Maintenance for the week of November 24:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – November 24
The connection issues for the European PC/Mac megaserver have been resolved at this time. If you continue to experience difficulties at login, please restart your client. Thank you for your patience!

Community Update – Vengeance Testing & Cyrodiil

ZOS_JessicaFolsom
ZOS_JessicaFolsom
Community Manager
With the next Vengeance test coming up in December, we wanted to give everyone an update on the Vengeance testing and where we’re headed with Cyrodiil. We recognize that you all have questions about next steps and what these tests mean for the future of Cyrodiil, and we’re here to answer some of those questions. We also want to give you as much context and info as possible, in the name of transparency.

The Goals
To recap where we started and where we’ve been with the Vengeance tests, earlier this year we set out to try some new things with Cyrodiil to address the following specific goals:
  • Significantly increase the player cap in a Cyrodiil campaign so that campaigns feel lively, full, and there’s lots of action to enjoy.
    • Cyrodiil was originally designed to support 900 total concurrent players (300 per alliance.) We have not been able to support those target numbers in the current non-Vengeance Cyrodiil campaigns. We are able to hit 900 total concurrent players with the Vengeance ruleset.
  • Reduce frustrating latency and related game performance issues in Cyrodiil, especially during large, sustained battles. And in turn, increase the fun and enjoyment.
  • Through testing, determine if overall Ability complexity is the main cause of server stress and game performance issues in Cyrodiil, especially during mass battles and in high-population campaigns.
    • We did test other potential causes of server stress and game performance issues in Cyrodiil during the Vengeance tests, such as item sets and procs, consumable items, siege weapons, quests, vendors, etc. Ability complexity was our primary suspected main cause factor, though.

Test Summaries
Since March, we have held three Vengeance tests. The next one will begin on December 3, 2025.

For the first test, which was on the PC EU and NA servers, we introduced the Vengeance ruleset including normalized character stats, attributes, consumables, and Vengeance-specific weapons for all classes. We also disabled things like the Champion System, all quests, item sets, and access to banks, vendors, and crafting nodes.

The specific goal of this test was to give us a starting point – to reduce things to the most basic level so we could evaluate the findings and begin adding things back in. At the end of this test, we saw the most players ever in Cyrodiil at one time in a single campaign, the largest sustained battles we’ve ever had in Cyrodiil, and the best overall game performance we’ve ever seen in Cyrodiil. By all accounts, we were on the right track based on our goals.

Survey results were also the most positive following this test compared to subsequent ones, with many participants saying they enjoyed the higher population, improved game performance/lower latency, and overall experience. The aligned Golden Pursuit was also noted as a positive. The loss of unique class/character builds and customization was (and continues to be) the biggest negative point.

For the second test, we welcomed the live console EU and NA server communities. The Vengeance ruleset was largely the same as the first test, with the addition of Vengeance versions of skills from all Weapon skill lines and the Assault and Support Skill lines to the available class templates.

The specific goal of this test was to build upon the baseline we set during the first test, slowly begin introducing more skill lines and abilities, and evaluate the results. At the end of this test, we saw similar results with better game performance, lower latency, higher population, and larger sustained battles than possible in other Cyrodiil campaigns.

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

Survey results for this test were similar in sentiment, leaning positive. Over 80% of participants rated the added skill lines favorably (“OK”, “Good”, or “Great”), sharing appreciation for the variety and balance, while also noting that there’s room to improve.

For the third test, we layered upon what we introduced in the two previous tests, and added in meatbag catapults, as well as performance-tailored skill lines for the Fighters Guild and Mages Guild, plus an armor skill line with active abilities for light, medium, and heavy armor. We also introduced certain progression and cosmetic systems into Vengeance, including Skyshards, mount selection, titles, and achievements.

Similar to the second test, our goal was to introduce more things that players enjoy and expect in a Cyrodiil campaign, and monitor the impact on latency, game performance, and overall experience.

