[REQUEST] Permanent Vengeance Test Campaign
-
aetherix8✭✭✭MorallyBipolar wrote: »
That's because you're not a PvP player.
The problem is that ZOS is acting like their intention is to make vengeance the only PvP option in Cyrodiil just like they made 2 team BG's the only option.
The current Cyrodiil isn't bringing any new players to PvP either. On the contrary, even with drastically reduced pop caps GH isn't pop locked most of the time, BR is barely kicking and the other two campaigns are basically dead. It's been quite some time I didn't see PvPers complaining about queue lenghts. The last WSM saw the lowest participation ever, and I'm pretty sure PvEers got out as soon as they got their tickets from a single scouting quest, while before they used to hang around for much longer, be it in towns or in pugs.
ZOS is acting like their intention is to develop a new mode while saying they are just testing some performance fixes.
Vengeance haters are acting like the current Cyrodiil is so broken that there's nothing else to do but to scrap it entirely.PC EU - V4hn14 -
Darethran✭✭✭
The current Cyrodiil isn't bringing any new players to PvP either. On the contrary, even with drastically reduced pop caps GH isn't pop locked most of the time, BR is barely kicking and the other two campaigns are basically dead. It's been quite some time I didn't see PvPers complaining about queue lenghts. The last WSM saw the lowest participation ever, and I'm pretty sure PvEers got out as soon as they got their tickets from a single scouting quest, while before they used to hang around for much longer, be it in towns or in pugs.
ZOS is acting like their intention is to develop a new mode while saying they are just testing some performance fixes.
Vengeance haters are acting like the current Cyrodiil is so broken that there's nothing else to do but to scrap it entirely.
At least on Pact EU, all the PvP guilds have fallen apart and there's only 1 active one taking in new players. Back in 2016 there were still more than three so you had to pick and choose. Around 2022-ish there were 2. Now there's 1 and it's not exactly brimming with players.
I tried out ESO because of the PvP, I played over a thousand hours because of it. But as server performance and combat balance got worse, my breaks got longer then I just stopped because the PvP is just a shell. No-proc was just tedious and a half-baked effort that didn't make performance any better.
I've said it a bajillion times, so I'll keep it short, but Vengeance 2 was poplocked into the evening until the last day. I know this because I only learned about it when it had two days left in the test lmao. And it was so good, I've been thirsting and regularly lurking on the forums for the next one.
Vengeance is a taste of the awesome open world warfare that was advertised, current Cyrodiil is just sad, small, and underpopulated even when maxed out.5 -
xR3ACTORx✭✭Vengeance was boring slow ***.
I say it again.. Don't make yourself illusions.
If you got steamrolled by a good player in regular GH then you'll also be steamrolled by good players during vengeance ✌🏻
Edit: it's easier for a company to keep customers attracted then to gain new customers or bring those customers back who left.. Just saying.Edited by xR3ACTORx on September 22, 2025 9:29AM1 -
aetherix8✭✭✭Vengeance was boring slow ***.
Vengeance is too slow, I agree with that. At least V1. We will see about V4.I say it again.. Don't make yourself illusions.
If you got steamrolled by a good player in regular GH then you'll also be steamrolled by good players during vengeance ✌🏻
I've gotten plenty steamrolled by better players in no-proc RW and no-CP IC. At some point, I abandoned leading pugs completely, and was specifically looking for fights against better players because it is the only way to improve one's skill.
PC EU - V4hn10 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭Vengeance is fine for a learning environment. Actually it is probably ideal for a learning environment in today's game. Early on ESO was far more vertical progression wise. Vertical progression had tiers to separate playerbases which is why we had u50 and then nocp and then you finally got to vetcp campaigns. However now that ESO is such a wide horizontal progression game there is no way to split up the playerbase. New players are cp160 within the first day if they want.
The only way to create those learning environments with horizontal progression is to cut back on systems. However at a certain point people wonder what systems are enabled? what about this or that? Which can be worse in some cases because it clouds the experience making the new player learn tons of more stuff just to play something that should be easier. This was the issue with the NOPROC nocp campaign. Even 10year vet players like me had to spend hours and hours testing random sets to see what worked. How can you expect new players to participate, who dont keep up with pts and patch notes or even read wiki pages and build editors.
IMO replacing the u50 and nocp campaign is a nobrainer, they are beyond dead. Then have two cp 30 day campaigns. Testing wise for proper data you NEED the ballgroup and vet CP guild group players though. THEY are the lag. How they play, the choices they make, the skills they prefer, the effects they choose. There will be very clear performance demand differences from ball group players vs lvl10 new players spamming light attack only.
The other major design hole we are seeing is right now vengeance now has its own system for stat changes. This was probably put in place to quickly allow players during testing to have build choice to some degree, while allowing zos to introduce and plug and play systems on demand. IMO they should have made the simple perk and loadout system MIMIC item sets and bonuses, mundus, enchants. As a training tool give new players a basic menu so they could learn about pairing item sets and quickly swap choices they would normally do ingame. Then start baking in each of the mundus, enchant, gear, item set bonus systems as they get vengeance reworks. Slowly greying them out in the vengeance test menu.Zos should hire pvp consultants5 -
Iriidius✭✭✭✭✭
Vengeance PC EU has 3 bars on all alliances at 9pm without any Vengeance goldenpursuit pullingin pve players but an undaunted golden pursuit and event pulling players out.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »Could keeping Vengeance 4 on live be viable?
