ESO Priorities
-
NovelliESO✭✭✭HatchetHaro wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »BigPlays420 wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »BigPlays420 wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »BigPlays420 wrote: »tomofhyrule wrote: »
There is one team for Combat in general, both PvP and PvE. That means both the Class Reworks and all PvP content go through the same team led by Brian Wheeler.
See here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8439676#Comment_8439676
They have also previously said that the Class Reworks are essentially meaning we will therefore get no new Combat things (e.g. new Classes or Skill Lines) until they are finished.
(I’m on mobile and Forum Search is awful so I can’t find the quote, but it was from Kevin talking about the addition of new Classes or Weapons would take a backseat until the refreshes are done)
Correct, the team is wasting valuable time and resources on developing this “campaign” that could be spent elsewhere, like the class reworks and balancing/improving Gray Host or even adding or lightly reworking traditional Cyrodiil mechanics.
Vengeance's goal has always been network optimization, which is a task for ZOS's live-operations engineering team. From the posts complaining about the item sets not working, it's evident that no balancing work has been done on them, no edge-case testing, nothing. This is just a full blind re-enabling of all the final set bonuses to stress test the item sets' impact on the Vengeance server, and so there's most likely close to zero work in this current Vengeance iteration from the combat design team.
This is still valuable data that they can use to improve Gray Host performance. In a sterilized and standardized environment like Vengeance where they have data from all of their iterations, it'd be much easier to find and debug any inefficiencies in regards to the code for item sets. Networking stuff like replication, prediction, and error correction is always more complex than you think.
Or people can just sit here and sulk about it and contribute nothing to improving performance on their favourite campaigns; their choice.
PvE OTPs who never set foot in Cyrodiil—Vengeance or otherwise—shouldn’t be posting in these threads as though they know anything about PvP and its community.
Ah yes, because basic knowledge of game dev pipelines is locked behind high PvP prowess specifically in ESO's Cyrodiil and definitely not actual game development experience. Fascinating system.
That is a complete straw man. Nobody claimed that knowledge of development pipelines is “locked behind PvP prowess.” The point is that generic game-development experience does not magically give you firsthand knowledge of ESO’s PvP community, its priorities, or the consequences these changes have on the people who actually play Cyrodiil every day.
You may understand how development works in theory, but that does not make you an authority on what this specific community wants—especially when you do not participate in it. Technical knowledge can inform a discussion about implementation; it cannot replace direct experience with the game mode or invalidate the overwhelming feedback coming from its active players. Fascinating attempt to substitute credentials for relevance, though.
I never said a single word about player sentiment or community priorities. All I've done is state a plain technical reality: live-ops network engineering and combat design are separate pipelines. Inventing a narrative that I'm trying to "invalidate community sentiment" is a neat straw man, but it doesn't counter the reality of how game development works.
I play plenty of PvP; assuming otherwise just because it didn't fit your narrative is as flawed as assuming a server stress test is taking away from a class rework.
Dismissing player frustration as 'sulking' completely misses the point. ZOS shut down Greyhost and Blackreach, effectively forcing the PvP playerbase to act as unpaid QA testers for a campaign ruleset the majority doesn't want. We are customers logging in for entertainment, not employees clocking in to stress-test their servers. People have every right to be upset when the content they actually want, like the promised class refresh, gets overshadowed by mandatory stress tests.
You can't claim you 'never said a word about player sentiment' when your previous post explicitly accused players of 'sitting here and sulking' if they don't want to test Vengeance. That isn't a straw man; it's addressing what you actually typed.
Regarding development pipelines: yes, a server engineer and a combat designer are different jobs with different day to day managers, but they are building the same game under the same game director, deploying patches on the same release schedule.
The decision to forcefully shut down the live Greyhost and Blackreach campaigns wasn’t made in a vacuum by a rogue coder; it was a macro-level studio decision. When leadership decides it is worth disrupting the live game to prioritize network stress testing, while simultaneously leaving the community wondering about promised class reworks, due to strange decisions, players are going to criticize those priorities. The fact that different people write the code doesn't change the fact that studio leadership is bottlenecking what actually gets delivered to the players.
Calling unproductive behavior what it is isn't dismissive. Voicing frustration is completely valid, but doing so via a false dilemma poll, backing it up with false pipeline assumptions, and using that to justify a refusal to participate in tests that gather performance data with the best chances of improving the regular Cyrodiil campaigns is just sulking.
The reality is that Gray Host and Blackreach are already down for the week. While feedback today might influence future testing plans, the only objective way to improve performance for regular campaigns right now is to participate in Vengeance and provide the network data they need. To be clear, if you don't want to because you just hate the idea of Vengeance, that's fine; you're right, you're not obligated to be their unpaid QA testers.
There are some legitimate things to criticize here too: the poor communication regarding the timeline for this iteration of Vengeance testing, the complete lack of incentives and rewards for players to join Vengeance, and of course, their taking down of Gray Host and Blackreach for this testing duration, a decision which players rightfully dislike.
Your point about studio leadership confuses deployment with development bandwidth. Yes, leadership made a macro-level decision to disrupt live campaigns for data (and yes, people can criticize that), but live-deployment scheduling still has nothing to do with combat design; those pipelines still run in parallel. Keeping Gray Host up still wouldn't speed up the class refresh by a single second. Criticize for the operational disruption and the other points I've listed above all you want, those are valid; but framing it as a development bottleneck is still factually wrong.
You are missing the forest for the trees regarding studio priorities by hyper-fixating on the literal coding process.
No one is arguing that canceling a server test magically injects code into a combat designer's keyboard to finish a class refresh faster. That is a completely literal and uncharitable reading of the community's frustration.
While combat design and network engineering might be parallel tracks, the overarching studio machinery is not. Deploying a live stress test doesn't happen in isolation. It requires QA verification to clear the build, liveops scheduling, community management messaging, and above all, executive focus and approval. All of these are shared, finite resources.
When leadership decides to push a highly disruptive, mandatory stress test onto the live servers, while simultaneously fumbling the communication and failing to provide good rational, which we agree on, it shows exactly where the studio's operational focus currently lies. The frustration isn't based on a 'false pipeline assumption'; it’s a valid critique of project management. Leadership chose to bulldoze the primary PvP camp for data harvesting, leaving players with a disrupted game while they wait for the content they actually want.
