not like or quit the game is for the better IMO. Let better people stay or new people come to play, PVE is the majority of the community and need a better place to learn and not be farmed on by the same people that says that PVP is dead or unbalanced

When you guys get your wish and ZOS removes PvP the entire game dies, including your beloved PvE, housing and role playing.

ZOS will not remove PVP, (neither do i want it to be removed) and no, the game would not die if it is removed or changed the way it is right now, and about the other things it makes no sense, it is literaly a MMORPG

Everything ZOS is doing in regards to vengeance makes it appear as though removing Grey Host is, in fact, the end game and will be the end of the game if ZOS keeps this up.

MorallyBipolar · July 17

aetherix8 wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Except it hasn’t been packed. The campaign has literally never filled during any of these tests.

Your continuous false claims completely discredit your whole argument.

22/09/2025 PC EU

04/12/2025 PC EU

20/04/2026 PC EU

The very first test was also pop locked, but I didn't consider it necessary to take screenshots at that time.

Deliberately misinforming by posting pop numbers taken only when vengeance was the only option and there were golden pursuit and AP incentives to be in vengeance isn't going to make the point you're trying to make.

Normally vengeance is essentially dead. it's been more than two weeks since vengeance saw more than 1 bar population on PC NA.

MorallyBipolar · July 17

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

We want to acknowledge all of the questions on why we're continuing to do these tests. Ultimately, we're still answering questions that will inform the future of PvP that can only be answered with a concentrated player population in a live environment.

Throughout Vengeance testing, we've been isolating different parts of ESO's combat systems to better understand what has the biggest impact on server performance during large-scale battles. What we've consistently seen is that reducing overall combat complexity allows Cyrodiil to support significantly more players with much better performance. Every ability in ESO can interact with passives, Champion Points, Item Sets, status effects, buffs, debuffs, and other systems. Each of those interactions requires additional server processing, and in large-scale PvP those checks add up quickly. That's why we're continuing these tests. We're testing and proving hypotheses in the environment that counts the most: the live game. Vengeance is still a testing environment, and to answer those questions with confidence, we need players participating in the same testing environment rather than split across multiple campaigns.

For those of you asking for Item Sets and to have more build options, this next round of testing is designed to answer exactly that question. Previous tests helped us establish a stable baseline. Now we're evaluating whether Item Sets can be reintroduced while preserving the performance improvements we've seen. If the data shows they don't meaningfully impact performance, that's a path we can explore further.

We also know there are players who enjoy Vengeance specifically because it offers a different gameplay experience than traditional Cyrodiil campaigns. Many of you have shared concerns about gameplay patterns associated with Item Sets and those concerns are just as important to this process. The goal isn't simply to restore systems because players asked for them. It's to understand what can be added back while preserving both the gameplay identity and the performance improvements that many of you have come to enjoy.

Whatever the outcome, this testing helps us make informed decisions about the future of PvP. If Item Sets prove to be compatible with those goals, that's something we'll be able to explore further. If they don't, that tells us something equally valuable and helps us evaluate other ways to expand build customization while maintaining the strengths Vengeance has demonstrated.

We know these temporary changes aren't how everyone wants to play, and we sincerely appreciate everyone who participates, shares feedback and helps us gather the data that will shape what comes next.

When are we going to see performance improvements in Grey Host? Or how about when is ZOS going to even try to increase the population cap in Grey Host? We've been strung along for over a year now with no results again.

MorallyBipolar · July 17

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

We want to acknowledge all of the questions on why we're continuing to do these tests. Ultimately, we're still answering questions that will inform the future of PvP that can only be answered with a concentrated player population in a live environment.

Throughout Vengeance testing, we've been isolating different parts of ESO's combat systems to better understand what has the biggest impact on server performance during large-scale battles. What we've consistently seen is that reducing overall combat complexity allows Cyrodiil to support significantly more players with much better performance. Every ability in ESO can interact with passives, Champion Points, Item Sets, status effects, buffs, debuffs, and other systems. Each of those interactions requires additional server processing, and in large-scale PvP those checks add up quickly. That's why we're continuing these tests. We're testing and proving hypotheses in the environment that counts the most: the live game. Vengeance is still a testing environment, and to answer those questions with confidence, we need players participating in the same testing environment rather than split across multiple campaigns.

