Item Set Testing in Vengeance

Erickson9610 · July 18

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.

Thank you for the clarification! I've loved every Vengeance test from a player standpoint, and I'm particularly excited for this one. I'll get to see how my existing builds interact with the Vengeance skills.

I know I was opposed to Item Sets being allowed in Vengeance at first, but I'm warming up to the idea. I appreciate the effort the team is putting into improving PvP!

I still really want to see Werewolf added to Vengeance, since most of my PvP builds involve the use of Werewolf. I'm not one of those Werewolf players who refuses to play Vengeance because it currently lacks Werewolf, though.

LadyGP · July 19

Katheriah wrote: »

If this test is so important, can you please keep GH open and just give Vengeance x5 AP gains or something?

Why, so the test just gets full of PvE'rs who will give feedback that comes from a near zero modern day Cyro knowledge standpoint.

Thats kind of how we ended up her. The core GH audience stopped participating in the tests around test 2... so all the feedback they are getting, for the most part anyways, is people who enjoy blackreach (which is fine) or pve'rs (which is fine).

Just know you're alienating the vast majority of people who log in every day to PvP.. and if they don't have a camp they enjoy they can log into.. well they are going to stop logging in.

And yes... PVPers spend money.. they actually spend a lot of money on the crown store (my amex can attest)

Erickson9610 · July 19

The first test gave double AP because it was a population stress test. ZOS wasn't testing to see who actually liked it, they were testing to see how high they could safely increase the population cap in a barebones environment, as a base test. In that first test, they didn't really care if you were a PvP player or not, so they wanted to draw the PvE crowd in, too.

We don't need PvE players in this upcoming test, because we're here to test the commonly-used Item Sets in this environment to see how far the system can be pushed. What we care about is the Item Sets that are most commonly used in PvP, which we see in Gray Host all the time.

SneaK · July 19

@ZOS_Amy
Who’s telling you to say things like “the future of PvP”?

I sure hope it’s not the guy that knows nothing about PvP.

This whole thing is just shameful. We made it what, a month before yall are declaring martial law because no one likes your awful half baked game mode.

For the record, “the future of PvP” is a VERY VERY VERY BIG STATEMENT. For many people, PvP is the ONLY REASON we PLAY. That statement is actually “the future of ESO” for us. To which, saying it’s dependent on results of a Vengeance test inspires zero ZERO hope for the future.

aetherix8 · July 19

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

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.

A campaign that is pop locked, like 20/04/2026, is a campaign filled. A campaign that has a queue is a campaign filled and overflowing. But sure, keep distorting reality to advance your flawed premise. An absolute buffoon.

Razmirra · July 19

Please NO SETS in Vengeance. I will just abandon that campaign like I did with Grey Host and only go there for golden vendor and the intro quest to get enough progress to get the mount upgrade.

aetherix8 · July 19

NovelliESO wrote: »

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.

I strongly recommend that you go through those many Vengeance-related threads and read them thoroughly, because what you say simply fails to connect with what GH players just keep repeating. GH players care a lot about Vengeance and want it aborted because according to them, it is taking resources away from GH. What they fail to realize is that Vengeance is just a test environment, not a campaign in its own right, and that all changes tested on Vengeance servers are meant to deliver performant, large-scale PvP to the dedicated player base that's been asking for it for many years. The next test with item sets should make it clear to anyone paying attention. Despite the fact that Vengeance players enjoy a ruleset without item sets, these sets will now be added to the campaign for testing, and if the results are good, they will eventually be added permanently. This is to appease the GH crowd alone.

NovelliESO wrote: »

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.

Vengeance is the testbed for GH and for this reason it does and will "interact". Or rather, it is a testing environment for a future performant, large-scale PvP that will be neither Vengeance nor GH, but it will be something as close as possible to GH rather than to what Vengeance is right now. So when you say that GH and BR players only care when they are impacted, it basically means they care 100% of the time, either because for a brief period Vengeance is the only campaign available so it can be stress-tested, or because it takes resources away from GH/BR (this second reason being completely misjudged).

aetherix8 · July 19

Frayton wrote: »

What is Vengeance supposed to be exactly? The future of Cyrodiil? A permanent separate campaign? A permanent test? What exactly is it?

