Greyhost and Vengeance

robertlabrie

2025-12-08 20:30 EST

Greyhost AD: locked; EP: 2 bars; DC: locked
Vengeance: AD: 1 bar; EP: 2 bars; DC: 1 bar

(IDK why I can't paste screenshots in the forums anymore)

So now that we know that GH remains popular, ZOS, it's time to stop disrupting the GH player population by turning it off during these Vengeance tests. Some players like Veng, I hope you keep it for them. Anything that drives up engagement and player satisfaction is good for us and for the business. STOP turning off GH. You're alienating and upsetting people. Stop doing it. Stop.

Thanks

LPapirius

robertlabrie wrote: »

2025-12-08 20:30 EST

Greyhost AD: locked; EP: 2 bars; DC: locked
Vengeance: AD: 1 bar; EP: 2 bars; DC: 1 bar

(IDK why I can't paste screenshots in the forums anymore)

So now that we know that GH remains popular, ZOS, it's time to stop disrupting the GH player population by turning it off during these Vengeance tests. Some players like Veng, I hope you keep it for them. Anything that drives up engagement and player satisfaction is good for us and for the business. STOP turning off GH. You're alienating and upsetting people. Stop doing it. Stop.

Thanks

And this is while vengeance is offering double XP while Grey Host is not.

SpiritKitten

But you are forgetting that the pop caps are different, so the overall fullness of a bar is different. Grayhost is 300 and Vengeance is 900.

LPapirius

SpiritKitten wrote: »

But you are forgetting that the pop caps are different, so the overall fullness of a bar is different. Grayhost is 300 and Vengeance is 900.

Maybe for the first instance of vengeance, but that most certainly has not been the caps on subsequent instances.

ZOS has not announced the pop caps for any instance of vengeance other than the first, and they blurred out the player number axis on those graphs too, so we don't know if that was the cap even on the first test data they have presented. Additionally the caps have been very obviously reduced in these more recent vengeance instances so the cap was nothing anywhere near 900/faction. ZOS is not publishing any data that doesn't fit the narrative they're trying to sell.

robertlabrie

The point isn't which is more popular, I don't care. The point is that Greyhost remains popular, and that stopping it during these tests is frustrating and alienatingfor the people who prefer it and it needs to stop.

Rohamad_Ali

SpiritKitten wrote: »

But you are forgetting that the pop caps are different, so the overall fullness of a bar is different. Grayhost is 300 and Vengeance is 900.

Yes and because of this we would need to know GH pop cap number to do the math.

SeaGtGruff

I might be mistaken, but I thought Jennifer said this is going to be the last test? I admit, I haven't looked at that thread since it was created, so I might be mistaken about that.

Personally, I hope they keep Gray Host alongside Vengeance. I'm not sure which one I'd choose as my home campaign-- two weeks ago I'd have said Gray Host, but after trying out this final version of Vengeance I honestly don't know.

MincMincMinc

LPapirius wrote: »

SpiritKitten wrote: »

But you are forgetting that the pop caps are different, so the overall fullness of a bar is different. Grayhost is 300 and Vengeance is 900.

Maybe for the first instance of vengeance, but that most certainly has not been the caps on subsequent instances.

ZOS has not announced the pop caps for any instance of vengeance other than the first, and they blurred out the player number axis on those graphs too, so we don't know if that was the cap even on the first test data they have presented. Additionally the caps have been very obviously reduced in these more recent vengeance instances so the cap was nothing anywhere near 900/faction. ZOS is not publishing any data that doesn't fit the narrative they're trying to sell.

For the first test there was no cap. They had spent the first two days going above the 900 player supposed limit and then said they went back and settled on it. Which has been consistent all the way through their PR statements.

Engineering wise it would make absolutely 0 sense to change the cap from the base test that ended on a stable 900. The only reason you would change the test pop cap would be to figure out what the new stable number is after collecting your 900 pop data. Considering zos never incentivized and even de-incentivized participating I see no reason they would ever have to change from the 900 base cap because after the 2nd test player involvement has not reached the 900 cap again for sure. Between boycotting and zos running other events at the same time, it is just exceedingly poor planning.

