Item Set Testing in Vengeance

CuriSacer · July 19

Hello DEVS, thank you for bringing new content to Vengeance. I’ve been playing every day since release. While the population is smaller, there are still 150+ active players daily.

I have one question: will the sets be free as they are on the PTS, or will players need to farm them? If they aren’t free, it may be very difficult for new players, especially when facing opponents already equipped with mythics and optimized gear.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee · July 19

CuriSacer wrote: »

Hello DEVS, thank you for bringing new content to Vengeance. I’ve been playing every day since release. While the population is smaller, there are still 150+ active players daily.

I have one question: will the sets be free as they are on the PTS, or will players need to farm them? If they aren’t free, it may be very difficult for new players, especially when facing opponents already equipped with mythics and optimized gear.

Lmao blatantly false

GrimsforgeGaming · July 19

As someone who enjoys Vengeance, I have to ask myself "Why?" for a handful of things..

Why would ZOS not cancel this test and focus on the class reworks, considering the recent layoffs? Class reworks should take a 100% priority. These reworks were already on a lengthy time table, and anything less of the initial timelines discussed places the entire game community in a DK and WW meta for what, the next 2 years until we get Warden? FOCUS on the class reworks, not just the pvp community, but the WHOLE game community benefits from this!

Why test armor sets in Vengeance when its core concept and alure was "Balance, as all things should be..~Thanos" After thinking long and hard on this and reading all the posts and stances on the subject, a couple things occurred to me. Is Vengeance nothing more than a live PTS for your "Stripped down Universe"? Your first iteration of a rebuilt Cyrodiil that the current ZOS team actually made. Following that same thought process, maybe this explains why no further announcements have been made on the new/smaller pvp zone as there is still more testing to be done and immense internal struggles. This test is not for the benefit of Vengeance participants, as they are here by and large to get away from the proc, pull and bomb mechanics. So that means this test has to be for the Grey Host/Blackreach community right?.. But they are not happy with the Loadouts, Perks and reimagined class abilities that came packaged with Vengeance. So what exactly are we doing here outside of making your full game community wait for another class rework, upsetting the Grey Host/Blackreach community by shutting down their Cyrodiil and causing your Vengeance participants to look at each other and ask "Why?!" There is a better way to go about all of this and it starts with transparency. Literally spell it out for everyone by saying "Hey, Grey Host/Blackreach coding is rotting and the game engine is 10+ years old. In order to do what you want, we had to strip the zone down and start adding items back, with our own coding, to see how close we can get this thing you love." and on that note "Thank you Vengeance participants, as you are helping lay the foundation for what we hope is a Cyrodiil we all love." I've read the overwhelming posts from the Grey Host/Blackreach community calling for an end to Vengeance as a failed effort and an immediate focus on their performance and needs. You literally need to tell the pvp community that the Vengeance testing IS focusing on their performance and needs. All the testing done leads us closer to a more performant space. And maybe take less creative liberties with the reimagined skills, loadouts and perks as change scares people, especially things that are out of touch with the communities.

Why not just let Grey Host/Blackreach be for now. Add morphs to your reimagined skills to enforce balancing and class diversity and mundas stone use for flexibility within Vengeance. And get those class reworks going in overdrive! (But done well!)

SeaGtGruff · July 19

NovelliESO wrote: »

The players in GH do not care at all about vengeance existing alongside it, until it means they have to suffer because of it.

From what I can tell, the players in GH do indeed care about Vengeance existing alongside it, because a lot of them seem to feel that Vengeance's very existence is causing them to suffer. They seem to believe that if ZOS pulls tbe plug on Vengeance then the devs can somehow "fix" Gray Host.

Unfortunately, ZOS has tried many things over the years and none of them have produced the kinds of results that everyone-- devs and players alike-- have hoped for. So far, Vengeance has been the only thing they've tried that has worked.

But as far as I've been able to tell by playing in Vengeance, the first Vengeance test had the best performance, and everything that's been added into it during subsequent tests (and now in the permanent live campaign) has gradually started to erode performance, albeit not yet to the extent of Gray Host's problems. For instance, I've been playing in Vengeance almost daily since it went live, and it isn't that unusual for me to get hit by a guard and go sliding through the air or walls or terrain, just as happened in Gray Host when I was playing there almost daily. It might not be happening all the time, but that it happens at all is what I'm getting at. The more ZOS tries to make Vengeance something that's closer to Gray Host-- undoubtedly in the hope that Gray Host PvPers will be more inclined to play in Vengeance (which, I fear, is something that a lot of Gray Host PvPers will never consider doing)-- the more Vengeance's performance starts to degrade and become closer to Gray Host's.