There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer that I can find.

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

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. (...) We're testing and proving hypotheses in the environment that counts the most: the live game. Vengeance is still a testing environment (...)

Here. It's a testing environment. It is not permanent, as it will be removed once all testing is done. Vengeance's only raison d'être is to inform the devs on what changes are necessary to deliver performant, large-scale PvP.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee · July 19

aetherix8 wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

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.

A campaign that is pop locked, like 20/04/2026, is a campaign filled. A campaign that has a queue is a campaign filled and overflowing. But sure, keep distorting reality to advance your flawed premise. An absolute buffoon.

Incorrect. Anyone who has spent any meaningful amount of time in Cyrodiil knows that "pop locked" does not necessarily mean the campaign is actually full.

Even with every possible advantage stacked in its favor—mandatory testing periods, the removal of competing campaigns, incentives to participate, and the entire PvP population being funneled into it—Vengeance has still never managed to generate even a one-person queue.

That is the entire point.

What exactly is the purpose of a ruleset that allegedly supports 900 players if it cannot even come close to reaching that number under the most favorable circumstances imaginable?

Meanwhile, Gray Host regularly generates substantial queues despite all of its supposed limitations.

If anything, the data simply shows where player preference actually lies. Players repeatedly choose traditional Cyrodiil when given the option, and Vengeance still struggles to attract population even when alternatives are removed. Calling attention to that is not "distorting reality"; it's acknowledging it.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee · July 19

aetherix8 wrote: »

Frayton wrote: »

What is Vengeance supposed to be exactly? The future of Cyrodiil? A permanent separate campaign? A permanent test? What exactly is it?

There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer that I can find.

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

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. (...) We're testing and proving hypotheses in the environment that counts the most: the live game. Vengeance is still a testing environment (...)

Here. It's a testing environment. It is not permanent, as it will be removed once all testing is done. Vengeance's only raison d'être is to inform the devs on what changes are necessary to deliver performant, large-scale PvP.

Keep telling yourself that.

This isn't based solely on Amy's latest post. Ever since around the third round of testing, the messaging surrounding Vengeance has gradually shifted from "temporary tests to gather data" to discussions about preserving its strengths, maintaining its gameplay identity, and now even building future PvP content around the findings.

At some point, people stop looking at what is being said and start looking at what is being done.

After more than a year of mandated tests, permanent implementations, and continued iterations focused on Vengeance itself, many players no longer believe this is simply a temporary testing environment that will disappear once testing is complete. ZOS's own messaging over time has increasingly pointed in the opposite direction.

ZOS_Icy · July 19

Greetings,

We have recently removed some unnecessary back and forth from this thread. This is a reminder to keep the discussion civil and constructive. Please keep our Community Rules in mind moving forward.

The Elder Scrolls Online Team

merevie · July 19

We are asking a Zos dev to state that Greyhost is not going to be permanently disabled.

The silence on that is not encouraging player trust.

Ordinator199 · July 19

Can you just make cyrodill smaller already? Like nobody joins cyrodill campaign to ride their horse, and apart from sometimes running into other players doing quests vast majority of cyrodill is just a dead zone..

Like make it 20-30% smaller, more actual pvping, faster engagements would spur things up..

DreadKnight · July 19

Absolute madness. Wasting resources into something 95% of the pvp community DOES NOT WANT.

It's like having a sinking ship and deciding to make another hole in the hull.

ice34697 · July 19

So...essentially this is just the long to say that we are getting No-Proc Campaigns back. Got it

Savagejack · July 19

It would be pretty luscious and super cute if we could get a list of the sets that work in Vengeance. Just grant us this small mercy.

ToddIngram · July 19

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.

Right now 80 points seperate first place from last in GH. And there are triple digit queues to get into the campaign even on weekdays.