Avran_Sylt

And welcome to the optics problem Vengeance will have if they don't tweak the pop UI to show comparative population sizes.

Make Vengeance's bar fill at the same rate compared to Grey Hosts, and be able to "Overshield" bars by bolding or double-bolding the respective tick based on how many times it has wrapped around.

People go where the action is. And if visually Grey Hosts bar fills faster despite a smaller pop cap, it's going to be viewed as more active.

CatoUnchained

MincMincMinc wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

SpiritKitten wrote: »

But you are forgetting that the pop caps are different, so the overall fullness of a bar is different. Grayhost is 300 and Vengeance is 900.

Maybe for the first instance of vengeance, but that most certainly has not been the caps on subsequent instances.

ZOS has not announced the pop caps for any instance of vengeance other than the first, and they blurred out the player number axis on those graphs too, so we don't know if that was the cap even on the first test data they have presented. Additionally the caps have been very obviously reduced in these more recent vengeance instances so the cap was nothing anywhere near 900/faction. ZOS is not publishing any data that doesn't fit the narrative they're trying to sell.

For the first test there was no cap. They had spent the first two days going above the 900 player supposed limit and then said they went back and settled on it. Which has been consistent all the way through their PR statements.

Engineering wise it would make absolutely 0 sense to change the cap from the base test that ended on a stable 900. The only reason you would change the test pop cap would be to figure out what the new stable number is after collecting your 900 pop data. Considering zos never incentivized and even de-incentivized participating I see no reason they would ever have to change from the 900 base cap because after the 2nd test player involvement has not reached the 900 cap again for sure. Between boycotting and zos running other events at the same time, it is just exceedingly poor planning.

Sorry, I stopped reading when you claimed that ZOS has been remarkably consistent with their PR statements.

MincMincMinc

CatoUnchained wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

SpiritKitten wrote: »

But you are forgetting that the pop caps are different, so the overall fullness of a bar is different. Grayhost is 300 and Vengeance is 900.

Maybe for the first instance of vengeance, but that most certainly has not been the caps on subsequent instances.

ZOS has not announced the pop caps for any instance of vengeance other than the first, and they blurred out the player number axis on those graphs too, so we don't know if that was the cap even on the first test data they have presented. Additionally the caps have been very obviously reduced in these more recent vengeance instances so the cap was nothing anywhere near 900/faction. ZOS is not publishing any data that doesn't fit the narrative they're trying to sell.

For the first test there was no cap. They had spent the first two days going above the 900 player supposed limit and then said they went back and settled on it. Which has been consistent all the way through their PR statements.

Engineering wise it would make absolutely 0 sense to change the cap from the base test that ended on a stable 900. The only reason you would change the test pop cap would be to figure out what the new stable number is after collecting your 900 pop data. Considering zos never incentivized and even de-incentivized participating I see no reason they would ever have to change from the 900 base cap because after the 2nd test player involvement has not reached the 900 cap again for sure. Between boycotting and zos running other events at the same time, it is just exceedingly poor planning.

Sorry, I stopped reading when you claimed that ZOS has been remarkably consistent with their PR statements.

uhh numbers wise the only inconsistency is that way back in like 2012 they were claiming that one campaign could support 1800 players. Then this time around releasing numbers they have been claiming originally the game was designed around 900 players. This 900 checks out with their other claims of vengeance being 3x the pop of 300. Which 300 total aligns with ingame addon estimates of 90-120 that people see on live per faction. Unless you have other statements they made counter to this?

YandereGirlfriend

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

And welcome to the optics problem Vengeance will have if they don't tweak the pop UI to show comparative population sizes.

Make Vengeance's bar fill at the same rate compared to Grey Hosts, and be able to "Overshield" bars by bolding or double-bolding the respective tick based on how many times it has wrapped around.

People go where the action is. And if visually Grey Hosts bar fills faster despite a smaller pop cap, it's going to be viewed as more active.

I would say that more folk simply go where they see their own side dominating through numbers.