You can't handwave the overarching frustration by hiding behind 'parallel pipelines.' The people running the game dictate what hits the live servers, and right now, they prioritized forcing a test environment over maintaining the campaigns the community actually logs in to play.
Also, to state "the only objective way to improve performance for regular campaigns right now is to participate in Vengeance and provide the network data they need" is just objectively wrong. There are a literal infinite number of ways to improve performance, I'm sure you can agree with that, so I don't know why you'd even try to make that point.
Glad we agree on the core point: Vengeance testing, at least in this iteration, did not delay combat design work.
But let's not pretend that "nobody was arguing that". The entire premise of this thread was that development resources spent on Vengeance were directly stealing bandwidth from the class reworks. Now that we've established that the pipelines run in parallel, shifting the definition of "resources" to include Community Manager time, QA deployment windows, and "executive focus" is just moving the goalposts.
By that logic, literally any operational activity ZOS engages in, like Crown Store updates and deploying Holiday events, is a "project management bottleneck" for the class reworks. It dilutes the concept of "pipeline bandwidth" until it means nothing.
As for your semantic point: yes, ZOS could re-write their legacy architecture or buy new server hardware, but there are plenty of technical and architectural reasons why it isn't that simple, and one of those is because they have done that. Besides, within the context of a live test running this specific week, participating and generating network data is the immediate, actionable objective. You are entirely free to boycott the test out of protest, but changing what "resource" means still doesn't turn a live-ops schedule into a combat design delay.
It isn’t 'moving the goalposts' to accurately describe how software development actually works. You brought up Crown Store updates and Holiday events as a reductio ad absurdum, but ironically, you stumbled onto the exact reality of game development; shared pipeline bandwidth.
A patch has finite allocation for QA, bug fixing, and deployment. If the QA and liveops teams are bogged down deploying, monitoring, and hotfixing a massive, disruptive PvP stress test, they physically cannot be testing and verifying a sweeping class refresh in that same deployment window. That isn't 'diluting' the concept of a pipeline; that is literally how you manage a finite release schedule. By choosing to push Vengeance to the live servers now, leadership actively chose to allocate that shared deployment bandwidth toward a test instead of other deliverables.
When the community complains that 'resources are being wasted on Vengeance instead of class balance,' they are talking about the overarching delivery of the product to the consumer. Assuming they literally mean a combat designer is being forced to code server architecture is just you forcing an overly literal interpretation onto colloquial feedback.
In addition, my "semantic point" was in response to your OBJECTIVELY WRONG statement. And the best part about it is you go to the most absurd example of how they can fix issues when as I stated before, there are a literal infinite amount and you don't engage with any of the much less strenuous ones.
Retconning the literal claim that Vengeance dev time takes away from class reworks into "colloquial feedback" is just rewriting the argument after it got debunked.
Claiming that a Vengeance stress test blocks class reworks in QA assumes that a class rework is already fully developed and sitting in a deployment queue waiting for QA clearance. We don't know that. Both the Dragonknight and Werewolf reworks have been teased and detailed well before their respective PTS releases, and the complete radio silence around the Warden rework heading into the twice-delayed U51 PTS strongly suggests that it is still in active design and iterative balancing. Given the recent layoffs, it could be delayed even further; we'll just have to wait for their revised roadmap to see.
About that "objectively wrong" statement, I was actually referring to players, but I didn't clearly specify that, so that slip of ambiguity is on me. I'll clarify now: I was saying that participating in this iteration of Vengeance is the only objective way for players to contribute data towards improved performance for regular campaigns. As for the "millions of ways" ZOS can improve regular Cyrodiil performance, well, I think you can see they are at a dead-end when rewriting architecture and upgrading hardware isn't giving the results the players want. You are free to make more suggestions.
We both agree that shutting down Gray Host causes operational disruption and frustrates players. But trying to stretch "resource allocation" to cover QA queues, Community Managers, and executive calendars just to avoid admitting that live-ops engineering and combat design run on parallel tracks is the very definition of moving the goalposts.
You keep repeating 'parallel tracks' as if a game studio operates in infinite, separate vacuums. Yes, the combat designer and the network engineer write different code. But those parallel tracks converge at the deployment station. Pretending that QA, liveops, and executive scheduling aren't fundamental parts of the development pipeline isn't 'moving the goalposts' it is simply explaining how software actually ships.
Ironically, your point about the U51 delays and recent layoffs actually proves the community's point for them:
The Resource Squeeze: When a studio suffers layoffs, its operational bandwidth shrinks. If the class reworks are delayed or struggling, and resources are tighter than ever, leadership's decision to dedicate their remaining QA and liveops bandwidth to a mandatory stress test is exactly the prioritization the community is criticizing. You are pointing at a delayed roadmap in a studio with fewer resources and still pretending this massive live server test didn't cost them any operational bandwidth.
The 'Literal' Defense: No one is 'retconning' the argument. You are just demanding that frustrated players speak like software engineers so you can dismiss their valid complaints on a technicality. When players say 'resources are being wasted,' they mean the studio's collective output is focused on the wrong thing.
Finally, regarding your clarification that playing Vengeance is the only way players can contribute to fixing the performance: it is not the player's job to fix ZOS's tech debt.
This is a commercial entertainment product, not an open-source volunteer project. If ZOS is truly at a 'dead end' with their legacy code after a decade, forcing players into an unrewarding test environment by shutting down the campaigns they actually pay to play is a terrible management strategy. Choosing to log off instead of acting as an unpaid data-harvester isn't a failure to contribute; it is the loudest, most undeniable data point a consumer can provide about a studio's priorities.
If you want answers as to how change can happen outside of this, there is a thread that both React and I have commented on, within the last week, and given multiple realistic solutions and alternatives.2 -
HatchetHaro✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭NovelliESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »BigPlays420 wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »BigPlays420 wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »BigPlays420 wrote: »tomofhyrule wrote: »
There is one team for Combat in general, both PvP and PvE. That means both the Class Reworks and all PvP content go through the same team led by Brian Wheeler.
See here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8439676#Comment_8439676
They have also previously said that the Class Reworks are essentially meaning we will therefore get no new Combat things (e.g. new Classes or Skill Lines) until they are finished.
(I’m on mobile and Forum Search is awful so I can’t find the quote, but it was from Kevin talking about the addition of new Classes or Weapons would take a backseat until the refreshes are done)
Correct, the team is wasting valuable time and resources on developing this “campaign” that could be spent elsewhere, like the class reworks and balancing/improving Gray Host or even adding or lightly reworking traditional Cyrodiil mechanics.