For those of you asking for Item Sets and to have more build options, this next round of testing is designed to answer exactly that question. Previous tests helped us establish a stable baseline. Now we're evaluating whether Item Sets can be reintroduced while preserving the performance improvements we've seen. If the data shows they don't meaningfully impact performance, that's a path we can explore further.

We also know there are players who enjoy Vengeance specifically because it offers a different gameplay experience than traditional Cyrodiil campaigns. Many of you have shared concerns about gameplay patterns associated with Item Sets and those concerns are just as important to this process. The goal isn't simply to restore systems because players asked for them. It's to understand what can be added back while preserving both the gameplay identity and the performance improvements that many of you have come to enjoy.

Whatever the outcome, this testing helps us make informed decisions about the future of PvP. If Item Sets prove to be compatible with those goals, that's something we'll be able to explore further. If they don't, that tells us something equally valuable and helps us evaluate other ways to expand build customization while maintaining the strengths Vengeance has demonstrated.

We know these temporary changes aren't how everyone wants to play, and we sincerely appreciate everyone who participates, shares feedback and helps us gather the data that will shape what comes next.

@ZOS_Amy

Thank you for finally providing more insight into the reasoning behind these tests. Unfortunately, this post only reinforces the concerns many of us have had for over a year now.

Throughout this response, Gray Host is barely mentioned, while Vengeance itself is repeatedly referenced as having a distinct “gameplay identity,” “strengths,” and a playerbase whose preferences should be preserved. Phrases such as:

“preserving both the gameplay identity and the performance improvements…”

and

“maintaining the strengths Vengeance has demonstrated”

make it increasingly difficult to believe that these tests are primarily about improving traditional Cyrodiil.

To many of us, this reads as though the focus has shifted from fixing Gray Host to developing Vengeance into the future of PvP.

Last year, these tests were presented as an effort to determine what was causing lag in Cyrodiil and how those findings could eventually improve the experience in our main campaign. Yet after more than a year, there has been virtually no communication explaining how the data gathered from Vengeance has directly benefited Gray Host. Instead, we continue seeing further iterations of Vengeance itself.

If the intention truly is to improve Gray Host, then please explain specifically how these tests are being applied to it and why the main campaign continues to be removed in order to conduct them.

Gray Host remains the most populated and most played PvP campaign. Many of us continue paying for and supporting this game specifically to play that experience. Repeatedly taking it away to further tests for a ruleset that a large portion of the PvP community has shown little interest in is becoming increasingly frustrating.

At this point, many players feel that Gray Host is being sidelined while development resources are being directed toward a game mode they never asked for.

If you wish to continue developing Vengeance, then please do so without removing the main campaign from those of us who simply want to play traditional Cyrodiil.

Once again, I encourage players who share these concerns to consider not participating in next week’s tests. Participation numbers are feedback too, and if the community disagrees with the continued removal of Gray Host, then that sentiment should be reflected both on the forums and in-game.

If Grey Host is removed from the game everyone I know that hasn't left yet will leave.

CatalinaWineMixer2 · July 17

We will gladly help gather data for fair and enjoyable PvP. We have organized Guild events to do so and if we can help with this in any way, let us know.

BardokRedSnow · July 17

CatalinaWineMixer2 wrote: »

We will gladly help gather data for fair and enjoyable PvP. We have organized Guild events to do so and if we can help with this in any way, let us know.

Not me, you enjoy, I’ll be playing another game instead or doing BGs, only time I step foot in vengeance is to see how dead the population is.

Mattymoo92 · July 17

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

We want to acknowledge all of the questions on why we're continuing to do these tests. Ultimately, we're still answering questions that will inform the future of PvP that can only be answered with a concentrated player population in a live environment.