We did not run a Golden Pursuit during this Vengeance test, and saw disappointment about that. We also ran this test during the Undaunted Celebration, which some players understandably noted they had higher interest in participating in versus this test. Even though population in Vengeance was lower during this test, it still performed well and participant numbers were still higher than our typical population caps in a normal Cyrodiil campaign.

Survey results for this test were more mixed than the results following the first two and we saw less positivity overall. More survey participants noted fatigue with the tests and a desire to be able to play their own unique characters and builds in Cyrodiil, and frustration that the test ran during another in-game event.


Test Learnings
Throughout the first three tests, we learned with certainty that in order to deliver a performant Cyrodiil, to support a large-scale PvP zone with mass-scale battles, the abilities, procs, passives, etc. must be lighter versions of the ones that exist in the rest of the game.

The set of four graphs below illustrate the differences in population as well as the server frames per second between the Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign and non-Vengeance Cyrodiil campaigns. (On the left of each graph is the non-Vengeance campaigns and on the right are the Vengeance campaigns, on the PC EU and PC NA servers.)

qdmiz4jb326w.png

Next Steps
For the test in December, we will introduce Vengeance-specific Perks and Loadout systems for character/class templates. These systems are designed to give you a bit more variety over your builds compared to what was available in previous Vengeance tests. Specifically, you will have more control over your stats with four pre-build stats packages called “Loadouts” and “Perks” are passives that give extra combat effectiveness and bonuses to your characters. The intent with these is to give characters a boost that is comparable to a single 5-piece item set that is purely passive, like Julianos.

We will also be adding a Vengeance-specific inventory, which will store all your Vengeance items. During this test, you will also be able to collect regular items while in the Vengeance campaign – those items will be placed into your regular inventory. Many systems that were previously turned off in Vengeance will also be turned back on including quests, vendors, and leaderboards. Scattershot and Oil Catapults will also join the available options for siege weapons, and Keep Recall Stones and Channeled Repair Kits will also be added.

We’ll share more detailed notes ahead of the December test. We’ll monitor the impact of these additional systems on latency and game performance, as we have during prior tests.

Lastly, the Gray Host campaign (as it is now) will be up during the second half of this Vengeance test and will monitor server performance for both campaigns. This comparison will allow us valuable side-by-side data. This will be our final “adding new things” test where we compare the game performance of Vengeance with what a campaign looks like with all the systems turned on.

We have another test or two planned for next year, for the sake of evaluating healing versus damage concerns. We’ll share more about those next year.

So where does this put us, and where do we as a dev team realistically think we’re headed for the future of Cyrodiil? With the caveat that the December test still needs to happen, we see two realistic paths forward:
  • Scenario 1: We would open a Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign sometime next year with a special ruleset based on the previous and upcoming tests, and leave Grey Host open as it is now.
  • Scenario 2: We would close all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and open one or two Vengeance ruleset campaigns sometime next year.
As a dev team, Scenario 1 is the one we strongly prefer and is the most likely. We want you to have a choice between playing in Vengeance or Gray Host, and would closely monitor both campaign populations to help inform any additional actions we should take moving forward.

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

Lastly, we do want to share a few early bits about some things that we are working on for PvP. You’ll hear a little more about these in January. For players who wish to enjoy a PvP experience that is more like Grey Host, we are in the early stages of working on a mid-size PvP space. It will be smaller than Cyrodiil but larger than our largest Battlegrounds, and offer enough room for 3-sided keep warfare and an overall similar experience to Cyrodiil. The goal with that will be to allow players to have their full suite of abilities, unique builds, equipment, etc. just like in Gray Host. We are also working on a PvP progression system that we’re excited to tell you a little more about early next year.