Vengeance's goal has always been network optimization, which is a task for ZOS's live-operations engineering team. From the posts complaining about the item sets not working, it's evident that no balancing work has been done on them, no edge-case testing, nothing. This is just a full blind re-enabling of all the final set bonuses to stress test the item sets' impact on the Vengeance server, and so there's most likely close to zero work in this current Vengeance iteration from the combat design team.
This is still valuable data that they can use to improve Gray Host performance. In a sterilized and standardized environment like Vengeance where they have data from all of their iterations, it'd be much easier to find and debug any inefficiencies in regards to the code for item sets. Networking stuff like replication, prediction, and error correction is always more complex than you think.
Or people can just sit here and sulk about it and contribute nothing to improving performance on their favourite campaigns; their choice.
PvE OTPs who never set foot in Cyrodiil—Vengeance or otherwise—shouldn’t be posting in these threads as though they know anything about PvP and its community.
Ah yes, because basic knowledge of game dev pipelines is locked behind high PvP prowess specifically in ESO's Cyrodiil and definitely not actual game development experience. Fascinating system.
That is a complete straw man. Nobody claimed that knowledge of development pipelines is “locked behind PvP prowess.” The point is that generic game-development experience does not magically give you firsthand knowledge of ESO’s PvP community, its priorities, or the consequences these changes have on the people who actually play Cyrodiil every day.
You may understand how development works in theory, but that does not make you an authority on what this specific community wants—especially when you do not participate in it. Technical knowledge can inform a discussion about implementation; it cannot replace direct experience with the game mode or invalidate the overwhelming feedback coming from its active players. Fascinating attempt to substitute credentials for relevance, though.
I never said a single word about player sentiment or community priorities. All I've done is state a plain technical reality: live-ops network engineering and combat design are separate pipelines. Inventing a narrative that I'm trying to "invalidate community sentiment" is a neat straw man, but it doesn't counter the reality of how game development works.
I play plenty of PvP; assuming otherwise just because it didn't fit your narrative is as flawed as assuming a server stress test is taking away from a class rework.
Dismissing player frustration as 'sulking' completely misses the point. ZOS shut down Greyhost and Blackreach, effectively forcing the PvP playerbase to act as unpaid QA testers for a campaign ruleset the majority doesn't want. We are customers logging in for entertainment, not employees clocking in to stress-test their servers. People have every right to be upset when the content they actually want, like the promised class refresh, gets overshadowed by mandatory stress tests.
You can't claim you 'never said a word about player sentiment' when your previous post explicitly accused players of 'sitting here and sulking' if they don't want to test Vengeance. That isn't a straw man; it's addressing what you actually typed.
Regarding development pipelines: yes, a server engineer and a combat designer are different jobs with different day to day managers, but they are building the same game under the same game director, deploying patches on the same release schedule.
The decision to forcefully shut down the live Greyhost and Blackreach campaigns wasn’t made in a vacuum by a rogue coder; it was a macro-level studio decision. When leadership decides it is worth disrupting the live game to prioritize network stress testing, while simultaneously leaving the community wondering about promised class reworks, due to strange decisions, players are going to criticize those priorities. The fact that different people write the code doesn't change the fact that studio leadership is bottlenecking what actually gets delivered to the players.
Calling unproductive behavior what it is isn't dismissive. Voicing frustration is completely valid, but doing so via a false dilemma poll, backing it up with false pipeline assumptions, and using that to justify a refusal to participate in tests that gather performance data with the best chances of improving the regular Cyrodiil campaigns is just sulking.
The reality is that Gray Host and Blackreach are already down for the week. While feedback today might influence future testing plans, the only objective way to improve performance for regular campaigns right now is to participate in Vengeance and provide the network data they need. To be clear, if you don't want to because you just hate the idea of Vengeance, that's fine; you're right, you're not obligated to be their unpaid QA testers.
There are some legitimate things to criticize here too: the poor communication regarding the timeline for this iteration of Vengeance testing, the complete lack of incentives and rewards for players to join Vengeance, and of course, their taking down of Gray Host and Blackreach for this testing duration, a decision which players rightfully dislike.
Your point about studio leadership confuses deployment with development bandwidth. Yes, leadership made a macro-level decision to disrupt live campaigns for data (and yes, people can criticize that), but live-deployment scheduling still has nothing to do with combat design; those pipelines still run in parallel. Keeping Gray Host up still wouldn't speed up the class refresh by a single second. Criticize for the operational disruption and the other points I've listed above all you want, those are valid; but framing it as a development bottleneck is still factually wrong.
You are missing the forest for the trees regarding studio priorities by hyper-fixating on the literal coding process.
No one is arguing that canceling a server test magically injects code into a combat designer's keyboard to finish a class refresh faster. That is a completely literal and uncharitable reading of the community's frustration.
While combat design and network engineering might be parallel tracks, the overarching studio machinery is not. Deploying a live stress test doesn't happen in isolation. It requires QA verification to clear the build, liveops scheduling, community management messaging, and above all, executive focus and approval. All of these are shared, finite resources.
When leadership decides to push a highly disruptive, mandatory stress test onto the live servers, while simultaneously fumbling the communication and failing to provide good rational, which we agree on, it shows exactly where the studio's operational focus currently lies. The frustration isn't based on a 'false pipeline assumption'; it’s a valid critique of project management. Leadership chose to bulldoze the primary PvP camp for data harvesting, leaving players with a disrupted game while they wait for the content they actually want.
You can't handwave the overarching frustration by hiding behind 'parallel pipelines.' The people running the game dictate what hits the live servers, and right now, they prioritized forcing a test environment over maintaining the campaigns the community actually logs in to play.
Also, to state "the only objective way to improve performance for regular campaigns right now is to participate in Vengeance and provide the network data they need" is just objectively wrong. There are a literal infinite number of ways to improve performance, I'm sure you can agree with that, so I don't know why you'd even try to make that point.
Glad we agree on the core point: Vengeance testing, at least in this iteration, did not delay combat design work.
But let's not pretend that "nobody was arguing that". The entire premise of this thread was that development resources spent on Vengeance were directly stealing bandwidth from the class reworks. Now that we've established that the pipelines run in parallel, shifting the definition of "resources" to include Community Manager time, QA deployment windows, and "executive focus" is just moving the goalposts.