Like last night most of EP was busy zerging 3-1-1 in Vengeance while they were the only non-locked faction in GH. They went where they could get the easiest wins and the fastest AP and that is typically just bandwagoning on the already-winning side.

They began trickling back into GH and got back to 3 bars, likely after the whole Vengeance map was red and there was no longer any AP to be made there.

xylena

The player base is too small to support 2 campaigns. They need to commit to 1 model and 1 campaign to rebuild the critical mass and player investment needed for 24/7 action.

YandereGirlfriend

xylena wrote: »

The player base is too small to support 2 campaigns. They need to commit to 1 model and 1 campaign to rebuild the critical mass and player investment needed for 24/7 action.

If Vengeance is really that popular with new and casual PvP players then it should be able to build its own stable population over time. And I hope that it achieves that. More overall PvP players is a tide that lifts all ships.

But like, it isn't the fault of Grey Host that most current PvP players prefer it. And that choice needs to be respected.

In the meantime, Vengeance must to do its own work to create a competitive case for itself in the marketplace for player time and attention. We absolutely do not need a coercive hand forcing players into one or the other. If that is what Vengeance boosters believe is necessary for Vengeance to succeed then it belies a lack of confidence that the campaign can succeed on its own merits.

If population imbalance causes issues (because, as has been stated plenty of times, Vengeance lacks any tools to effectively combat population imbalance...) there are plenty of options. Those might include: a) give players tools to better fight back against numbers, b) dynamic population cap, c) temporarily reduced population cap, d) gameplay bonuses for the outnumbered sides, e) massive material rewards for the outnumbered sides.

xylena

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

But like, it isn't the fault of Grey Host that most current PvP players prefer it.

Selection bias / survivor bias. Of course most current GH players prefer GH, everyone else is gone, and GH is definitely NOT healthy if it looks like this at 6:30pm EST:



Each GH bar is worth a third of a Vengeance bar, so this GH server pop would look like 1/1/1 if it were using the Vengeance pop caps.

robertlabrie

xylena wrote: »

The player base is too small to support 2 campaigns. They need to commit to 1 model and 1 campaign to rebuild the critical mass and player investment needed for 24/7 action.

Wave after wave of mandatory Vengeance testing negatively impacted the classic player population. Blackreach completely died after the first one. They can stop abusing the classic popn and see if it recovers, or just run them all off and make veng the new thing like you said.


It's 8PM ET now and all 3 are locked in GH.

blktauna

All the more reason to not do GH. Nothing like being stalled into a slideshow when the ball groups show up. No thanks.

Goldie

Having two different versions of Cyrodiil is splitting the PvP community, which is causing lower populations in both campaigns.

This is detrimental to the community as a whole. First and foremost, you need PLAYERS in a campaign.

Having two different versions at ANY time is going to be bad. ZOS needs to just balance the original and stop trying to re-invent the wheel to address long standing issues and imbalances with the game that they have neglected to fix.

Lucasl402

robertlabrie wrote: »

2025-12-08 20:30 EST

Greyhost AD: locked; EP: 2 bars; DC: locked
Vengeance: AD: 1 bar; EP: 2 bars; DC: 1 bar

(IDK why I can't paste screenshots in the forums anymore)

So now that we know that GH remains popular, ZOS, it's time to stop disrupting the GH player population by turning it off during these Vengeance tests. Some players like Veng, I hope you keep it for them. Anything that drives up engagement and player satisfaction is good for us and for the business. STOP turning off GH. You're alienating and upsetting people. Stop doing it. Stop.

Thanks

Last night prime time PC NA Grey Host was pop locked all three factions. Vengeance was one bar all three factions. Even with double XP and a 50 transmute stone box daily with vengeance people are playing Grey Host anyway.

Lucasl402

blktauna wrote: »

All the more reason to not do GH. Nothing like being stalled into a slideshow when the ball groups show up. No thanks.

ZOS is who's decided not to listen to the years of player suggestions to limit heal stacking to create the situation you're complaining about. They could just fix that one thing in Cyrodiil and see where things stand after that.

ZOS could balance and fix most of the issues with Grey Host if they just tried.