Hea1y · July 20

ZOS_Icy wrote: »

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

Why don't you remove the back and forth of this Vengeance "testing" nonsense. We are not your test subjects to find data on

SugaComa · July 20

lets just make vengeance sheargoraths play ground enable set bonus but have them not do what they say, rush of agony, nope slow and content is what your getting

aetherix8 · July 20

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

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.

Debating with you is a lost cause, so I will just move on. You will say that black is white and white is black whenever you believe that might advance your "argument". But it only makes your point even more hollow.

aetherix8 · July 20

NovelliESO wrote: »

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.

Some more precision: Vengeance only exists as a test environment for a future performant, large-scale Cyrodiil that will be different from both today's GH and today's Vengeance. Perhaps GH as you know it will remain, perhaps not; that remains to be seen. Vengeance as we know it now will not remain.

But it is fair to say that Vengeance tests can help the devs isolate factors that have the biggest negative impact on performance. Once the devs have tested all their hypotheses, they might modify the GH ruleset so the server performs better and allows for increased pop caps. There is absolutely no reason to keep GH unchanged once clear answers as to what can make it perform better are obtained.

johnjetau · July 20

Do we know what sets will and won't be working in the latest test. Can we get a list?

Also I think this test will clearly show the devs what sets if any are having a negative impact on the server and if they need to be "tweaked".

After running around in Vengeance now for almost 2 months, we the players have a baseline on who is good/not so good, so with the sets active, it will be interesting to see which players suddenly become un-killable machines able to mow down entire groups.

Stamicka · July 20

Just wanna say moving forward, of all the things simplified in Vengeance, item sets would be the most ok or even the most beneficial to leave simple.

My first build was 5 Julianos, 3 willpower, 3 Magnus. The game was still plenty fun in that build, way more fun than now. The paragraph long procs and buff sets have only ever worsened PvP. Static stat based sets are easy to balance with each other and easier for players to understand.

If there’s a limited amount of complexity that PvP can have before it lags, making those Vengeance skills more interesting should be #1 on the list of things to make more complex. Next would probably be getting rid of AOE caps on damage skills.

I understand adding all sets to test performance, but beyond that it’s just not a good idea.

Roztlin45 · July 20

The LIVE server is not for TESTING. This TEST should be on the PTS not the supposed finished product. The hubris here is out of control! Shoe horning people into vengeance is NOT the way!! NO matter what you do to force things it only make matters worse. I'm fine with people having Vengeance or not. We have always had difference types. But the real issue here is :
Turning off Grey host and running "test" on the live server is a terrible move and will only effect the players (customers) attitude toward the game. Reverse course , Iceberg ahead!

JonesHeathen · July 20

We don't want Vengeance, I think you could get that from running any report of how many people played it.

Accept it, it was a bad idea and total fail.

Now, I understand that some exec wants to review it and you need numbers in report to show that people play it.
Just break the ice, blame in on someone who was already fired, better then a fake report by forcing people to play it.

NovelliESO · July 20

aetherix8 wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

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.

Some more precision: Vengeance only exists as a test environment for a future performant, large-scale Cyrodiil that will be different from both today's GH and today's Vengeance. Perhaps GH as you know it will remain, perhaps not; that remains to be seen. Vengeance as we know it now will not remain.

But it is fair to say that Vengeance tests can help the devs isolate factors that have the biggest negative impact on performance. Once the devs have tested all their hypotheses, they might modify the GH ruleset so the server performs better and allows for increased pop caps. There is absolutely no reason to keep GH unchanged once clear answers as to what can make it perform better are obtained.

Sure, if there are things that can make GH perform better without impacting the gameplay. The community has already voiced overwhelmingly they do not want vengeance and that the players are willing to sacrifice performance for the gameplay of GH. That's how bad vengeance is by comparison. You continue to write, without any verifiable proof, that vengeance is only a test environment for GH but you have nothing at all to prove that it will not remain as a permanent mode with more resources allocated to it than GH, which would make no sense if it were only used as a test. Again, you have nothing to prove otherwise, only your own assumptions.

aetherix8 · July 20

NovelliESO wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

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.