By that logic, literally any operational activity ZOS engages in, like Crown Store updates and deploying Holiday events, is a "project management bottleneck" for the class reworks. It dilutes the concept of "pipeline bandwidth" until it means nothing.
As for your semantic point: yes, ZOS could re-write their legacy architecture or buy new server hardware, but there are plenty of technical and architectural reasons why it isn't that simple, and one of those is because they have done that. Besides, within the context of a live test running this specific week, participating and generating network data is the immediate, actionable objective. You are entirely free to boycott the test out of protest, but changing what "resource" means still doesn't turn a live-ops schedule into a combat design delay.
It isn’t 'moving the goalposts' to accurately describe how software development actually works. You brought up Crown Store updates and Holiday events as a reductio ad absurdum, but ironically, you stumbled onto the exact reality of game development; shared pipeline bandwidth.
A patch has finite allocation for QA, bug fixing, and deployment. If the QA and liveops teams are bogged down deploying, monitoring, and hotfixing a massive, disruptive PvP stress test, they physically cannot be testing and verifying a sweeping class refresh in that same deployment window. That isn't 'diluting' the concept of a pipeline; that is literally how you manage a finite release schedule. By choosing to push Vengeance to the live servers now, leadership actively chose to allocate that shared deployment bandwidth toward a test instead of other deliverables.
When the community complains that 'resources are being wasted on Vengeance instead of class balance,' they are talking about the overarching delivery of the product to the consumer. Assuming they literally mean a combat designer is being forced to code server architecture is just you forcing an overly literal interpretation onto colloquial feedback.
In addition, my "semantic point" was in response to your OBJECTIVELY WRONG statement. And the best part about it is you go to the most absurd example of how they can fix issues when as I stated before, there are a literal infinite amount and you don't engage with any of the much less strenuous ones.
Retconning the literal claim that Vengeance dev time takes away from class reworks into "colloquial feedback" is just rewriting the argument after it got debunked.
Claiming that a Vengeance stress test blocks class reworks in QA assumes that a class rework is already fully developed and sitting in a deployment queue waiting for QA clearance. We don't know that. Both the Dragonknight and Werewolf reworks have been teased and detailed well before their respective PTS releases, and the complete radio silence around the Warden rework heading into the twice-delayed U51 PTS strongly suggests that it is still in active design and iterative balancing. Given the recent layoffs, it could be delayed even further; we'll just have to wait for their revised roadmap to see.
About that "objectively wrong" statement, I was actually referring to players, but I didn't clearly specify that, so that slip of ambiguity is on me. I'll clarify now: I was saying that participating in this iteration of Vengeance is the only objective way for players to contribute data towards improved performance for regular campaigns. As for the "millions of ways" ZOS can improve regular Cyrodiil performance, well, I think you can see they are at a dead-end when rewriting architecture and upgrading hardware isn't giving the results the players want. You are free to make more suggestions.
We both agree that shutting down Gray Host causes operational disruption and frustrates players. But trying to stretch "resource allocation" to cover QA queues, Community Managers, and executive calendars just to avoid admitting that live-ops engineering and combat design run on parallel tracks is the very definition of moving the goalposts.
You keep repeating 'parallel tracks' as if a game studio operates in infinite, separate vacuums. Yes, the combat designer and the network engineer write different code. But those parallel tracks converge at the deployment station. Pretending that QA, liveops, and executive scheduling aren't fundamental parts of the development pipeline isn't 'moving the goalposts' it is simply explaining how software actually ships.
Ironically, your point about the U51 delays and recent layoffs actually proves the community's point for them:
The Resource Squeeze: When a studio suffers layoffs, its operational bandwidth shrinks. If the class reworks are delayed or struggling, and resources are tighter than ever, leadership's decision to dedicate their remaining QA and liveops bandwidth to a mandatory stress test is exactly the prioritization the community is criticizing. You are pointing at a delayed roadmap in a studio with fewer resources and still pretending this massive live server test didn't cost them any operational bandwidth.
The 'Literal' Defense: No one is 'retconning' the argument. You are just demanding that frustrated players speak like software engineers so you can dismiss their valid complaints on a technicality. When players say 'resources are being wasted,' they mean the studio's collective output is focused on the wrong thing.
Finally, regarding your clarification that playing Vengeance is the only way players can contribute to fixing the performance: it is not the player's job to fix ZOS's tech debt.
This is a commercial entertainment product, not an open-source volunteer project. If ZOS is truly at a 'dead end' with their legacy code after a decade, forcing players into an unrewarding test environment by shutting down the campaigns they actually pay to play is a terrible management strategy. Choosing to log off instead of acting as an unpaid data-harvester isn't a failure to contribute; it is the loudest, most undeniable data point a consumer can provide about a studio's priorities.
If you want answers as to how change can happen outside of this, there is a thread that both React and I have commented on, within the last week, and given multiple realistic solutions and alternatives.
Okay, at this point, we're just stuck in a loop of repeating the same arguments with different framing, so I think it's best to just summarize where we stand, agree to disagree, and move on.
We both agree that taking down Gray Host and Blackreach creates major operational disruption and understandably frustrates players; that players are under no obligation to act as unpaid QA testers, and choosing to log off or boycott is a completely valid stance; and that ZOS's communication regarding timelines, goals, and incentives for these tests leaves a lot to be desired.
Where we disagree is that while I view combat design and live-ops engineering as parallel tracks, where running a server stress test doesn't hold up class reworks that are still in active design iteration, you view running that stress test as actively draining shared development bandwidth and blocking the deployment pipeline for the class reworks.
I think we've both said what needed to be said. Appreciate the discussion.
Edited by HatchetHaro on 23 July 2026 19:11Best Argonian NA and I will fight anyone for it
20 Argonians
7x IR, 7x GH, 8x TTT, 5x GS, 6x DB, 1x PB, 4x SBS, 1x MM, 1x US, 2x CB, 1x Unchained0 -
Wuuffyy✭✭✭✭✭
✭Class rework@NovelliESO and @HatchetHaro are agreeing to disagree. I am here as a witness to this and they are now clear to continue discourse with others.
On a more relevant note- it probably would have taken more effort for them to yank this test and reinstitute later than to run-as-planned now. They have had MANY issues since -you know what- with many things on the technical level; I can’t imagine I’m incorrect on this statement knowing that especially.