Who decided it was a good idea to shut down such a popular portion of the game?

Is there a long term plan to eliminate all PvP outside of vengeance? (have to ask because your statement makes it seem that the elimination of GH is the inevitable future, so please tell us what the future plan is regarding GH/Blackreach)

@ZOS_Amy

ToddIngram · July 19

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

No.

ZOS sold vengeance as a test to learn how to improve performance in Grey Host. This is what ZOS said the purpose of vengeance was at it's inception. This is how they tricked the PvP community into helping develop vengeance. Going forward I have no intention of helping ZOS take away the game mode I log in to play.

And since I will never play vengeance for any reason ever again, at least not until I see first hand how ZOS has used data gained from vengeance to improve GH like they said they were doing. There is no reason that I or anyone else should be forced to play vengeance. It's akin to forcing all PvE zones to have PvP enabled for a week and ignoring all the complaints doing such a thing would legitimately generate.

I will not help ZOS test a game mode I didn't buy and will never play.

I don't know what words to say to explain to you that the purpose of testing a thing is testing said thing.

The point that they're making is that Vengeance was originally sold as a way to make Grey Host better. And then it ended up releasing as its own mode with the threat of Vengeance as is potentially being the replacement for Grey Host and every non-GH Campaign deleted from the game.

People originally thought they were helping test something to improve the thing they had. They did not want the test mode to be the replacement for the mode they liked.

This new test is starting to smell the same. Vengeance released. It needs no more testing since it is an existing game mode. What would be the purpose of testing a change to it... unless the goal would be to put item sets into Vengeance so they could remove the "but why farm gear if I can't use it in Vengeance!" argument?

This is obviously a way to try to entice Grey Host players into Vengeance by dangling some theorycrafting. What they don't understand is that this will drive off the population Vengeance has because they like not having procs, and it will not make the Grey Host crowd any more likely to come in. The fear is that then they'll just pressure everyone into new-Vengeance regardless... by deleting all other non-Vengeance modes.

The no-proc nature of Vengeance wasn't meant to be a permanent feature. Those people who prefer Vengeance without procs (like me, who posted such sentiment as the first reply in this thread) aren't supposed to treat Vengeance like it is Ravenwatch. I see now that Vengeance aspires to be as close to Gray Host as possible, and now it makes sense why all of this development time has been put into making Vengeance at all.

Once again, Vengeance isn't meant to be a secondary mode to Cyrodiil PvP. It's not meant to be that campaign where under 50 players go to learn the basics of Cyrodiil. It's not even meant for the people who preferred no-proc PvP. It's meant to be as feature complete as the primary mode of Cyrodiil PvP.

Which.
People.
DO.
NOT.
WANT.

It's clear that they want to test it because they want Vengeance to be performant and the main Cyrodiil mode. BUT WHY? Why are they so hell-bent on looking at the majority of PvPers who like GH and saying "we fully intend to take this away from you, but keep giving us money regardless."

And I'm not doing that, not anymore. Mandatory tests for me means mandatory unsubscribe. Its outrageous and unacceptable. Disrespectful, tone deaf, downright spiteful. I've had enough.

Couldn't agree more. Can't give money to a company that keeps shutting down their game for weeks at a time.

ToddIngram · July 19

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.

Remove GH and nothing comes next.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee · July 19

Stamicka wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

You were quoted twice before asking for evidence for your claims, from two different people within the last day. You ignored both requests and continued to spout nonsense and move past it. Engaging with you on any logical basis is pointless when you make things up and move past them without reason.

This literally didn't happen. Don't have a clue what you're on about. I just provided very clear evidence for you. I also looked through this thread and I didn't see anyone asking me for evidence.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Then release the damn zone first before you start taking away the place we currently enjoy PvPing in. It really is that simple.

And who's to say we'll even like this new zone? You're asking players to sacrifice the game mode they already enjoy for a hypothetical future experience that may or may not appeal to them.