Some more precision: Vengeance only exists as a test environment for a future performant, large-scale Cyrodiil that will be different from both today's GH and today's Vengeance. Perhaps GH as you know it will remain, perhaps not; that remains to be seen. Vengeance as we know it now will not remain.

But it is fair to say that Vengeance tests can help the devs isolate factors that have the biggest negative impact on performance. Once the devs have tested all their hypotheses, they might modify the GH ruleset so the server performs better and allows for increased pop caps. There is absolutely no reason to keep GH unchanged once clear answers as to what can make it perform better are obtained.

Sure, if there are things that can make GH perform better without impacting the gameplay. The community has already voiced overwhelmingly they do not want vengeance and that the players are willing to sacrifice performance for the gameplay of GH. That's how bad vengeance is by comparison.

Are the players willing to sacrifice the current pop caps for the gameplay of GH as well? Because that's what happened over the years: as the game grew more complex and performance worsened, ZOS kept decreasing the number of players that can enter a campaign. Performance is still bad, and now, additionally there are sometimes hours-long queues. Some players with limited playtime might find it impossible to log into their favorite campaign during the best time to be there, like weekend prime time.

I think it is safe to say that although most vet GH players are resigned to accepting bad performance in order to keep their ruleset unchanged, this resignation is detrimental to the campaign overall. It makes it impossible for ESO PvP to grow, and to attract and retain newer players. New systems will most likely keep coming, less frequently but steadily; the game's complexity will keep growing and further affecting the performance, and so the caps will have to be lowered again.

As for the "things that can make GH perform better without impacting the gameplay", we already know the answer:

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.

Are the players ready to accept longer queues in order to preserve their ruleset? Would that be healthy for the game?

NovelliESO wrote: »

You continue to write, without any verifiable proof, that vengeance is only a test environment for GH but you have nothing at all to prove that it will not remain as a permanent mode with more resources allocated to it than GH, which would make no sense if it were only used as a test. Again, you have nothing to prove otherwise, only your own assumptions.

In the post you quote, the exact wording is “a test environment for a future performant, large-scale Cyrodiil that will be different from both today's GH and today's Vengeance”. So no, I don't keep insisting that Vengeance is only meant to serve the GH crowd. I'm rather trying to make sense of the entire thing, like everyone else; and since the Combat Team doesn't share with us what their vision is, all we have are assumptions. Perhaps the Combat Team doesn't know yet; perhaps they need to conclude all their planned tests before making decisions. More communication on this matter would most certainly be welcomed by the entire community; hopefully we will get some new update after this test.

Kickimanjaro · July 20

@ZOS_Amy, in order to assist informed participation in this test, please provide a list of the 5-piece item sets which are either known to not work or intentionally disabled for this test so that we do not waste our time rediscovering this information ourselves and can contribute to this list if more are discovered.

Bo0137 · July 20

Does this include weapon 2 item sets? I see they aren’t explicitly mentioned.

Do class sets’ 5 item bonus work?

Both weapon sets and class sets buff existing skills. And we know these skills were heavily changed in Vengeance. How will that work?

For example: Crushing wall’s destruction staff buff the wall of elements’ damage by a flat 29-1250. How does that translate to Vengeance?

tomofhyrule · July 20

aetherix8 wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

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.

Some more precision: Vengeance only exists as a test environment for a future performant, large-scale Cyrodiil that will be different from both today's GH and today's Vengeance. Perhaps GH as you know it will remain, perhaps not; that remains to be seen. Vengeance as we know it now will not remain.

But it is fair to say that Vengeance tests can help the devs isolate factors that have the biggest negative impact on performance. Once the devs have tested all their hypotheses, they might modify the GH ruleset so the server performs better and allows for increased pop caps. There is absolutely no reason to keep GH unchanged once clear answers as to what can make it perform better are obtained.

Sure, if there are things that can make GH perform better without impacting the gameplay. The community has already voiced overwhelmingly they do not want vengeance and that the players are willing to sacrifice performance for the gameplay of GH. That's how bad vengeance is by comparison.