(quick note, I explain my ‘stance’ for my ‘vote’ on first page by the way- for context)Edited by Wuuffyy on 23 July 2026 23:49Wuuffyy,
WEREWOLF FINALLY GOT A REWORK AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (sorry I mean... NERF WW, one-bar BAD, DESTROY one-bar builds)
ESO player since 2014 (Xbox and PC for PTS)
-new players, feel free to DM for guidance!0 -
RedMamba✭✭✭Class rework3 days in and Vengeance hasn't moved above 1 bars all day and primetime. Can we get GH opened back up @ZOS_Kevin ?2
-
FENGRUSH✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭HatchetHaro wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »NovelliESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »BigPlays420 wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »BigPlays420 wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »BigPlays420 wrote: »tomofhyrule wrote: »
There is one team for Combat in general, both PvP and PvE. That means both the Class Reworks and all PvP content go through the same team led by Brian Wheeler.
See here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8439676#Comment_8439676
They have also previously said that the Class Reworks are essentially meaning we will therefore get no new Combat things (e.g. new Classes or Skill Lines) until they are finished.
(I’m on mobile and Forum Search is awful so I can’t find the quote, but it was from Kevin talking about the addition of new Classes or Weapons would take a backseat until the refreshes are done)
Correct, the team is wasting valuable time and resources on developing this “campaign” that could be spent elsewhere, like the class reworks and balancing/improving Gray Host or even adding or lightly reworking traditional Cyrodiil mechanics.
Vengeance's goal has always been network optimization, which is a task for ZOS's live-operations engineering team. From the posts complaining about the item sets not working, it's evident that no balancing work has been done on them, no edge-case testing, nothing. This is just a full blind re-enabling of all the final set bonuses to stress test the item sets' impact on the Vengeance server, and so there's most likely close to zero work in this current Vengeance iteration from the combat design team.
This is still valuable data that they can use to improve Gray Host performance. In a sterilized and standardized environment like Vengeance where they have data from all of their iterations, it'd be much easier to find and debug any inefficiencies in regards to the code for item sets. Networking stuff like replication, prediction, and error correction is always more complex than you think.
Or people can just sit here and sulk about it and contribute nothing to improving performance on their favourite campaigns; their choice.
PvE OTPs who never set foot in Cyrodiil—Vengeance or otherwise—shouldn’t be posting in these threads as though they know anything about PvP and its community.
Ah yes, because basic knowledge of game dev pipelines is locked behind high PvP prowess specifically in ESO's Cyrodiil and definitely not actual game development experience. Fascinating system.
That is a complete straw man. Nobody claimed that knowledge of development pipelines is “locked behind PvP prowess.” The point is that generic game-development experience does not magically give you firsthand knowledge of ESO’s PvP community, its priorities, or the consequences these changes have on the people who actually play Cyrodiil every day.
You may understand how development works in theory, but that does not make you an authority on what this specific community wants—especially when you do not participate in it. Technical knowledge can inform a discussion about implementation; it cannot replace direct experience with the game mode or invalidate the overwhelming feedback coming from its active players. Fascinating attempt to substitute credentials for relevance, though.
I never said a single word about player sentiment or community priorities. All I've done is state a plain technical reality: live-ops network engineering and combat design are separate pipelines. Inventing a narrative that I'm trying to "invalidate community sentiment" is a neat straw man, but it doesn't counter the reality of how game development works.
I play plenty of PvP; assuming otherwise just because it didn't fit your narrative is as flawed as assuming a server stress test is taking away from a class rework.
Dismissing player frustration as 'sulking' completely misses the point. ZOS shut down Greyhost and Blackreach, effectively forcing the PvP playerbase to act as unpaid QA testers for a campaign ruleset the majority doesn't want. We are customers logging in for entertainment, not employees clocking in to stress-test their servers. People have every right to be upset when the content they actually want, like the promised class refresh, gets overshadowed by mandatory stress tests.
You can't claim you 'never said a word about player sentiment' when your previous post explicitly accused players of 'sitting here and sulking' if they don't want to test Vengeance. That isn't a straw man; it's addressing what you actually typed.
Regarding development pipelines: yes, a server engineer and a combat designer are different jobs with different day to day managers, but they are building the same game under the same game director, deploying patches on the same release schedule.
The decision to forcefully shut down the live Greyhost and Blackreach campaigns wasn’t made in a vacuum by a rogue coder; it was a macro-level studio decision. When leadership decides it is worth disrupting the live game to prioritize network stress testing, while simultaneously leaving the community wondering about promised class reworks, due to strange decisions, players are going to criticize those priorities. The fact that different people write the code doesn't change the fact that studio leadership is bottlenecking what actually gets delivered to the players.
Calling unproductive behavior what it is isn't dismissive. Voicing frustration is completely valid, but doing so via a false dilemma poll, backing it up with false pipeline assumptions, and using that to justify a refusal to participate in tests that gather performance data with the best chances of improving the regular Cyrodiil campaigns is just sulking.
The reality is that Gray Host and Blackreach are already down for the week. While feedback today might influence future testing plans, the only objective way to improve performance for regular campaigns right now is to participate in Vengeance and provide the network data they need. To be clear, if you don't want to because you just hate the idea of Vengeance, that's fine; you're right, you're not obligated to be their unpaid QA testers.
There are some legitimate things to criticize here too: the poor communication regarding the timeline for this iteration of Vengeance testing, the complete lack of incentives and rewards for players to join Vengeance, and of course, their taking down of Gray Host and Blackreach for this testing duration, a decision which players rightfully dislike.
Your point about studio leadership confuses deployment with development bandwidth. Yes, leadership made a macro-level decision to disrupt live campaigns for data (and yes, people can criticize that), but live-deployment scheduling still has nothing to do with combat design; those pipelines still run in parallel. Keeping Gray Host up still wouldn't speed up the class refresh by a single second. Criticize for the operational disruption and the other points I've listed above all you want, those are valid; but framing it as a development bottleneck is still factually wrong.
You are missing the forest for the trees regarding studio priorities by hyper-fixating on the literal coding process.
No one is arguing that canceling a server test magically injects code into a combat designer's keyboard to finish a class refresh faster. That is a completely literal and uncharitable reading of the community's frustration.
While combat design and network engineering might be parallel tracks, the overarching studio machinery is not. Deploying a live stress test doesn't happen in isolation. It requires QA verification to clear the build, liveops scheduling, community management messaging, and above all, executive focus and approval. All of these are shared, finite resources.