Thank you all for your continued feedback and support. Your participation in the Vengeance tests and related surveys has been greatly appreciated. We’d like to remind everyone that when we send out surveys where it’s important we are able to verify that participants played the content, we have to send out the surveys via email. Please consider opting in to these emails if you haven’t already, so you may be included in future survey sends. Thank you!
Edited by ZOS_JessicaFolsom on 24 November 2025 15:23
Jessica Folsom
Associate Director of Community - ZeniMax Online Studios
Facebook | Twitter | Twitch | Tumblr | Instagram | YouTube | Support
Staff Post
  • Destai
    Destai
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Are we still getting the PVP Q&A or is this it?
  • ZOS_Kevin
    ZOS_Kevin
    Community Manager
    Destai wrote: »
    Are we still getting the PVP Q&A or is this it?

    You are still getting the Q&A. This is in addition to that.
    Community Manager for ZeniMax Online Studio and Elder Scrolls OnlineDev Tracker | Service Alerts | ESO Twitter
    Staff Post
  • alternatelder
    alternatelder
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Poss wrote: »
    [snip]

    Read...There are details you missed.
    Also, Lol to all the people who swore to the cap being 60-80 per faction.
    [edited to remove quote]
    Edited by alternatelder on 24 November 2025 16:49
  • Sidewaves89
    Sidewaves89
    ✭✭✭
    So basically you gave up on trying to improve performance in current campaigns. If Scenario 2 come true what's the point for pvp players in buying new DLCs if sets won't work there?
  • colossalvoids
    colossalvoids
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    So basically you gave up on trying to improve performance in current campaigns. If Scenario 2 come true what's the point for pvp players in buying new DLCs if sets won't work there?

    This part:
    For players who wish to enjoy a PvP experience that is more like Grey Host, we are in the early stages of working on a mid-size PvP space.

    That's probably the closest to the actual solution for people who do enjoy Cyro as is now, as current zone definitely isn't recovering to some long lost past times, that's being moved to vengeance by altering the play those people do not endorse or want to be part of.
    Edited by colossalvoids on 24 November 2025 15:52
  • loosej
    loosej
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Depending on what the new game mode will look like and how successful it is, I personally think that having 360 cap GH + 900 cap vengeance + new map has the potential to spread out the current pvp players too much, leaving all three of them with not enough population to be fun.

    That's obviously based on the current amount of pvp mains left in the game. The new, smaller map that's similar to live cyro sounds good on paper, and might entice a lot of former players to return to the game, myself included. Performance and pop caps will be the major factor for the success/failure of this new mode I think. If it's 24v24v24 for example, it would be too small to still have that feeling of epic siege battles. If it's 120v120v120 but comes with the same performance issues GH has, it might as well not exist at all. Finding the right balance will be extremely important I think.

    Thank you for this post, it's nice to get this type of transparency and communication, even if it's long overdue. Finally getting the current live pop caps is a nice touch.
    Consistency: It's only a virtue if you're not a screwup (source: despair.com)
  • ZOS_JessicaFolsom
    ZOS_JessicaFolsom
    Community Manager
    So basically you gave up on trying to improve performance in current campaigns. If Scenario 2 come true what's the point for pvp players in buying new DLCs if sets won't work there?

    Scenario 1 is what we are working toward, in which case Grey Host would remain as it is now. Like noted in the original message, through the Vengeance tests we've done so far, we learned that in order to support our goals - a large-scale PvP zone with mass-scale battles and a much higher population - the abilities, procs, passives, etc. must be lighter versions of the ones that exist in the rest of the game. So we will be applying that to Vengeance, and giving those who prefer the current Grey Host ruleset that option.
    Jessica Folsom
    Associate Director of Community - ZeniMax Online Studios
    Facebook | Twitter | Twitch | Tumblr | Instagram | YouTube | Support
    Staff Post
  • Poss
    Poss
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I’ve been playing Cyrodiil since 2015. We were all on old gen consoles and while performance wasn’t amazing it was definitely more playable than what we have today.