ShutUpitsRed

An annoying feature of having both running is the people picking up bad habits from vengeance and bringing them to Gray Host. Pick up your siege when you're done with it!

Turtle_Bot

Lucasl402 wrote: »

robertlabrie wrote: »

2025-12-08 20:30 EST

Greyhost AD: locked; EP: 2 bars; DC: locked
Vengeance: AD: 1 bar; EP: 2 bars; DC: 1 bar

(IDK why I can't paste screenshots in the forums anymore)

So now that we know that GH remains popular, ZOS, it's time to stop disrupting the GH player population by turning it off during these Vengeance tests. Some players like Veng, I hope you keep it for them. Anything that drives up engagement and player satisfaction is good for us and for the business. STOP turning off GH. You're alienating and upsetting people. Stop doing it. Stop.

Thanks

Last night prime time PC NA Grey Host was pop locked all three factions. Vengeance was one bar all three factions. Even with double XP and a 50 transmute stone box daily with vengeance people are playing Grey Host anyway.

PC EU literally right now as of typing this post, which is getting towards the end of primetime for EU.

GH = 3 bars across the board
Vengeance = 2 bar AD, 2 bar EP, 1 bar DC.

Assuming the pop caps (numbers given by both ZOS and independent player addons) are correct, then there's roughly similar numbers of players in vengeance that there is in GH (at least on PC EU).

xylena

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

Assuming the pop caps (numbers given by both ZOS and independent player addons) are correct, then there's roughly similar numbers of players in vengeance that there is in GH (at least on PC EU).

The pop levels on Vengeance feel exactly the same as on GH while both are running. During NA prime time there will be 1 big zerg fight on the front and 1 smaller fight somewhere else, that's about it. The difference is that Vengeance has room to grow because it's accessible to new players, while GH and its gatekept meta will only continue declining.

JustLovely

xylena wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

Assuming the pop caps (numbers given by both ZOS and independent player addons) are correct, then there's roughly similar numbers of players in vengeance that there is in GH (at least on PC EU).

The pop levels on Vengeance feel exactly the same as on GH while both are running. During NA prime time there will be 1 big zerg fight on the front and 1 smaller fight somewhere else, that's about it. The difference is that Vengeance has room to grow because it's accessible to new players, while GH and its gatekept meta will only continue declining.

Everyone should have to climb the same hill to PvP. Advocating for the removal of the game mode many of us log in to play because you want a friend or spouse to get into PvP without putting in the same effort the rest of us have is a bad look.

...and yes, advocating for making vengeance permanent is the same as advocating for the removal of Grey Host. ZOS will never run both modes same time.

xylena

JustLovely wrote: »

Everyone should have to climb the same hill to PvP.

Yeah that's Vengeance. GH isn't a hill, it's a vertical wall.

JustLovely wrote: »

...and yes, advocating for making vengeance permanent is the same as advocating for the removal of Grey Host. ZOS will never run both modes same time.

Yeah I am. GH is dead, will not and cannot be fixed.

Players still thinking they're gonna "fix" GH will never stop being funny.

Durham

xylena wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

Everyone should have to climb the same hill to PvP.

Yeah that's Vengeance. GH isn't a hill, it's a vertical wall.

JustLovely wrote: »

...and yes, advocating for making vengeance permanent is the same as advocating for the removal of Grey Host. ZOS will never run both modes same time.

Yeah I am. GH is dead, will not and cannot be fixed.

Players still thinking they're gonna "fix" GH will never stop being funny.

Vengeance is no climb its a FPS loadout in a fantasy setting. It belongs as its own game. It's an embarrassment to be called MMORPG PVP

I disagree that Greyhost is dead, but I do think it will die in the future due to a lack of attention.
Greyhost has become the perfect example of what happens when overhealing, absurd mobility, infinite shields, and stacked buffs take over a PvP environment with no meaningful balancing. It’s not fun, it’s not competitive, and it’s definitely not the PvP experience for anyone outside a ball group or a small sweat ball group.