Throughout Vengeance testing, we've been isolating different parts of ESO's combat systems to better understand what has the biggest impact on server performance during large-scale battles. What we've consistently seen is that reducing overall combat complexity allows Cyrodiil to support significantly more players with much better performance. Every ability in ESO can interact with passives, Champion Points, Item Sets, status effects, buffs, debuffs, and other systems. Each of those interactions requires additional server processing, and in large-scale PvP those checks add up quickly. That's why we're continuing these tests. We're testing and proving hypotheses in the environment that counts the most: the live game. Vengeance is still a testing environment, and to answer those questions with confidence, we need players participating in the same testing environment rather than split across multiple campaigns.

For those of you asking for Item Sets and to have more build options, this next round of testing is designed to answer exactly that question. Previous tests helped us establish a stable baseline. Now we're evaluating whether Item Sets can be reintroduced while preserving the performance improvements we've seen. If the data shows they don't meaningfully impact performance, that's a path we can explore further.

We also know there are players who enjoy Vengeance specifically because it offers a different gameplay experience than traditional Cyrodiil campaigns. Many of you have shared concerns about gameplay patterns associated with Item Sets and those concerns are just as important to this process. The goal isn't simply to restore systems because players asked for them. It's to understand what can be added back while preserving both the gameplay identity and the performance improvements that many of you have come to enjoy.

Whatever the outcome, this testing helps us make informed decisions about the future of PvP. If Item Sets prove to be compatible with those goals, that's something we'll be able to explore further. If they don't, that tells us something equally valuable and helps us evaluate other ways to expand build customization while maintaining the strengths Vengeance has demonstrated.

We know these temporary changes aren't how everyone wants to play, and we sincerely appreciate everyone who participates, shares feedback and helps us gather the data that will shape what comes next.

PLEASE can we have double AP as a reward for testing? Like the other times it’ll cure the wound that removing greyhost causes for me

ivaylo.krumoveb17_ESO · July 17

Is there a way to explain to you that doing testing on live servers is a no-go? Will you ever learn something, anything? Do Microsoft have to axe all of you so the game can be left at peace at last? ZOS became the a laughing stock of the MMO community yet you still continue as if nothing happened. If you need to test something you hire playtesters. If you can't afford playtesters, and obviously you can not, you enter maintenance mode. It is as simple as that.

Marto · July 17

Dyngrin wrote: »

Most of the comments in this thread are not questions but requests/demands that ZOS changes its upcoming Vengeance plans.

1. "...seen is that reducing overall combat complexity..." --- Instead of building up from scratch, I suggest you simply remove all AoE abilities in Gray Host since they are a multiplier of an ability's complexity. There are too many spam-able AoEs in the game anyway and removing them would see the end of Ball Groups.

They already did this in a variety of different ways during the Cyrodiil tests in 2019-2023.

There's no need to repeat a test that didn't succeed. We already know removing or limiting AoE abilities in Grey Host does not meaningfully improve performance.

shadyjane62 · July 17

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

We want to acknowledge all of the questions on why we're continuing to do these tests. Ultimately, we're still answering questions that will inform the future of PvP that can only be answered with a concentrated player population in a live environment.

Throughout Vengeance testing, we've been isolating different parts of ESO's combat systems to better understand what has the biggest impact on server performance during large-scale battles. What we've consistently seen is that reducing overall combat complexity allows Cyrodiil to support significantly more players with much better performance. Every ability in ESO can interact with passives, Champion Points, Item Sets, status effects, buffs, debuffs, and other systems. Each of those interactions requires additional server processing, and in large-scale PvP those checks add up quickly. That's why we're continuing these tests. We're testing and proving hypotheses in the environment that counts the most: the live game. Vengeance is still a testing environment, and to answer those questions with confidence, we need players participating in the same testing environment rather than split across multiple campaigns.

For those of you asking for Item Sets and to have more build options, this next round of testing is designed to answer exactly that question. Previous tests helped us establish a stable baseline. Now we're evaluating whether Item Sets can be reintroduced while preserving the performance improvements we've seen. If the data shows they don't meaningfully impact performance, that's a path we can explore further.