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

    Problem solved. But alas, the devs won’t listen
  • McMasterx
    McMasterx
    ✭✭✭
    Is there any chance we can get the Campaigns renamed too? I know it's a non-issue, but we've had these names since 2020. Maybe even bring back the year 1 names, since we just had all the Anniversary stuff happen.
    Edited by McMasterx on 24 November 2025 16:02
    Pc/Na
  • Erickson9610
    Erickson9610
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    I hope the Werewolf skill line is added to Vengeance soon. Since Vengeance will be permanent, it would really mean a lot for us Werewolf players if we had an option other than Gray Host to play in.
    PC/NA — Lone Werewolf, the EP Templar Werewolf

    Werewolf Should be Allowed to Sneak
    Please give us Werewolf Skill Styles (for customizing our fur color), Grimoires/Scribing skills (to fill in the holes in our builds), and Companions (to transform with).
  • L_Nici
    L_Nici
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Interesting, thats the first time ever the current Popcap is shown, so its 360 on live.

    I am a bit shocked that scenario 2 is even communicated, for me that means its an actual possibility that you consider to drop all usual campaigns...I am not sure how I feel about that.

    Also I would love to see those survey results like you showed for Vengeance 1. Because I am a bit surprised that the second test yielded 80% positive results, including the ones who voted "ok". In my opinion "ok" is not positive, "ok" is neutral at best or bearable and shouldn't be counted towards positive received.

    That you want to activate the fourth test alongside a usual campaign I do like though. I wished for that to happen a long time, not for the reason you gave in comparing the performance, but for a different reason. Now we can finally see, how well Vengeance is actually liked, if there is ANY choice. Last test the choice was a PvE Event or Vengeance and it nuked the population, so I am very interested to see two PvP rulesets competing.
    Edited by L_Nici on 24 November 2025 16:10
    PC|EU
  • LunaFlora
    LunaFlora
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    nice to see more details about Vengeance and future PvP!

    personally i do not enjoy Grey Host campaign so would be fine with Scenario 2.
    interested in the new pvp space and the new progression.
    miaow! i'm Luna ( she/her ).

    🌸*throws cherry blossom on you*🌸
    "Eagles advance, traveler! And may the Green watch and keep you."
    🦬🦌🐰
    PlayStation and PC EU.
    LunaLolaBlossom on psn.
    LunaFloraBlossom on pc.
  • ZOS_JessicaFolsom
    ZOS_JessicaFolsom
    Community Manager
    L_Nici wrote: »
    I am a bit shocked, that scenario 2 is even communicated, that means its an actual possibility, that you consider to drop all usual campaigns...I am not sure how I feel about that

    I'd like to clarify this, then, if that's the concern. With this message, we wanted to be transparent and define what the only options are. It's those two. There are no others - that also does not mean we're considering both. Scenario 2 is not our end goal or what we want for everyone.
    Jessica Folsom
    Associate Director of Community - ZeniMax Online Studios
    Facebook | Twitter | Twitch | Tumblr | Instagram | YouTube | Support
    Staff Post
  • spartaxoxo
    spartaxoxo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Which campaign would be the default in scenario 1?

    Does this mean Blackreach, No Proc and the Under 50 campaigns would go away?
  • skinnycheeks
    skinnycheeks
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Poss wrote: »
    I’ve been playing Cyrodiil since 2015. We were all on old gen consoles and while performance wasn’t amazing it was definitely more playable than what we have today.

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

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

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

    Basically, don't give up on making Gray Host better just because Vengeance has good performance.
  • Sidewaves89
    Sidewaves89
    ✭✭✭
    So basically you gave up on trying to improve performance in current campaigns. If Scenario 2 come true what's the point for pvp players in buying new DLCs if sets won't work there?

    Scenario 1 is what we are working toward, in which case Grey Host would remain as it is now. Like noted in the original message, through the Vengeance tests we've done so far, we learned that in order to support our goals - a large-scale PvP zone with mass-scale battles and a much higher population - the abilities, procs, passives, etc. must be lighter versions of the ones that exist in the rest of the game. So we will be applying that to Vengeance, and giving those who prefer the current Grey Host ruleset that option.