When leadership decides to push a highly disruptive, mandatory stress test onto the live servers, while simultaneously fumbling the communication and failing to provide good rational, which we agree on, it shows exactly where the studio's operational focus currently lies. The frustration isn't based on a 'false pipeline assumption'; it’s a valid critique of project management. Leadership chose to bulldoze the primary PvP camp for data harvesting, leaving players with a disrupted game while they wait for the content they actually want.
You can't handwave the overarching frustration by hiding behind 'parallel pipelines.' The people running the game dictate what hits the live servers, and right now, they prioritized forcing a test environment over maintaining the campaigns the community actually logs in to play.
Also, to state "the only objective way to improve performance for regular campaigns right now is to participate in Vengeance and provide the network data they need" is just objectively wrong. There are a literal infinite number of ways to improve performance, I'm sure you can agree with that, so I don't know why you'd even try to make that point.
Glad we agree on the core point: Vengeance testing, at least in this iteration, did not delay combat design work.
But let's not pretend that "nobody was arguing that". The entire premise of this thread was that development resources spent on Vengeance were directly stealing bandwidth from the class reworks. Now that we've established that the pipelines run in parallel, shifting the definition of "resources" to include Community Manager time, QA deployment windows, and "executive focus" is just moving the goalposts.
By that logic, literally any operational activity ZOS engages in, like Crown Store updates and deploying Holiday events, is a "project management bottleneck" for the class reworks. It dilutes the concept of "pipeline bandwidth" until it means nothing.
As for your semantic point: yes, ZOS could re-write their legacy architecture or buy new server hardware, but there are plenty of technical and architectural reasons why it isn't that simple, and one of those is because they have done that. Besides, within the context of a live test running this specific week, participating and generating network data is the immediate, actionable objective. You are entirely free to boycott the test out of protest, but changing what "resource" means still doesn't turn a live-ops schedule into a combat design delay.
It isn’t 'moving the goalposts' to accurately describe how software development actually works. You brought up Crown Store updates and Holiday events as a reductio ad absurdum, but ironically, you stumbled onto the exact reality of game development; shared pipeline bandwidth.
A patch has finite allocation for QA, bug fixing, and deployment. If the QA and liveops teams are bogged down deploying, monitoring, and hotfixing a massive, disruptive PvP stress test, they physically cannot be testing and verifying a sweeping class refresh in that same deployment window. That isn't 'diluting' the concept of a pipeline; that is literally how you manage a finite release schedule. By choosing to push Vengeance to the live servers now, leadership actively chose to allocate that shared deployment bandwidth toward a test instead of other deliverables.
When the community complains that 'resources are being wasted on Vengeance instead of class balance,' they are talking about the overarching delivery of the product to the consumer. Assuming they literally mean a combat designer is being forced to code server architecture is just you forcing an overly literal interpretation onto colloquial feedback.
In addition, my "semantic point" was in response to your OBJECTIVELY WRONG statement. And the best part about it is you go to the most absurd example of how they can fix issues when as I stated before, there are a literal infinite amount and you don't engage with any of the much less strenuous ones.
Retconning the literal claim that Vengeance dev time takes away from class reworks into "colloquial feedback" is just rewriting the argument after it got debunked.
Claiming that a Vengeance stress test blocks class reworks in QA assumes that a class rework is already fully developed and sitting in a deployment queue waiting for QA clearance. We don't know that. Both the Dragonknight and Werewolf reworks have been teased and detailed well before their respective PTS releases, and the complete radio silence around the Warden rework heading into the twice-delayed U51 PTS strongly suggests that it is still in active design and iterative balancing. Given the recent layoffs, it could be delayed even further; we'll just have to wait for their revised roadmap to see.
About that "objectively wrong" statement, I was actually referring to players, but I didn't clearly specify that, so that slip of ambiguity is on me. I'll clarify now: I was saying that participating in this iteration of Vengeance is the only objective way for players to contribute data towards improved performance for regular campaigns. As for the "millions of ways" ZOS can improve regular Cyrodiil performance, well, I think you can see they are at a dead-end when rewriting architecture and upgrading hardware isn't giving the results the players want. You are free to make more suggestions.
We both agree that shutting down Gray Host causes operational disruption and frustrates players. But trying to stretch "resource allocation" to cover QA queues, Community Managers, and executive calendars just to avoid admitting that live-ops engineering and combat design run on parallel tracks is the very definition of moving the goalposts.
You keep repeating 'parallel tracks' as if a game studio operates in infinite, separate vacuums. Yes, the combat designer and the network engineer write different code. But those parallel tracks converge at the deployment station. Pretending that QA, liveops, and executive scheduling aren't fundamental parts of the development pipeline isn't 'moving the goalposts' it is simply explaining how software actually ships.
Ironically, your point about the U51 delays and recent layoffs actually proves the community's point for them:
The Resource Squeeze: When a studio suffers layoffs, its operational bandwidth shrinks. If the class reworks are delayed or struggling, and resources are tighter than ever, leadership's decision to dedicate their remaining QA and liveops bandwidth to a mandatory stress test is exactly the prioritization the community is criticizing. You are pointing at a delayed roadmap in a studio with fewer resources and still pretending this massive live server test didn't cost them any operational bandwidth.
The 'Literal' Defense: No one is 'retconning' the argument. You are just demanding that frustrated players speak like software engineers so you can dismiss their valid complaints on a technicality. When players say 'resources are being wasted,' they mean the studio's collective output is focused on the wrong thing.
Finally, regarding your clarification that playing Vengeance is the only way players can contribute to fixing the performance: it is not the player's job to fix ZOS's tech debt.
This is a commercial entertainment product, not an open-source volunteer project. If ZOS is truly at a 'dead end' with their legacy code after a decade, forcing players into an unrewarding test environment by shutting down the campaigns they actually pay to play is a terrible management strategy. Choosing to log off instead of acting as an unpaid data-harvester isn't a failure to contribute; it is the loudest, most undeniable data point a consumer can provide about a studio's priorities.
If you want answers as to how change can happen outside of this, there is a thread that both React and I have commented on, within the last week, and given multiple realistic solutions and alternatives.
Okay, at this point, we're just stuck in a loop of repeating the same arguments with different framing, so I think it's best to just summarize where we stand, agree to disagree, and move on.