Also, Gray Host fills up daily and regularly has queues despite these supposedly "low population caps." Clearly there is still more than enough interest in traditional Cyrodiil. The issue isn't a lack of demand for Gray Host—it's that people simply prefer it over Vengeance.

I'd like them to get this zone out sooner rather than later as well. I am aware of the layoffs though, so I don't know what timeline to expect unfortunately.

Uhhh.. yea if Grey Host has lower population caps it's easier to fill...

The reason the queues are so high is because not many people fit in there.

I say this because you present the "low population caps" as though they're some major issue that players dislike, yet Gray Host continues to have extremely high demand despite them.

If people truly had such a problem with the Gray Host ruleset or the population limits, they simply wouldn't keep filling the campaign and sitting through hour-long queues to get in every night.

The queues don't prove players dislike Gray Host—they prove the opposite. They show that there is still enormous demand for traditional Cyrodiil despite all of its issues.

If anything, the fact that players are willing to endure long queues just to play Gray Host should be a strong indication of how much they prefer it over Vengeance. Otherwise, they would simply go play Vengeance instead. They don't. That's the entire point.

Alright this is going to be my last response to you so I don't spam this thread and it seems pointless to engage anyway because you're just not grasping things.

Low population caps are an issue that players dislike. Do a search on these forums for mentions of low population caps and you will see many PvPers (many here!) who complain about them.

Players endure a long Grey Host queue even when Blackreach is open. Players endure long Grey Host queues during Whitestrakes Mayhem when other campaigns have population too. People would be sitting in that queue whether Vengeance was there or it wasn't

Who was trying to argue that the queues prove that players dislike Grey Host? What? This is why I'm done replying after this, I don't even know what you're trying to say. I was saying that when Grey Host fits 120 people per alliance, that's a very small number to go up to before the queue starts, so queues become longer quicker.

You're painting a very rosy picture of PvP like it's some massive attraction though. Have you been around for long? Like do you know how much smaller the PvP crowd is now compared to the past? Cause it's insanely smaller.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

Most comments from the person who doesn't substantiate anything.

What part of my post do you want evidence for? That ZOS said that the new mid size zone will be for the people who like Grey Host? I provided it in another thread, but here:

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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

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.

It could not have been said more explicitly. The mid size zone will be for the Grey Host ruleset. PvP is not under attack. ZOS is not pushing the Vengeance ruleset. You guys literally look insane organizing boycotts, threatening to cancel your subscriptions, making paranoid conspiracy posts about how ZOS wants Vengeance to be the future of PvP.

It's comical how overblown it's gotten. The reality is that this upcoming test is a test to see what impact sets have on Cyrodiil performance. In no case is the Grey Host rule set going away permanently. In the most extreme case it's just going to a zone suited for the low population which in my opinion, will be an improvement for PvP.

There is no conspiracy here. Amy's latest post, along with countless previous statements from ZOS, has only reaffirmed what many of us have been saying for months: development focus appears to be shifting toward Vengeance.

The new mid-sized PvP zone is not proof of anything until we actually know something about it. We do not know its population caps, we do not know how it will play, we do not know if the map will even be enjoyable, and we have no idea when it is coming.

Asking players to give up the PvP experience they currently enjoy for a completely hypothetical future product is unreasonable.

So there's development going towards a new zone specifically for the Grey Host ruleset. It's not like non Vengeance development will just cease

I'm speaking about future plans, I'm not saying people need to give up Cyrodiil right this second. I'm saying people need to chill out with the outrage because the Grey Host ruleset is fine. ZOS isn't trying to take it away completely.

NovelliESO wrote: »

It literally did happen but you can continue to act as if it didn't. Apparently that's your whole reason to be on the forums anyway, just spread misinformation.

Ironically right now you’re the one saying things without evidence. I gave you your evidence when asked, but right now you’re claiming I did something and I’m spreading misinformation, but you can’t even quote where this supposedly happened?

Anyway clearly it’s not worth engaging with you either.

Alright, this will be my last response because you seem completely incapable of keeping up with the point being made.