    But there were a short period of time (maybe 3-5 months) after datacenter hardware replacements in 2022 (NA) and 2023 (EU) when the performance in Cyro was almost normal, but then for some reason it gradually degraded to almost its pre-update state. We still don't know why it happened.
  • SneaK
    SneaK
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    [*] Scenario 1: We would open a Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign sometime next year with a special ruleset based on the previous and upcoming tests, and leave Grey Host open as it is now.
    [*] Scenario 2: We would close all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and open one or two Vengeance ruleset campaigns sometime next year.
    [/list]
    As a dev team, Scenario 1 is the one we strongly prefer and is the most likely. We want you to have a choice between playing in Vengeance or Gray Host, and would closely monitor both campaign populations to help inform any additional actions we should take moving forward.

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

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

    There has been absolutely (ABSOLUTELY) zero evidence to support the claim that you prefer to keep Cyrodiil as is for PvPrs. This is truly remarkable, we knew all along the intention of Vengenace was to enact scenario #2. The fact that y'all are now finally saying it, but still drudging our hope along is wild. Just tell us what is happening! Do we stop playing the game or not? That’s what it boils down to. Are you investing in us the same as we are to you? The answer is historically no, but at what point do you do good on the fan base that came to ESO for Cyrodiil.
    "IMO"
    Aldmeri Dominion
    Bosmer Nightblade AR 32 - Altmer Templar AR 26 - Dunmer Dragonknight AR 18 - Altmer Sorcerer AR 20 - Khajiit Dragonknight AR 18
    (+3 not worth mentioning, yet)
  • SneaK
    SneaK
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    L_Nici wrote: »
    I am a bit shocked, that scenario 2 is even communicated, that means its an actual possibility, that you consider to drop all usual campaigns...I am not sure how I feel about that

    I'd like to clarify this, then, if that's the concern. With this message, we wanted to be transparent and define what the only options are. It's those two. There are no others - that also does not mean we're considering both. Scenario 2 is not our end goal or what we want for everyone.

    We don’t believe you.
    "IMO"
    Aldmeri Dominion
    Bosmer Nightblade AR 32 - Altmer Templar AR 26 - Dunmer Dragonknight AR 18 - Altmer Sorcerer AR 20 - Khajiit Dragonknight AR 18
    (+3 not worth mentioning, yet)
  • IncultaWolf
    IncultaWolf
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    L_Nici wrote: »
    I am a bit shocked, that scenario 2 is even communicated, that means its an actual possibility, that you consider to drop all usual campaigns...I am not sure how I feel about that

    I'd like to clarify this, then, if that's the concern. With this message, we wanted to be transparent and define what the only options are. It's those two. There are no others - that also does not mean we're considering both. Scenario 2 is not our end goal or what we want for everyone.

    Appreciate the transparency and communication! :)
  • IncultaWolf
    IncultaWolf
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    LunaFlora wrote: »
    nice to see more details about Vengeance and future PvP!

    personally i do not enjoy Grey Host campaign so would be fine with Scenario 2.
    interested in the new pvp space and the new progression.

    Same, ball groups have ruined that campaign. I'm more curious about the new progression system than the new area. Does this mean 5 star rank will be account wide?

    I'd prefer having 4v4v4 battlegrounds return every now and then also.
  • Sarannah
    Sarannah
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Personally I would go for scenario one if the populations allow this, as that would leave grey host for those who enjoy the current PvP style and I would never want anything taken from players. Maybe an option to partly fix performance in current grey host would be to disable everything in that campaign that was disabled during the vengeance tests(vendors/harvest nodes/bank access/build changing/etc), but keep player specific stats/builds only and the minimum of what is needed for PvP itself. So basically keep the PvP and everything needed for PvP(quests/etc), but remove everything else to outside Cyrodiil only. (Maybe remove the delves and dolmens from grey host as well, replace those with an overland boss that grants the AP buff)

    Some questions:
    -As you stated it seemed like the first test was the most positive amongst players, is this also the vengeance campaign you are leaning towards opening(in the path forward options)?
    -Could vengeance potentially support even more than 900 total players? (maybe worth a test, to see how high the numbers can go before the server starts having issues)
    -Is scenario 2 only considered due to expecting a massive population drop from grey host and those players going to the vengeance campaign instead if these run alongside eachother?