We also know there are players who enjoy Vengeance specifically because it offers a different gameplay experience than traditional Cyrodiil campaigns. Many of you have shared concerns about gameplay patterns associated with Item Sets and those concerns are just as important to this process. The goal isn't simply to restore systems because players asked for them. It's to understand what can be added back while preserving both the gameplay identity and the performance improvements that many of you have come to enjoy.

Whatever the outcome, this testing helps us make informed decisions about the future of PvP. If Item Sets prove to be compatible with those goals, that's something we'll be able to explore further. If they don't, that tells us something equally valuable and helps us evaluate other ways to expand build customization while maintaining the strengths Vengeance has demonstrated.

We know these temporary changes aren't how everyone wants to play, and we sincerely appreciate everyone who participates, shares feedback and helps us gather the data that will shape what comes next.

@ZOS_Amy

Thank you for finally providing more insight into the reasoning behind these tests. Unfortunately, this post only reinforces the concerns many of us have had for over a year now.

Throughout this response, Gray Host is barely mentioned, while Vengeance itself is repeatedly referenced as having a distinct “gameplay identity,” “strengths,” and a playerbase whose preferences should be preserved. Phrases such as:

“preserving both the gameplay identity and the performance improvements…”

and

“maintaining the strengths Vengeance has demonstrated”

make it increasingly difficult to believe that these tests are primarily about improving traditional Cyrodiil.

To many of us, this reads as though the focus has shifted from fixing Gray Host to developing Vengeance into the future of PvP.

Last year, these tests were presented as an effort to determine what was causing lag in Cyrodiil and how those findings could eventually improve the experience in our main campaign. Yet after more than a year, there has been virtually no communication explaining how the data gathered from Vengeance has directly benefited Gray Host. Instead, we continue seeing further iterations of Vengeance itself.

If the intention truly is to improve Gray Host, then please explain specifically how these tests are being applied to it and why the main campaign continues to be removed in order to conduct them.

Gray Host remains the most populated and most played PvP campaign. Many of us continue paying for and supporting this game specifically to play that experience. Repeatedly taking it away to further tests for a ruleset that a large portion of the PvP community has shown little interest in is becoming increasingly frustrating.

At this point, many players feel that Gray Host is being sidelined while development resources are being directed toward a game mode they never asked for.

If you wish to continue developing Vengeance, then please do so without removing the main campaign from those of us who simply want to play traditional Cyrodiil.

Once again, I encourage players who share these concerns to consider not participating in next week’s tests. Participation numbers are feedback too, and if the community disagrees with the continued removal of Gray Host, then that sentiment should be reflected both on the forums and in-game.

If Grey Host is removed from the game everyone I know that hasn't left yet will leave.

Maybe that's the point. If everyone leaves it will be easier to shut down the whole game.

merevie · July 17

So it appears that GH Pvprs and Zos' vision for Pvp do not align. That are requests for GH Pvp quality are not being respected.

Since this test hastens the agenda we do not want, and in spite of us paying subs for this game we're losing access to our content for two weeks, we're leaving until that content is returned.

ceruulean · July 17

CannedChicken wrote: »

What do you mean by more expensive? They have put in about 10 times the developer time making vengeance and haven't made any modifications to gray host at all. Who cares about better balance? People have already spoken with their feet because they won't step foot in vengeance given the choice between the two campaigns. If you remove gray host completely people aren't going to magically start enjoying vengeance. What is going to happen if you remove gray host is the remaining players will either stick to BGs or just quit the game.

A modern, energy efficient air conditioner is better, more powerful, and quieter than an outdated air conditioner, and uses less power in the long term. Of course, it costs some investment to buy a new air conditioner, but if the new AC can replace your 3 dinosaur ACs, would you buy one? People hate change. I'm sure some insist that their 3 old ACs are good enough and wouldn't bother with a newer model.