Let's say, once V4 is on live in December, it remains accessible until after the V5 PTS testing. Then, if necessary, it goes down for a week or two to allow for adding new features.
Would it lead to an avalanche of support tickets about corrupted characters and items missing from inventories?
Would it make players complain about new features because they got used to a certain ruleset?
Would it trigger even more complaints about unbalanced classes and skills?
No. ZOS isn't going to support two different versions of cyodiil long term. They're just not going to. Sooner or later it will be one or the other, and vengeance isn't going to fly with the current PvP players, and the PvE players won't play vengeance either. They don't like PvP or they'd already be playing it.
Why is this so hard to understand for the vengeance supporters? This is why vengeance has to be opposed in every possible way at every opportunity.
Then why did so many PvE players who hate GreyHost played and enjoyed Vengeance?
Them not playing PvP doesn’t mean they do not like any PvP, only that they dislike current PvP. Otherwise „GreyHost players don‘t like PvP or they would play Vengeance“ would be true. Players just like different version of PvP.
There are quite a few current and a lot more former PvPer preferring Vengeance (but that probably autoturns them into nonPvPer).
Nobody wanting to play Vengeance is „hard to understand“for Vengeance supporters because they’re living prove it is not true.
Well, at least you are realizing that vengeance is popular with the PvE community. The PvP community almost without exception hates vengeance. People who like PvP are already playing PvP. Vengeance will not, ever, under any circumstances, bring new players to ESO. It will do the opposite. It will drive away the few PvP players left.
And to answer your question, the PvE players populated vengeance because there was an associated Golden Pursuit. Once they had their pursuit completed they left and never came back.
3 bars Vengeance are like 9 bars GreyHost so still enaugh to fill 2,5 normal campaigns which is more than ever fill outside event.
4 -
Darethran✭✭✭Vengeance PC EU has 3 bars on all alliances at 9pm without any Vengeance goldenpursuit pullingin pve players but an undaunted golden pursuit and event pulling players out.
3 bars Vengeance are like 9 bars GreyHost so still enaugh to fill 2,5 normal campaigns which is more than ever fill outside event.
Yeah the fights were constant even though the factions were at 2 bars. AD even got to 3, and DC were pushing hard. I had a blast4 -
reazea✭✭✭✭✭
✭MincMincMinc wrote: »Vengeance is fine for a learning environment. Actually it is probably ideal for a learning environment in today's game. Early on ESO was far more vertical progression wise. Vertical progression had tiers to separate playerbases which is why we had u50 and then nocp and then you finally got to vetcp campaigns. However now that ESO is such a wide horizontal progression game there is no way to split up the playerbase. New players are cp160 within the first day if they want.
The only way to create those learning environments with horizontal progression is to cut back on systems. However at a certain point people wonder what systems are enabled? what about this or that? Which can be worse in some cases because it clouds the experience making the new player learn tons of more stuff just to play something that should be easier. This was the issue with the NOPROC nocp campaign. Even 10year vet players like me had to spend hours and hours testing random sets to see what worked. How can you expect new players to participate, who dont keep up with pts and patch notes or even read wiki pages and build editors.
IMO replacing the u50 and nocp campaign is a nobrainer, they are beyond dead. Then have two cp 30 day campaigns. Testing wise for proper data you NEED the ballgroup and vet CP guild group players though. THEY are the lag. How they play, the choices they make, the skills they prefer, the effects they choose. There will be very clear performance demand differences from ball group players vs lvl10 new players spamming light attack only.
The other major design hole we are seeing is right now vengeance now has its own system for stat changes. This was probably put in place to quickly allow players during testing to have build choice to some degree, while allowing zos to introduce and plug and play systems on demand. IMO they should have made the simple perk and loadout system MIMIC item sets and bonuses, mundus, enchants. As a training tool give new players a basic menu so they could learn about pairing item sets and quickly swap choices they would normally do ingame. Then start baking in each of the mundus, enchant, gear, item set bonus systems as they get vengeance reworks. Slowly greying them out in the vengeance test menu.
Except vengeance is in no way preparation for actual live PvP. It's templated no skill zergfest. That's NOT how to prepare someone to create and play builds.5 -
reazea✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Vengeance PC EU has 3 bars on all alliances at 9pm without any Vengeance goldenpursuit pullingin pve players but an undaunted golden pursuit and event pulling players out.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »Could keeping Vengeance 4 on live be viable?
Let's say, once V4 is on live in December, it remains accessible until after the V5 PTS testing. Then, if necessary, it goes down for a week or two to allow for adding new features.
Would it lead to an avalanche of support tickets about corrupted characters and items missing from inventories?
Would it make players complain about new features because they got used to a certain ruleset?
Would it trigger even more complaints about unbalanced classes and skills?