    Really interesting read and really interesting to see what PvP players think about this!

    Thanks for the write-up ZOS, as I always love transparancy!
    Edited by Sarannah on 24 November 2025 16:51
  • JumboWheat01
    JumboWheat01
    ✭✭✭
    Question: If Scenario 2 comes to be, what will happen with the PvE parts of Cyrodiil? As is, the Vengeance rules completely prevent PvE stuff, of which there is actually plenty. Will a PvE only version of Cyrodiil be released, minus any potential AP gains?
    Echoes from the west, great hammers will fall...
    Under high rocks all will answer the call...
    Bring us your arms, pariahs of yore...
  • tomofhyrule
    tomofhyrule
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I know one of my major frustrations lately has been that the Combat Team seems to be spending nearly 100% of their time on Vengeance, and none on the actual Live experience for players, both in PvP and PvE.

    The first Vengeance test was fun - our characters had identity and it felt like a good “on-ramp” to actual PvP, similar to how PvE players have normal dungeons and trials before going into veteran content. But the later ones then seemed to be taking more and more of the development time away from other things for a mode which most people seemed to favor only as “PvP for non-PvPers,” effectively shutting out the players that it was nominally for while ignoring issues that plague all areas of the game.

    As an example: U48 made one change to Class lines in the name of balance. Otherwise, that patch brought in the Writhing Fortress (live for one week) and Vengeance 4 (another week-long test). Meanwhile, U46’s Subclassing utterly destroyed balance, and it is still in an abysmal state 6 months later, and we don’t have a hope of getting it addressed until March at the earliest.
    It seems like skewed priorities that all combat in all areas of the game was left to languish while the Loadouts and Perks system was added to a test mode. Could that not have been tabled for a cycle once it was seen that the balance was much worse than anticipated (or worse, was this balance anticipated and the team is fine with it)?

    Does the Combat Team intend to attempt balancing the rest of the game? Or is “Vengeance” going to be the answer to anyone who wants a balanced system, and other players can stick with their single overpowered hodgepodge or their memetically useless pure-class builds?

    Finally, with all of the Cyrodiil testing done over the years, it seems that the team never went to test one of the major problems in PvP: stacking several healing abilities with the same skill. PvP players have been complaining about healing output for a while, and the Hybridization change that allowed healing to scale off of WD/SD instead of max stats made it so players can output both huge heals and huge damage instead of having to choose one or the other.

    It is good to get some communication on this front, but I hope it is not too late. The PvP population has been dwindling since Vengeance was first tested because they feared it would replace Cyrodiil despite all assurances to the contrary, and well…
    If Vengeance had been sold with the caveat of “we’ll be implementing a new mid-size PvP mode,” people may have been less opposed to it. And again, poor balance has been keeping people out as well - the Combat Team should at the very least post out what their intentions are to make it not as oppressive at the endgame level.
  • twisttop138
    twisttop138
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    L_Nici wrote: »
    I am a bit shocked, that scenario 2 is even communicated, that means its an actual possibility, that you consider to drop all usual campaigns...I am not sure how I feel about that

    I'd like to clarify this, then, if that's the concern. With this message, we wanted to be transparent and define what the only options are. It's those two. There are no others - that also does not mean we're considering both. Scenario 2 is not our end goal or what we want for everyone.

    I know that this may not be what some want to hear and that some have a hard time taking Zos at it's word. I will however say that this whole post is a stunning level of transparency and this is something players have been after for a very long time. Saying the hard thing even if some people won't be happy is never easy but it's the right thing to do.

    I hope we continue to go down this path, especially as the year ends and we look to what's ahead. I hope we can get this transparency about next year's content, what's in store for us and will we be getting a new trial.