It's obvious that business people at ZOS see Vengeance as the more efficient AC, and Gray Host as the dinosaur.

tomofhyrule · July 17

ceruulean wrote: »

CannedChicken wrote: »

What do you mean by more expensive? They have put in about 10 times the developer time making vengeance and haven't made any modifications to gray host at all. Who cares about better balance? People have already spoken with their feet because they won't step foot in vengeance given the choice between the two campaigns. If you remove gray host completely people aren't going to magically start enjoying vengeance. What is going to happen if you remove gray host is the remaining players will either stick to BGs or just quit the game.

A modern, energy efficient air conditioner is better, more powerful, and quieter than an outdated air conditioner, and uses less power in the long term. Of course, it costs some investment to buy a new air conditioner, but if the new AC can replace your 3 dinosaur ACs, would you buy one? People hate change. I'm sure some insist that their 3 old ACs are good enough and wouldn't bother with a newer model.

It's obvious that business people at ZOS see Vengeance as the more efficient AC, and Gray Host as the dinosaur.

Let's stick with your analogy then.

"Hey, your old AC is a dinosaur, so we're going to replace it with this new one!"
"Except it only has a fan so far, it doesn't actively have cooling coils. Yet. But they're coming!"
"So it's ok to just replace your dinosaur AC now though, right? We'll get you the cooling coils within a few years, but the fan will hold you until then, right?"

NovelliESO · July 17

Going to be a bit of a lengthy post here.

For some reason, both players and devs alike seem to not understand the game, or what the vast majority of the playerbase actually wants. The voices of the people on the forums account for a small minority of those who actually play the game, and honestly it seems like a decent amount of the people complaining on here often don't even play, they just come to air grievances. The vast majority of the ESO PvP playerbase will never step foot here, and I myself don't like to comment or even read anything that ends up being discussed here. What I see are the same voices who come here to complain about anything that bothers them time and time again and they seem to never be happy, even if changes benefit what they want and they still give orders, regardless of the fact that their skill level doesn't reflect someone who should be in an authority position to give balance suggestions.

I'd like to first clear up a few things that some people don't understand. Skip below to see what should actually happen to address the issues the game, and specifically PvP currently faces.

For one, ball groups don't inherently cause this giant amount of lag that the people on the forums seem to think they do. How do I know this? I have played ESO for over 10 years, and for the greater half of that I have had the pleasure of running what is the best group in PvP regardless of server or platform. I have seen and been part of plenty of these fights, as well as fights against groups in excess of 100 people while only keeping to my 12. What I have gathered, and what I have always thought to be the case is that while of course, groups of 12 fighting, more calculations, and more HoT stacking can contribute to poor performance, it's not actually a big factor. The biggest issue is long, drawn out fights that see no end, as well as large faction stacks of players all in the same general location. I have participated in hundreds of Xv12 fights off to the side of keeps, on roads far away from anyone else fighting and I have several times experienced zero issue with performance while doing this. If two groups of 12 can fight on multiple occasions with zero impact on performance at all, surely this is not the reason for the severe performance issues we are all so familiar with. What can be noticed though, is that even if I take my group of 7-12 people to go fight another group of 12, if Volendrung is out, even if it's all the way on the opposite side of the map, the performance will see a huge hit. Even if the camp isn't triple pop locked, but 3 bar all across, you can still see a decrease in frame rate, increase in ping, stuttering, multiple second long freezes, and many other obvious indicators of poor performance, regardless of the fact that the actual number of players in the campaign is less. This is also evident when fighting for last emp keep when every single person is at that one fight. The biggest issue is people respawning over and over again at forward camps, people resurrecting each other, and people not actually being removed from the fight. ESO has always had a combat bug, this is made worse by fights like this that last forever, while tracking hundreds of people's effects on you, which seem to never go away even past their intended duration. These giant fights, in both scale and duration, cause an extreme amount of memory leak that the server has never been able to handle properly. To go back to those 12v100 fights I mentioned before, if these are isolated on the server, meaning it's the only fight on the sever at that scale, the performance is not actually that bad if the people we are fighting are dying. The performance only takes a massive hit when these players start respawning at a forward camp, the keep unflags so it is easy to continually come back, and the players who died previously instead set up a bunch of siege in the distance and they are no longer engaging in the fight so it becomes long and drawn out with those effects being put down and on every single person's character seemingly being never ending.