We both agree that taking down Gray Host and Blackreach creates major operational disruption and understandably frustrates players; that players are under no obligation to act as unpaid QA testers, and choosing to log off or boycott is a completely valid stance; and that ZOS's communication regarding timelines, goals, and incentives for these tests leaves a lot to be desired.
Where we disagree is that while I view combat design and live-ops engineering as parallel tracks, where running a server stress test doesn't hold up class reworks that are still in active design iteration, you view running that stress test as actively draining shared development bandwidth and blocking the deployment pipeline for the class reworks.
I think we've both said what needed to be said. Appreciate the discussion.
The optics of vengeance testing is bad. The lack of leadership or direction in display is not a great thing to witness while this game is trying to get on its feet again and see what it can do after being slashed.
Maybe the networking teams will discover some info here. But this was never the path to solution for cyrodiil. We dont need a 900 person zone that can only hit 3 targets. These 2 pieces alone make the environment so far from desirable the outcome of network findings feel irrelevant.
There's a lot bad here. I have enjoyed prolonged sieges and noninvincable group play. Thats about it. The cost for it is awful though. We need to see real leadership from zos. That'll do more than any test at this point.8 -
ItsNotLiving✭✭✭✭✭Class reworkWhy are these guys being so secretive and weird about the warden refresh? We got a whole article previewing Dragonknight.1 -
tomofhyrule✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Class reworkItsNotLiving wrote: »Why are these guys being so secretive and weird about the warden refresh? We got a whole article previewing Dragonknight.
This is a major question. Secrecy leads to uncertainty. Uncertainty leads to suspicion and conspiracy.
DK's whole article (which was essentially the patch notes) was released on the Thursday before PTS dropped. However, the Seasons preview article from two days before that give us a screenshot and also specifically talked about the Werewolf update. Even in a more extreme example, the original Class refresh article from a month before the PTS release did at least give a high-level overview of the direction of the rework and mentioned a few new things (like the Avalanche Landslide passive.
The new Werewolf model was first shown off in the DevChat stream in March, and there was already a full thread of people discussing improvements to the model. We didn't get a full article of patch notes, but a week before PTS dropped we did get a large forum post with a lot of notes there.
So yeah, we did get some stuff on both of the major reworks so far quite a bit before the PTS, and then a large drop of information the week before PTS so we were primed for it. The fact that we have gotten nothing at all for Warden so far does not bode well.
They never said that Warden is the reason PTS was delayed by an entire month at this point, but considering we've seen them talk about every other feature in U51 by now definitely makes it seem like that's the issue. And U51 can't be delayed that much longer since some of the things in U51 (High Seas event, the Trial) are designed to be in Season One, and Season One can't even switch over until the Season Two items are added in with U51. Not to mention that the Crown Crate items are also reliant on U51 to drop, so they can't get us to buy more until they add them to the game.0 -
RedMamba✭✭✭Class reworkIt's been crickets regarding Warden rework or any results from all these tests. It would be great if shared something about these tests and what the plan is.0
-
peacenote✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Class reworkNot 100% sure about this poll so I probably shouldn't have answered it
but if I'm voting on which thing should be a higher priority for ZOS, assuming they are even competing, I chose class refresh because the class refreshes benefit the whole game (both PvE and PvP) while Vengeance is enjoyed by a subset of people who PvP (not even the entire audience). And I'm not even trying to touch the Vengeance vs. GH debate (although that's also a thing)... I just mean that some people may prefer BG's or IC over Cyro. So the class rework benefits a much larger portion of the community. 0 -
ceruulean✭✭✭✭The game is starting to suffer from performance degradation, so if Vengeance testing helps with that, then Vengeance is needed. But I don't really know what's happening to the game. Warden reworks might start making the game more broken.
ESO Lag Issues: Why Combat Feels Broken Right Now
0 -
sshogrin✭✭✭✭✭tomofhyrule wrote: »Hi all. Just wanted to give some insight here. The vengeance testing we have going on this week was already factored in and scheduled a few months ago. However, we are still committed to the class refresh and working on adjusting our schedule. We should have more to share soon. So class refresh is still a core focus moving forward.
Thank you Kevin. It is heartening to hear the refreshes are still a focus.
The players are nervous though. Would it be possible to have the Combat Team share some things? We really should have heard anything about Warden’s by now (DK essentially got the full patch notes the Thursday before U49’s PTS and was made a large focus of the Season Zero marketing, and we had the Werewolf concept art shown off in a DevChat stream weeks before U50 went to PTS along with a dev comment on the forums about how a new bit attack would be added), but the team has almost awkwardly been doing gymnastics to avoid even saying the word “Warden,” and the PTS was delayed by three weeks for a vague reason. Based on the original timeline, the Combat Team should be done with Warden and only polishing based on PTS feedback, and even starting to do Sorcerer by now. Is there any concept art or anything they could share to placate us?
I do also wonder why, if this Vengeance test was planned and scheduled months ago,
1) Why did it not get a first pass on PTS to both prep the players to accept it and also test to see which sets did and didn’t work?
2) Why was this not in the July Survival Guide article like the other planned Vengeance tests?
Those two factors are what’s making the players feel so off guard, and the timing of this being the first new communication after the news of the shakeups just made it land horribly.
So the vengeance tests require having a larger set of folks to play. So that is why we end up doing the tests on the live server. Giving wider access helps with the testing. As for the survival guide, it should have been on there. But I think that was a general oversight as to why it was not listed. But agreed, it should have been.
As I have suggested a number of times on the forums here, how about if you gave people an incentive to go over to the PTS for testing things?
As it stands, there is absolutely no incentive to go spend valuable time on the PTS to test things. Maybe if we got gold and XP that we gained over on PTS transferred to our Live accounts, that would be helpful. Maybe if the resources we farmed were brought to our Live accounts. Give us something for our valuable time playing on the PTS when we could be spending that time on our Live accounts.
In the case of Cyrodiil, give people the AP on their characters they play on the PTS.
Give us some rewards for doing testing for your company. Give us something for our valuable time.1 -
SneaK✭✭✭✭✭
✭Class reworktomofhyrule wrote: »Hi all. Just wanted to give some insight here. The vengeance testing we have going on this week was already factored in and scheduled a few months ago. However, we are still committed to the class refresh and working on adjusting our schedule. We should have more to share soon. So class refresh is still a core focus moving forward.
Thank you Kevin. It is heartening to hear the refreshes are still a focus.