    Good show @ZOS_JessicaFolsom
  • CrashTheSystem
    I can only reiterate: Please address heal-stacking and ballgroups.

    Thank you for this community post, it's nice to see more transparency.
  • ZOS_Kevin
    ZOS_Kevin
    Community Manager
    These are some good questions. We should be able to get detailed answers to these next week. Some folks have already taken off for the Thanksgiving holiday, and we would like to check in with them before giving proper answers. But we have them noted and will follow up once we get those next week.
    Question: If Scenario 2 comes to be, what will happen with the PvE parts of Cyrodiil? As is, the Vengeance rules completely prevent PvE stuff, of which there is actually plenty. Will a PvE only version of Cyrodiil be released, minus any potential AP gains?
    Sarannah wrote: »
    Personally I would go for scenario one if the populations allow this, as that would leave grey host for those who enjoy the current PvP style and I would never want anything taken from players. Maybe an option to partly fix performance in current grey host would be to disable everything in that campaign that was disabled during the vengeance tests(vendors/harvest nodes/bank access/build changing/etc), but keep player specific stats/builds only and the minimum of what is needed for PvP itself. So basically keep the PvP and everything needed for PvP(quests/etc), but remove everything else to outside Cyrodiil only. (Maybe remove the delves and dolmens from grey host as well, replace those with an overland boss that grants the AP buff)

    Some questions:
    -As you stated it seemed like the first test was the most positive amongst players, is this also the vengeance campaign you are leaning towards opening(in the path forward options)?
    -Could vengeance potentially support even more than 900 total players? (maybe worth a test, to see how high the numbers can go before the server starts having issues)
    -Is scenario 2 only considered due to expecting a massive population drop from grey host and those players going to the vengeance campaign instead if these run alongside eachother?

    Really interesting read and really interesting to see what PvP players think about this!

    Thanks for the write-up ZOS, as I always love transparancy!
    spartaxoxo wrote: »
    Which campaign would be the default in scenario 1?

    Does this mean Blackreach, No Proc and the Under 50 campaigns would go away?

    Community Manager for ZeniMax Online Studio and Elder Scrolls OnlineDev Tracker | Service Alerts | ESO Twitter
    Staff Post
  • Valentyne
    Valentyne
    ✭✭✭
    As someone who has been PVPing since 2015 and will probably just uninstall ESO if you force Vengeance down our throats, maybe try actually fixing Grey Host first. Remove proc sets like dark con and rush, limit aoe heals to x amount of players, do the same to shields. With the release of subclassing 90% of people in groups are just running the same sets to the point it's lagging out pve as well. PS NA has groups so large they need discord to communicate with voice chat and 15+ of them are all backbarring dark con with necro slam ult.

    Pvp shouldn't be dumbed down and made easy because devs are too lazy to admit what they broke and fix it accordingly. Seems like you say you're listen to player feedback, but it's from players that don't actually pvp outside of midyear mayhem events.
    SIR BUNS OF THE EP FIREFIGHTERS
    PS5 - NA SERVER - GREYHOST
    WEE WOO
  • licenturion
    licenturion
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thanks for the transparent communication. I am looking forward for more Vengeance!

    I do hope you will be able to keep the original campaigns for the people that prefer it. If enough people switch to Vengeance, it might even fix the performance problems automatically.
  • SneaK
    SneaK
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I know one of my major frustrations lately has been that the Combat Team seems to be spending nearly 100% of their time on Vengeance, and none on the actual Live experience for players, both in PvP and PvE.

    The first Vengeance test was fun - our characters had identity and it felt like a good “on-ramp” to actual PvP, similar to how PvE players have normal dungeons and trials before going into veteran content. But the later ones then seemed to be taking more and more of the development time away from other things for a mode which most people seemed to favor only as “PvP for non-PvPers,” effectively shutting out the players that it was nominally for while ignoring issues that plague all areas of the game.