Another misconception that I see time and time again is that ballgroups don't like fighting each other, they actively avoid each other, and they do this because nobody dies. I've even seen this spouted by streamers who have PvPed for years who should know better. Anyone who plays in a group knows this is not the case, if a group is not looking to GvG another, it's simply because they don't want to fight that specific group because they fear they will lose and you can almost always count on the group that is "better" to fight them regardless when they happen upon them at a keep. But more often than not, groups will actually agree, on their own terms, to fight each other. This, as I said previously, generally does not happen in plain view, for the obvious reasons of not wanting to stack with more people and create one of those earlier scenarios I talked about, as well as not wanting random players to influence the outcome of a fight. Ballgroups, almost all of them, will happily engage in a GvG with another, if you see anyone saying otherwise point them to this post and I will happily show them hundreds of hours of gameplay of groups strictly fighting other groups, even while knowing they may not come out on top.

To get to the actual issue at hand, vengeance is not what the dedicated PvP playerbase in ESO enjoys. If you are a casual player, it is suited much better for you, and that is perfectly fine, play and enjoy your more casual experience. The vast majority of us in GH and BR do not care the slightest bit that vengeance is around, you will see a very small portion those players advocate for it to be closed. For whatever reason though, you will see plenty of those in vengeance or those who advocate for it, also advocate for the closing of GH and/or BR. Is that not a little odd considering they don't interact? Maybe the real issue with those players isn't their outlet for PvP, but their ability, or lack thereof when it comes to PvP, or maybe perhaps it's just the fact they have grievances without actual solutions. While the majority of us in GH/BR do not care at all that vengeance exist alongside our mainstays, an issue obviously arises when it affects those of us who want nothing to do with it. GH and vengeance are separate entities. Leave them this way. It should be very evident that since it is necessary to close GH and BR to get a good enough test for vengeance, that vengeance is and will never be what the core PvP player base wants, regardless of the vocal minority that comes to the forums to air their grievances without even playing the game. People also like to assume that while PvE players make up a larger portion of the player base, removing GH and having those PvP players quit will not have any negative effect on the game. A majority of those dedicated end game PvP players that still play today also make up some of the best PvE players in the game. Even those that don't still contribute often in trial runs when sets drop there that are necessary to PvP. If those players were removed from the pool entirely, you'd see plenty of the runs you see in group finder never end up filling.

Vengeance has been "in development" for a while now and ESO has seen only a decrease in player population. Obviously there are other factors, but GH is still pop locked every night, so much so that BR had to be reintroduced to keep the que from being too long. If this solution to PvP that is going to bring everyone back has seen only a decrease in the amount of people playing it, it's pretty obvious that resources should stop being allocated there, but for some reason they still are. At the very least, even if resources are being allocated here, and we can pretend it's to find a way to fix performance, just don't have it interfere with other game modes and other players' enjoyment. I can't think of a single game that would do something so strange, and then wonder why the player base decreases. It's tone deaf.

The real solution to fixing the problem comes from something that is never going to happen. We can all agree, at least I'd hope, that improved performance is something we can all get behind. I have and always will advocate for a patch where things are not introduced solely for the sake of change, but instead every few months, patches allocated just to improve issues. ESO is the ONLY game I have played with such a massive profit margin, and such a lackluster schedule when it comes to fixing even GAMEBREAKING bugs. How does it take weeks to months to fix things that can ruin the game entirely? When the negate bug was around I didn't even log in, how did it take so long to fix that issue? How hard is it to take the game down for a few hours and fix the ONE issue the game is facing? Why does it take weeks to address? Does the entire game need to be recoded? Is it done that poorly that fixing something so small takes such a long time? What about issues we see on PTS, that players, FOR FREE mind you, inform devs about, that still weeks later make it to live? We need to stop introducing change for the sake of change and actually address issues before pushing new content out. I would love to see a whole rewriting of the code, but that will never happen, and obviously with the massive layoffs seeing fixes to anything seems like a far cry from what will happen, especially when you account for what has already been the case, but the only change that needs to happen is not with new content, but the direction of the employees of Zenimax overseeing what happens on a patch to patch basis. New changes are great, they can introduce new players, as well as bring some back, but the playerbase has been decreasing for years, why not just focus on the issues the game has if sinking resources into new content has done nothing for the health of the playerbase?