Are the players willing to sacrifice the current pop caps for the gameplay of GH as well? Because that's what happened over the years: as the game grew more complex and performance worsened, ZOS kept decreasing the number of players that can enter a campaign. Performance is still bad, and now, additionally there are sometimes hours-long queues. Some players with limited playtime might find it impossible to log into their favorite campaign during the best time to be there, like weekend prime time.

I think it is safe to say that although most vet GH players are resigned to accepting bad performance in order to keep their ruleset unchanged, this resignation is detrimental to the campaign overall. It makes it impossible for ESO PvP to grow, and to attract and retain newer players. New systems will most likely keep coming, less frequently but steadily; the game's complexity will keep growing and further affecting the performance, and so the caps will have to be lowered again.

As for the "things that can make GH perform better without impacting the gameplay", we already know the answer:

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.

Are the players ready to accept longer queues in order to preserve their ruleset? Would that be healthy for the game?

All of these arguments come to a standstill with one major factor: is this really the most pressing issue in the game right now?

This is like trying to fix the plumbing in the house while the house is actively on fire. At that point, does it really matter how leaky your shower is? Don’t you think the fire should be addressed first? Or are you just gonna sit there like a Sim whining about your sweaty pits while your family is dying?

January’s management shakeup really stressed “agile development.” Well, here’s the test: are you able to immediately stop development on nonessential tasks to hard focus things that affect the most people, e.g. are you able to pull the Combat team off of their new things and put them all onto the Class Refreshes and balance until that is solved?

Again: Nothing with Vengeance is important right now. It is perfectly acceptable to drop all Vengeance development until such time as the refreshes are done and player morale has improved.

More communication on this matter would most certainly be welcomed by the entire community; hopefully we will get some new update after this test.

This is a true statement. But I’d extend it past Vengeance: what’s going on with the Combat Team at all? Are the Refreshes still on schedule? And if not, why is the Combat Team willing to focus on literally anything else until then?

TheAwesomeChimpanzee · July 20

aetherix8 wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

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.

Debating with you is a lost cause, so I will just move on. You will say that black is white and white is black whenever you believe that might advance your "argument". But it only makes your point even more hollow.

I have been consistent with every single one of my arguments, 3 bars is not a full campaign. You are simply incapable of refuting them. Wise dodge.

aetherix8 · July 20

@TheAwesomeChimpanzee

aetherix8 wrote: »

20/04/2026 PC EU

TheAwesomeChimpanzee · July 20

aetherix8 wrote: »

@TheAwesomeChimpanzee

aetherix8 wrote: »

20/04/2026 PC EU

Again, no queue. The campaign is not full.

tomofhyrule · July 20

aetherix8 wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee

aetherix8 wrote: »

20/04/2026 PC EU

From April? Vengeance wasn’t released as a permanent Campaign until June. Therefore no population numbers can be claimed at that point, since those that exist are skewed by that being the only option.

If there’s a power outage and I can only light my house with candles, that might not mean that candles are the most popular way to light one’s house. It means people might not have a choice otherwise.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee · July 20

tomofhyrule wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee

aetherix8 wrote: »

20/04/2026 PC EU

From April? Vengeance wasn’t released as a permanent Campaign until June. Therefore no population numbers can be claimed at that point, since those that exist are skewed by that being the only option.

If there’s a power outage and I can only light my house with candles, that might not mean that candles are the most popular way to light one’s house. It means people might not have a choice otherwise.

That is fair, but ultimately irrelevant to the point being made. Whether those April numbers were inflated because Vengeance was the only available option does not change the conclusion—it actually reinforces it.

Even with every possible advantage stacked in its favor, including removing the alternative campaigns and effectively forcing anyone who wanted to play Cyrodiil into Vengeance, the tests still failed to reach 300 players per faction on PC EU, the server where Vengeance has performed best.

So regardless of how those numbers are interpreted, why continue developing a mode designed around 900 players when the community cannot even fill it under the most favorable and artificial conditions possible?

NovelliESO · July 20

aetherix8 wrote: »

@TheAwesomeChimpanzee

aetherix8 wrote: »

20/04/2026 PC EU

This is not full if there is no que the camp is not full, it's just a visual representation of how populated it is. Even when locked people can still enter, this is the case with all camps, they are not immediately placed into a que so the camp is verifiably not full.