    As an example: U48 made one change to Class lines in the name of balance. Otherwise, that patch brought in the Writhing Fortress (live for one week) and Vengeance 4 (another week-long test). Meanwhile, U46’s Subclassing utterly destroyed balance, and it is still in an abysmal state 6 months later, and we don’t have a hope of getting it addressed until March at the earliest.
    It seems like skewed priorities that all combat in all areas of the game was left to languish while the Loadouts and Perks system was added to a test mode. Could that not have been tabled for a cycle once it was seen that the balance was much worse than anticipated (or worse, was this balance anticipated and the team is fine with it)?

    Does the Combat Team intend to attempt balancing the rest of the game? Or is “Vengeance” going to be the answer to anyone who wants a balanced system, and other players can stick with their single overpowered hodgepodge or their memetically useless pure-class builds?

    Finally, with all of the Cyrodiil testing done over the years, it seems that the team never went to test one of the major problems in PvP: stacking several healing abilities with the same skill. PvP players have been complaining about healing output for a while, and the Hybridization change that allowed healing to scale off of WD/SD instead of max stats made it so players can output both huge heals and huge damage instead of having to choose one or the other.

    It is good to get some communication on this front, but I hope it is not too late. The PvP population has been dwindling since Vengeance was first tested because they feared it would replace Cyrodiil despite all assurances to the contrary, and well…
    If Vengeance had been sold with the caveat of “we’ll be implementing a new mid-size PvP mode,” people may have been less opposed to it. And again, poor balance has been keeping people out as well - the Combat Team should at the very least post out what their intentions are to make it not as oppressive at the endgame level.

    It seems pretty glaringly obvious to me, they are going to force Vengeance and give some small deathmatch map to the rest of us. They don’t understand PvPers. There are many of us that go to Cyrodiil strictly cause it’s a big open world with random encounters, multiple objectives, and you can seek out gameplay specific to your builds. If I make a good 1v1 type build, I want to go find small scale encounters, and I can do that most of the time, while still playing objectively. If I want to Zerg surf on a build I’m testing to see how it plays, I can do that. The only reason I PvE is to theorycraft PvP builds, literally it. I’m not alone.

    This team doesn’t understand. I’m sorry but nothing in the form of good news has come from them, I cannot think of anything. Scenario 2 which is ultimately what they’ll do, gives no reason for people like me to play ESO. It’s sad. I’m not some crazy 1vXr god, I’m a decent player, but getting kills isn’t even what drives me to play this game. It’s competing at various levels in all the situations Cyrodiil has, with builds I made and grinded my butt off for. They don’t get it. Turning off GH type Cyro turns off ESO as a whole for a lot of us.
    Edited by SneaK on 24 November 2025 19:49
    "IMO"
    Aldmeri Dominion
    Bosmer Nightblade AR 32 - Altmer Templar AR 26 - Dunmer Dragonknight AR 18 - Altmer Sorcerer AR 20 - Khajiit Dragonknight AR 18
    (+3 not worth mentioning, yet)
  • loosej
    loosej
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    SneaK wrote: »
    [*] Scenario 1: We would open a Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign sometime next year with a special ruleset based on the previous and upcoming tests, and leave Grey Host open as it is now.
    [*] Scenario 2: We would close all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and open one or two Vengeance ruleset campaigns sometime next year.
    [/list]
    As a dev team, Scenario 1 is the one we strongly prefer and is the most likely. We want you to have a choice between playing in Vengeance or Gray Host, and would closely monitor both campaign populations to help inform any additional actions we should take moving forward.

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

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

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

    If I were to make a guess, they'll probably start with scenario 1, and hope that the GH crowd moves to the new game mode so that in time they can switch to scenario 2 without upsetting a large part of what's left of the current pvp mains. If the new game mode can offer the live cyro experience without the performance issues, that would probably be the best path forward.
    Consistency: It's only a virtue if you're not a screwup (source: despair.com)
Sign In or Register to comment.