Unfortunately, I Just Don’t See PvP Surviving With the Current Mindset

At this point, it’s hard to imagine ESO’s PvP lasting much longer—not with the direction things have been heading. The people who built the foundation of this game’s RvR-style PvP back in 2012–2014 are mostly gone. Many of them came from DAoC, the original blueprint for tri-faction MMORPG warfare. They understood what made large-scale PvP work: balance, counterplay, and multiple viable playstyles.

What we have now feels like a distorted version of that vision. Small-Group PvP Has No Home Anymore
A lot of us were excited when ZOS mentioned smaller PvP maps—something designed for players who don’t enjoy ball groups but still want to build PvP characters, experiment with builds, and fight in a less controlled, and still tactical environment.

That idea would have kept many of us engaged.

But instead, we are stuck with Greyhost, which has become a playground for ball groups. And for players who enjoy ballgroup content, solo play, or small-scale roaming, there’s just nowhere to go.

xylena

Durham wrote: »

Greyhost has become the perfect example of ... no meaningful balancing.

FTFY.

Vengeance is their attempt at meaningful balancing. Even if you don't like how they're doing it, still way more of a meaningful attempt than say, jamming in yet another 5pc proc set as a bandaid "fix" for one of the many problems caused by some other 5pc proc set.

Durham

xylena wrote: »

Durham wrote: »

Greyhost has become the perfect example of ... no meaningful balancing.

FTFY.

Vengeance is their attempt at meaningful balancing. Even if you don't like how they're doing it, still way more of a meaningful attempt than say, jamming in yet another 5pc proc set as a band-aid "fix" for one of the many problems caused by some other 5pc proc set.

I have never been a fan of proc sets/pull sets. But I do like theorycrafting. The main problem is not proc sets its the insane speed curve out runs siege and takes advantage of LOS, stacking over-healing, Buff stacking, and shield stacking. I do like the healing/speed/siege and shield changes on Vengeance but I also do not think we need 900 people in Cyrodil I would rather have more customization and a solid 360! Currently, vengeance is too limited for me. Feels like im in a loadout FPS game, not MMORPG PVP game.

xylena

Durham wrote: »

I also do not think we need 900 people in Cyrodil I would rather have more customization and a solid 360! Currently, vengeance is too limited for me. Feels like im in a loadout FPS game, not MMORPG PVP game.

Sounds like what they have in mind for the new PvP mode they're working on, supposedly like a three way Cyro keep siege battleground with full build options.

There's about the same room for theorycrafting in Vengeance and GH. In Vengeance you only have a few real options. In GH you only have a few real options (but endless worthless garbage setups that give players the illusion of choice, wasting their time and resources on solved puzzles).

robertlabrie

Xylena, the community seems to disagree. Greyhost remains popular. Several mandatory tests haven't forced everyone to like Vengeance. Telling us we're wrong isn't convincing anyone. I opened this thread advocating for both modes as a choice and I'm hoping ZOS sees the need to do so.

Durham

xylena wrote: »

Durham wrote: »

I also do not think we need 900 people in Cyrodil I would rather have more customization and a solid 360! Currently, vengeance is too limited for me. Feels like im in a loadout FPS game, not MMORPG PVP game.

Sounds like what they have in mind for the new PvP mode they're working on, supposedly like a three way Cyro keep siege battleground with full build options.

There's about the same room for theorycrafting in Vengeance and GH. In Vengeance you only have a few real options. In GH you only have a few real options (but endless worthless garbage setups that give players the illusion of choice, wasting their time and resources on solved puzzles).

Not true, I log in every night with a NON Meta build, I run Bow/Twohander Stam Based sorc with 30k health. Last night I logged with 45 kills, 2 deaths, 18 kill shots. I rarely log at night with more then 3 to 4 deaths. Nothing meta about my build, I run 5 medium, 1 heavy, 1 light. It's fast, fun build but not for everyone. A great open-world build. Meta's what you see most people play, but there are plenty of people who run NoN meta, and it works, and just do not share it. BTW I run with 2 to 3 others that are also not playing meta. They log with the same numbers. Also, I do not know of anyone who is running the same setup. I know of people that running something similar.