NovelliESO · July 20

aetherix8 wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

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.

Some more precision: Vengeance only exists as a test environment for a future performant, large-scale Cyrodiil that will be different from both today's GH and today's Vengeance. Perhaps GH as you know it will remain, perhaps not; that remains to be seen. Vengeance as we know it now will not remain.

But it is fair to say that Vengeance tests can help the devs isolate factors that have the biggest negative impact on performance. Once the devs have tested all their hypotheses, they might modify the GH ruleset so the server performs better and allows for increased pop caps. There is absolutely no reason to keep GH unchanged once clear answers as to what can make it perform better are obtained.

Sure, if there are things that can make GH perform better without impacting the gameplay. The community has already voiced overwhelmingly they do not want vengeance and that the players are willing to sacrifice performance for the gameplay of GH. That's how bad vengeance is by comparison.

Are the players willing to sacrifice the current pop caps for the gameplay of GH as well? Because that's what happened over the years: as the game grew more complex and performance worsened, ZOS kept decreasing the number of players that can enter a campaign. Performance is still bad, and now, additionally there are sometimes hours-long queues. Some players with limited playtime might find it impossible to log into their favorite campaign during the best time to be there, like weekend prime time.

I think it is safe to say that although most vet GH players are resigned to accepting bad performance in order to keep their ruleset unchanged, this resignation is detrimental to the campaign overall. It makes it impossible for ESO PvP to grow, and to attract and retain newer players. New systems will most likely keep coming, less frequently but steadily; the game's complexity will keep growing and further affecting the performance, and so the caps will have to be lowered again.

As for the "things that can make GH perform better without impacting the gameplay", we already know the answer:

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.

Are the players ready to accept longer queues in order to preserve their ruleset? Would that be healthy for the game?

NovelliESO wrote: »

You continue to write, without any verifiable proof, that vengeance is only a test environment for GH but you have nothing at all to prove that it will not remain as a permanent mode with more resources allocated to it than GH, which would make no sense if it were only used as a test. Again, you have nothing to prove otherwise, only your own assumptions.

In the post you quote, the exact wording is “a test environment for a future performant, large-scale Cyrodiil that will be different from both today's GH and today's Vengeance”. So no, I don't keep insisting that Vengeance is only meant to serve the GH crowd. I'm rather trying to make sense of the entire thing, like everyone else; and since the Combat Team doesn't share with us what their vision is, all we have are assumptions. Perhaps the Combat Team doesn't know yet; perhaps they need to conclude all their planned tests before making decisions. More communication on this matter would most certainly be welcomed by the entire community; hopefully we will get some new update after this test.

You are literally saying in your own response that they don't know which refutes your own initial point when you say it ONLY exists as a test.

Qagh · July 20

We must play beta test and you don´t give us double AP!

THX FOR NOTHING!

ZOS_Amy · July 20

Hi All, we've seen some folks asking for clarification in the thread and wondering if these Vengeance tests are an indication that we might permanently close Gray Host in the future.

To be clear, there are no plans to do that.

OreoTheDj · July 20

why keep "testing" stuff no one wants? vengeance only gets played when you shut down the other campaigns, how many times does it being empty have to prove to you pvp players dont want that

NovelliESO · July 20

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

Hi All, we've seen some folks asking for clarification in the thread and wondering if these Vengeance tests are an indication that we might permanently close Gray Host in the future.

To be clear, there are no plans to do that.

You do realize when say things n political terms like "there are no plans to do that" all this conveys is that you aren't actually giving a yes or no to the question right? This means it is 100% possible it could be closed even if there are no current plans to do so, it also means it may not be closed, so this statement holds zero value at all.

Katheriah · July 20

You're SERIOUSLY not giving us double AP?

Stamicka · July 20

ZOS_Amy wrote: »

Hi All, we've seen some folks asking for clarification in the thread and wondering if these Vengeance tests are an indication that we might permanently close Gray Host in the future.

To be clear, there are no plans to do that.

It doesn’t matter what you say unfortunately.

These people will continue to say that you will. It’s been very clear that you wouldn’t close it and I’ve literally shown people quotes that indicated that Grey Host would not be closed.

[snip]
[edited for baiting]