Nobody is arguing that low population caps are a good thing or that players don’t complain about them. Of course people would prefer higher population caps.

The point is that, despite those complaints, players still overwhelmingly choose to play Gray Host anyway. They sit through hour-long queues, they ignore other campaigns, and they continue logging into traditional Cyrodiil every single day.

That directly demonstrates that players value the Gray Host experience enough to tolerate its shortcomings.

If Vengeance were truly the preferred experience, people would simply go play Vengeance instead of sitting in queue for Gray Host. They don’t.

Yes, the PvP population is much smaller than it used to be. That is precisely why repeatedly taking away the one campaign that consistently maintains queues and daily activity is such a baffling decision.

You keep presenting future plans and a hypothetical new zone as if they somehow invalidate current concerns. They don’t. We know virtually nothing about this new zone, when it is coming, how it will play, or whether people will even enjoy it.

Until then, Gray Host remains the primary open-world PvP experience for the overwhelming majority of active PvPers, and repeatedly removing it for tests that many players have no interest in participating in is exactly why so many people are upset.

ToddIngram · July 19

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.

People are paying to play GH. And you guys keep taking it away. What do you think the outcome of doing this so often is going to be exactly?

@ZOS_Amy
@ZOS_BrianWheeler
@ZOS_Kevin

Let vengeance live or die on it's own. Let the people who want to play vengeance do the "testing" for vengeance. Taking away the game for yet another week is an incredibly short sighted and unproductive business decision.

colossalvoids · July 19

It's embarrassing to read honestly. As someone who likes the vengeance concept it's so far from being pushed live and from the supposed final state. Also the timing of it, now it's just abysmal.

There's no free good will full time testers left to pursue this pipe dream, people are tired, angry or just apathetic. Just disable the mode, free up resources and focus on the mode that is actually being played, especially when resources are so thin right now. Focus on stuff that matters and maybe, just maybe there will be time for this project once more.

You're walking on serious edge now and the last thing you can afford is for remaining players to abandon you in this time with pushing the same old "we're hearing you" and doing nothing, probably even worse than nothing.

Storm27Stars · July 19

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.

Was looking for a reason to uninstall, as very tired of this game and it's failings, and this is it.

Turning off a full campaign to test again a campaign very few people, if any, want. The mind boggles.

So tired, so very tired.

I won't let the door hit me on the way out.

CAB_Life · July 19

This is neither a priority nor what the actual majority of pvpers want—it reads as completely out of touch. The patent attempt to try and force people into a game mode that they simply do not want to play and will not play as well as investing more resources into that mode is beyond baffling. This is like trying to tell Trial progs that all Trials are temporarily closed they can only play dolmens for the next week and that it’s OK because it will benefit them in the long run anyways and they’re both PVE experiences with groups of people so you know good enough. There is an insurmountable delta between the people who enjoy vengeance and the people who enjoy building their own characters and playing ESO PVP as we have known it for many years. When the game is in such dire straits this latest fumble only reinforces the naysaying. But like so many issues with this game, it seems self-inflicted.

The game does not need more tests and experiments. It needs the resources and staff who remain to put all of their attention on delivering and resolving the game's outstanding issues such as class balance, performance in general, and the numerous bugs that still litter the game.

@ZOS_Amy I realize you’re just the messenger here, but the fact that this message was prepared at all is an indictment of management and their priorities.

NovelliESO · July 19

aetherix8 wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

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.

I strongly recommend that you go through those many Vengeance-related threads and read them thoroughly, because what you say simply fails to connect with what GH players just keep repeating. GH players care a lot about Vengeance and want it aborted because according to them, it is taking resources away from GH. What they fail to realize is that Vengeance is just a test environment, not a campaign in its own right, and that all changes tested on Vengeance servers are meant to deliver performant, large-scale PvP to the dedicated player base that's been asking for it for many years. The next test with item sets should make it clear to anyone paying attention. Despite the fact that Vengeance players enjoy a ruleset without item sets, these sets will now be added to the campaign for testing, and if the results are good, they will eventually be added permanently. This is to appease the GH crowd alone.