Everyone has their own opinions on balance, why DK was released the way it was is beyond me, why you can stack shields to effectively double your HP at all times while also avoiding the heal reduction change, that was addressed and raised as an issue through hundreds of comments, is also questionable. But rather than complain about the blaringly obvious issues, I would rather see change to things everyone can agree on. ESO from a PvP perspective has had hundreds and thousands of actual changes that the community wants, that would have ZERO impact on the players that don't want them.

When BGs in the 4v4 format were introduced, NOBODY wanted them without a ladder/MMR system. The whole reason for "competitive" 4v4s is .... for competition. Why is it that the only thing that counts towards leaderboard performance is time played, rather than win/loss? This is another thing that was discussed constantly on the forums. The 4v4v4 system never needed to be removed either, and there was plenty of backlash about that. Almost all of the issues that community has regarding PvP seem to fall on deaf ears, and instead, as I stated before, a vocal minority seem to get changes implemented that the actual greater player base do not want.

If you want a real fix to the issues, keep vengeance around, those that want to play it can, and will. Stop stabbing the backs of those who bought the game to play the mode that has been around for years, it makes absolutely no sense to force people out of GH for a mode LESS people want. Make infinite respawns less common while in active combat, forward camps are a cool idea, so is necro res, but it does 100% contribute to bad performance. Stop adding new things to the game before the old things are fixed, all that does is lead to further issues and push players further away from the game. Adding new things for profit is fine, but those profits will be higher if they are introduced without issues, and ESO is the only game I play with friends where we know every single patch is going to introduce new bugs, and sometimes for abilities or sets that were not even changed. There are sweeping changes every major patch without real reason, balance changes that make no sense, and they only happen in ESO. I have never seen a game buff DoT damage by percentiles so high only to nerf it by percentages even higher, that only happens in this game. If you are going to introduce something new to the game, do it without it needing to rely on sacrificing other parts of the game that the community already enjoys. Take a page out of other games that are bigger, ones that don't do sweeping changes all at once and take balance changes slowly rather than massively to try and appease people who honestly, are not good and don't really understand the actual balance issues. Games don't balance based on the bottom 50% of players, it's balanced based on what actually overperforms. All big games have some sort of esport, ESO will never get that backing, and it's much too late for some sort of revival, but please stop trying to appease players who will complain regardless, when you do you end up angering some players and you don't even appease those you intend to, because they just find the next thing to complain about. Balance will always be contentious, addressing bugs will not.

ztomas1 · July 18

I'm guessing for July 28th to 31st, the campaign scoring points will be zero everyday until the new month starts??

aetherix8 · July 18

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Except it hasn’t been packed. The campaign has literally never filled during any of these tests.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Your screen shots literally prove my point, god am I arguing with humans even? Show me a single vengeance test queue please, you can’t. Once again proof that even with all of the artificial advantages stacked in favor of the campaign it fails to consistently fill the numbers it’s designed to support. Not to mention EU is by far the most populated vengeance server, PC NA doesn’t go past 2 bar during these tests.

Pretending that you were talking about the permanent campaign as opposed to the previous one-week tests still fails to add credibility to your argument.

aetherix8 · July 18

NovelliESO wrote: »

The vast majority of us in GH and BR do not care the slightest bit that vengeance is around, you will see a very small portion those players advocate for it to be closed. For whatever reason though, you will see plenty of those in vengeance or those who advocate for it, also advocate for the closing of GH and/or BR.

You said at the beginning of your post that you don't particularly like reading this forum. You might therefore have missed those many, many, many posts asking for the closing of Vengeance, stopping it completely, and abandoning it as an environment to test performance issues in Cyrodiil. There are far fewer users asking for the closure of GH on this forum alone than there are those demanding the total cancellation of Vengeance.