The players are nervous though. Would it be possible to have the Combat Team share some things? We really should have heard anything about Warden’s by now (DK essentially got the full patch notes the Thursday before U49’s PTS and was made a large focus of the Season Zero marketing, and we had the Werewolf concept art shown off in a DevChat stream weeks before U50 went to PTS along with a dev comment on the forums about how a new bit attack would be added), but the team has almost awkwardly been doing gymnastics to avoid even saying the word “Warden,” and the PTS was delayed by three weeks for a vague reason. Based on the original timeline, the Combat Team should be done with Warden and only polishing based on PTS feedback, and even starting to do Sorcerer by now. Is there any concept art or anything they could share to placate us?
I do also wonder why, if this Vengeance test was planned and scheduled months ago,
1) Why did it not get a first pass on PTS to both prep the players to accept it and also test to see which sets did and didn’t work?
2) Why was this not in the July Survival Guide article like the other planned Vengeance tests?
Those two factors are what’s making the players feel so off guard, and the timing of this being the first new communication after the news of the shakeups just made it land horribly.
So the vengeance tests require having a larger set of folks to play. So that is why we end up doing the tests on the live server. Giving wider access helps with the testing. As for the survival guide, it should have been on there. But I think that was a general oversight as to why it was not listed. But agreed, it should have been.
As I have suggested a number of times on the forums here, how about if you gave people an incentive to go over to the PTS for testing things?
As it stands, there is absolutely no incentive to go spend valuable time on the PTS to test things. Maybe if we got gold and XP that we gained over on PTS transferred to our Live accounts, that would be helpful. Maybe if the resources we farmed were brought to our Live accounts. Give us something for our valuable time playing on the PTS when we could be spending that time on our Live accounts.
In the case of Cyrodiil, give people the AP on their characters they play on the PTS.
Give us some rewards for doing testing for your company. Give us something for our valuable time.
Why not just run an actual test campaign on live, ya know like Vengeance. But instead of deleting everything people play ESO for, run a test campaign that’s just like Greyhost with larger pops, but each month try doing different things. Oh I know, the first month could be no heal stacking, second month could be no shield stacking. Wouldn’t that be something.Edited by SneaK on 25 July 2026 23:08"IMO"Aldmeri Dominion1 Nightblade - 1 Templar - 7 Hybrid Mutt Abominations2 -
LPapirius✭✭✭✭✭
✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »Improve performance in GH.
Ya, where are those GH improvements they said vengeance was created for in the first place?1 -
RedMamba✭✭✭Class reworkSaffronCitrusflower wrote: »Improve performance in GH.
Ya, where are those GH improvements they said vengeance was created for in the first place?
That's what I'm most surprised by that they haven't even implemented a single improvement to GH yet.1 -
Aces-High-82✭✭✭✭Class reworkYou do not have to be a genius to name multi cross player effects from skills and sets as the culprit of the server performance issues on the ancient server structure. It has been brought up for years yet nothing happened regarding the code to improve the situation.
Same thing with the periodic server checks to prevent "cheating".0 -
RedMamba✭✭✭Class reworkMarch 24, 2025 was the first Vengeance test and not a single improvement has been made towards Grey Host performance improvements or any sort of communication about the findings.0
-
tomofhyrule✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Class reworkMarch 24, 2025 was the first Vengeance test and not a single improvement has been made towards Grey Host performance improvements or any sort of communication about the findings.
Look, I’m not a fan of this push to replace Grey Host with Vengeance, but let’s not tilt at windmills here.
They absolutely communicated about the findings. It was a whole thing: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/685603/community-update-vengeance-testing-cyrodiil/p10 -
RedMamba✭✭✭Class reworktomofhyrule wrote: »March 24, 2025 was the first Vengeance test and not a single improvement has been made towards Grey Host performance improvements or any sort of communication about the findings.
Look, I’m not a fan of this push to replace Grey Host with Vengeance, but let’s not tilt at windmills here.
They absolutely communicated about the findings. It was a whole thing: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/685603/community-update-vengeance-testing-cyrodiil/p1
1 communication 9 months ago over multiple tests and haven't implemented a single performance improvement is just lip service.1 -
TheAwesomeChimpanzee✭✭✭✭✭Class reworktomofhyrule wrote: »March 24, 2025 was the first Vengeance test and not a single improvement has been made towards Grey Host performance improvements or any sort of communication about the findings.
Look, I’m not a fan of this push to replace Grey Host with Vengeance, but let’s not tilt at windmills here.
They absolutely communicated about the findings. It was a whole thing: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/685603/community-update-vengeance-testing-cyrodiil/p1
1 communication 9 months ago over multiple tests and haven't implemented a single performance improvement is just lip service.
Brother these are not performance tests, it’s a beta testing environment for vengeance, always has been. And it’ll take 5+ years for it to be something the PvP community will actually log in to play, and that is time this game doesn’t have, another test will effectively kill PvP.Edited by TheAwesomeChimpanzee on 27 July 2026 16:43TO THE PVP COMMUNITY: OUR ABSENCE IS FEEDBACK. DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE JULY 20TH VENGEANCE TESTS.0 -
IZZEFlameLash✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Class reworkTheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »tomofhyrule wrote: »March 24, 2025 was the first Vengeance test and not a single improvement has been made towards Grey Host performance improvements or any sort of communication about the findings.
Look, I’m not a fan of this push to replace Grey Host with Vengeance, but let’s not tilt at windmills here.
They absolutely communicated about the findings. It was a whole thing: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/685603/community-update-vengeance-testing-cyrodiil/p1
1 communication 9 months ago over multiple tests and haven't implemented a single performance improvement is just lip service.
Brother these are not performance tests, it’s a beta testing environment for vengeance, always has been. And it’ll take 5+ years for it to be something the PvP community will actually log in to play, and that is time this game doesn’t have, another test will effectively kill PvP.
If it really was a performance test, why are we not being informed what they are doing with the supposed data collection would be my question personally.ItsNotLiving wrote: »Why are these guys being so secretive and weird about the warden refresh? We got a whole article previewing Dragonknight.
They better not have decided to opt to develop crown items more than actual core gameplay changing things such as class rework... want to believe that but at the same time... yeah.Imperials, the one and true masters of all mortal races of Tamriel0 -
RedMamba✭✭✭Class rework@ZOS_JessicaFolsom so when will be getting the performance results from all these tests and timeline for changes to Gray Host then to improve the bad performance during primetime when ball groups get on? That was the plan all along right?0