NovelliESO wrote: »

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.

Vengeance is the testbed for GH and for this reason it does and will "interact". Or rather, it is a testing environment for a future performant, large-scale PvP that will be neither Vengeance nor GH, but it will be something as close as possible to GH rather than to what Vengeance is right now. So when you say that GH and BR players only care when they are impacted, it basically means they care 100% of the time, either because for a brief period Vengeance is the only campaign available so it can be stress-tested, or because it takes resources away from GH/BR (this second reason being completely misjudged).

Nothing about what you wrote is true, but go off I guess. Vengeance only exists as a test for GH? Surely.

tomofhyrule · July 19

colossalvoids wrote: »

You're walking on serious edge now and the last thing you can afford is for remaining players to abandon you in this time with pushing the same old "we're hearing you" and doing nothing, probably even worse than nothing.

This is a really good point as well.

I'll point out again that this new test did not make it on PTS, which is another reason we feel so blindsided by it. U50's release of Vengeance really made it feel like that was the finished product.

I don't know if the Combat Team really understands that player morale and hope in ESO's future is also in the gutter after the layoff news. It's a really bad look when literally the first thing ZOS is doing after the layoffs is... to do yet another test disabling Grey Host. Like... we don't even have U51's PTS yet. We don't even know if the Combat Team's part of U51 (aka the Warden refresh) is even happening, but they are at least doing something to PvP that nobody asked for.

I get that they want to improve things (yes, it sounds a lot like they want to improve things for Vengeance only, but still), but the optics could not have been worse. Instead of "hey, we know everyone's super excited about Warden so here's a peek!" or "hey, we know we haven't said much about the upcoming PvP mode so here's a bit about that!" or anything else, we got "hey, we know that everyone is bummed about the game right now, so we're going to inconvenience you for a week on top of it all!"

Amy even said it:

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

We know these temporary changes aren't how everyone wants to play

...so did it have to happen now? Could it not have been postponed until the fires of last week were put out? Could it not have been bundled with something that would excite PvPers, like a discussion of the new mode?

I can't imagine the furor that will erupt if we go through this week of seriously inconveniencing the players and then on the 27th they drop "yeah, so Warden needed to be pulled from U51." If that's what's going to happen, I would really really suggest dropping everything and pulling the plan for this test until the players aren't likely to uninstall immediately when they get yet another piece of bad news.

edward_frigidhands · July 19

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.

What about the people that don't want to play Vengeance Amy?

gammelscroll · July 19

Maybe start listen to the community?
And stop do thing we dont ask for. Nowone plays vengeance, its a waste of time.
What about focus on class reworke , and greyhost that PVP community are actually playing?
It feels like you are tonedeaf , and ignoring what your players want.

@ZOS_Amy @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Zallion · July 19

As a player who has done pvp in this game essentially since launch, myself and a huge percentage of the dedicated pvp community does not want this mode in general.

Given the likely diminished resources, just call it. It's there in a decent state for new players and pve'ers. It can keep that place and serve that purpose. Keep it around for testing and what not. Continuing to invest development into something a niche of the playerbase even play at all is extremely concerning considering the current situation you're facing. It comes off as being forced upon the players, especially when other modes are disabled etc, despite an outcry and lack of popularity.

Put everything you've got into the class refreshes. With what we've seen, some great work is being done there, that should be the #1 priority. That timeline is already bleak, and if it get's postponed or falls short of excellent execution that will have a much worse impact on player retention than more vengeance tests.

Contos · July 19

Is this really the most important thing right now? After what just happened people want to hear about the roadmap, class reworks, especially the elusive warden rework. I understand it takes time, but then why -in general, but especially now- allocate resources to something basically noone wants? Like that small minority who thinks vengeance is good probably only likes it because there are NO sets. So who is it for then? I hoped in the light of the recent events vengeance will be sunsetted/shelved and resources reallocated to the reworks. We are already waiting years for the class reworks, I can't imagine how long they will take now with probably less people working on it.