As for the live server, I could pretty much reverse your sentence. The vast majority of us in Vengeance do not care the slightest bit that GH and BR are around, and there are extremly few advocating for them to be closed (only BR). People simply do not care at all.

I understand you play GH every day or so. I play Vengeance every day or so, and I currently happen to have all the time in the world, so I'm there during different hours. Nobody at all is ever saying that GH should be closed and Vengeance should be the only campaign. We just don't talk about GH that much as there's no reason whatsoever to do so. We have bigger concerns than GH, namely the ridiculous AoE caps, the lack of detection pots, and the infamous faction swappers.

But perhaps Vengeance players on PC NA act differently from Vengeance players on PC EU. I can only speak for my platform.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee · July 18

aetherix8 wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Except it hasn’t been packed. The campaign has literally never filled during any of these tests.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Your screen shots literally prove my point, god am I arguing with humans even? Show me a single vengeance test queue please, you can’t. Once again proof that even with all of the artificial advantages stacked in favor of the campaign it fails to consistently fill the numbers it’s designed to support. Not to mention EU is by far the most populated vengeance server, PC NA doesn’t go past 2 bar during these tests.

Pretending that you were talking about the permanent campaign as opposed to the previous one-week tests still fails to add credibility to your argument.

I did not, I am literally replying to your screen shots, that show the populations during the tests, once again not a single vengeance queue has ever been recorded, meaning the campaign has not filled once. An absolute buffoon.

Savagejack · July 18

Vengeance needed more customization options. It'd be nice to know which item sets don't work by maybe adding red text in the tooltips so we know they're disabled. Something. Also please faction lock Vengeance so we have players to fight. The tests will be cooler if they're not a pvdoor zerg.

NovelliESO · July 18

aetherix8 wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

The vast majority of us in GH and BR do not care the slightest bit that vengeance is around, you will see a very small portion those players advocate for it to be closed. For whatever reason though, you will see plenty of those in vengeance or those who advocate for it, also advocate for the closing of GH and/or BR.

You said at the beginning of your post that you don't particularly like reading this forum. You might therefore have missed those many, many, many posts asking for the closing of Vengeance, stopping it completely, and abandoning it as an environment to test performance issues in Cyrodiil. There are far fewer users asking for the closure of GH on this forum alone than there are those demanding the total cancellation of Vengeance.

As for the live server, I could pretty much reverse your sentence. The vast majority of us in Vengeance do not care the slightest bit that GH and BR are around, and there are extremly few advocating for them to be closed (only BR). People simply do not care at all.

I understand you play GH every day or so. I play Vengeance every day or so, and I currently happen to have all the time in the world, so I'm there during different hours. Nobody at all is ever saying that GH should be closed and Vengeance should be the only campaign. We just don't talk about GH that much as there's no reason whatsoever to do so. We have bigger concerns than GH, namely the ridiculous AoE caps, the lack of detection pots, and the infamous faction swappers.

But perhaps Vengeance players on PC NA act differently from Vengeance players on PC EU. I can only speak for my platform.

Correct but this has nothing to do with the current argument and reality of what is going on. The players in GH do not care at all about vengeance existing alongside it, until it means they have to suffer because of it. These two entities should not interact at all. GH and BR players alike do not care about it existing, but when the devs have to close GH and BR multiple times over the course of it's testing, the call to end it altogether is not a one to one comparison. Vengeance is never closed to do testing for GH, only the opposite is true, so it would make logical sense for people to want vengeance to be closed if it is impacting GH, but when neither intersect at all vengeance players still advocate for the closing of GH and BR even though it has zero impact on them. GH and BR players only care when they are impacted, that's the difference.

Lucasl402 · July 18

Please stop punishing those of us who play GH and Blackreach. This is really bad customer relations going on here. Please keep GH and Blackreach open next week. Please.

@ZOS_Amy

Let the people who will play vengeance test vengeance.