No. ZOS isn't going to support two different versions of cyodiil long term. They're just not going to. Sooner or later it will be one or the other, and vengeance isn't going to fly with the current PvP players, and the PvE players won't play vengeance either. They don't like PvP or they'd already be playing it.
Why is this so hard to understand for the vengeance supporters? This is why vengeance has to be opposed in every possible way at every opportunity.
Then why did so many PvE players who hate GreyHost played and enjoyed Vengeance?
Them not playing PvP doesn’t mean they do not like any PvP, only that they dislike current PvP. Otherwise „GreyHost players don‘t like PvP or they would play Vengeance“ would be true. Players just like different version of PvP.
There are quite a few current and a lot more former PvPer preferring Vengeance (but that probably autoturns them into nonPvPer).
Nobody wanting to play Vengeance is „hard to understand“for Vengeance supporters because they’re living prove it is not true.
Well, at least you are realizing that vengeance is popular with the PvE community. The PvP community almost without exception hates vengeance. People who like PvP are already playing PvP. Vengeance will not, ever, under any circumstances, bring new players to ESO. It will do the opposite. It will drive away the few PvP players left.
And to answer your question, the PvE players populated vengeance because there was an associated Golden Pursuit. Once they had their pursuit completed they left and never came back.
3 bars Vengeance are like 9 bars GreyHost so still enaugh to fill 2,5 normal campaigns which is more than ever fill outside event.
Very hard to believe that the camp would be so popular on EU server and so hated on NA server. The PC NA servers are dead even during prime time right now.
At least ZOS is getting the feedback they should this time around in regards to vengeance. Look around. It's still the same 3 to 5 people trying to convince themselves how great vengeance is while all the PvP mains are flooding the forums with feedback that actually is reflective of what the vast majority of the PvP community thinks of vengeance. (they're logging off until next Tuesday, when the test is over)5 -
ADawg✭✭✭The 4th iteration of Vengeance in December will be available alongside Grey Host. Could it just stay on please? With more build possibilities, one week is simply too short to test them all. In order to avoid disappointments, it should be clearly indicated in the title, description, and all over the place that this is a test campaign, and as such, it is going to be updated on a regular basis with additional features until tests are concluded and a final version is achieved.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_Kevin
So why not play no-proc, no CP Ravenwatch like we used to have?
Seems like the CP and sets are the problem, well we had a solution, but ZOS took that away. No-Proc PVP was great.
BGs are No-CP, Cyrodiil should be the same. No super GOD MODE ultra fast, infinite sustain, infinite heals, corrosive ROFL LAWL PWN builds that we see constantly.0 -
ADawg✭✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »Could keeping Vengeance 4 on live be viable?
Let's say, once V4 is on live in December, it remains accessible until after the V5 PTS testing. Then, if necessary, it goes down for a week or two to allow for adding new features.
Would it lead to an avalanche of support tickets about corrupted characters and items missing from inventories?
Would it make players complain about new features because they got used to a certain ruleset?
Would it trigger even more complaints about unbalanced classes and skills?
No. ZOS isn't going to support two different versions of cyodiil long term. They're just not going to. Sooner or later it will be one or the other, and vengeance isn't going to fly with the current PvP players, and the PvE players won't play vengeance either. They don't like PvP or they'd already be playing it.
Why is this so hard to understand for the vengeance supporters? This is why vengeance has to be opposed in every possible way at every opportunity.
Then why did so many PvE players who hate GreyHost played and enjoyed Vengeance?
Them not playing PvP doesn’t mean they do not like any PvP, only that they dislike current PvP. Otherwise „GreyHost players don‘t like PvP or they would play Vengeance“ would be true. Players just like different version of PvP.
There are quite a few current and a lot more former PvPer preferring Vengeance (but that probably autoturns them into nonPvPer).
Nobody wanting to play Vengeance is „hard to understand“for Vengeance supporters because they’re living prove it is not true.
Well, at least you are realizing that vengeance is popular with the PvE community. The PvP community almost without exception hates vengeance. People who like PvP are already playing PvP. Vengeance will not, ever, under any circumstances, bring new players to ESO. It will do the opposite. It will drive away the few PvP players left.
And to answer your question, the PvE players populated vengeance because there was an associated Golden Pursuit. Once they had their pursuit completed they left and never came back.
Realizing PvEr like it doesn’t mean PvPer do not.
Many players from both PvP and PvE clearly said they enjoyed Vengeance and not enjoy Grey Host. Many PvPer have stopped PvP because of issues nonexistent in Vengeance. Liking PvP doesn’t mean you like ballgroups, procsets, subclassing, metachasing or fights decided before they begin.
When PvEr miss out end of campaign reward they can also miss out golden pursuit giving only ap and gold. Golden pursuit can’t mobilize as many players as there were.
Does not playing Vengeance mean that you don’t like PvP because otherwise you would play Vengeance or does it mean you just do not like Vengeance? If it means you dislike only Vengeance and not all PvP than why does players not liking/playing Grey Host mean they dislike and won’t play Vengeance either?
(even when they said they like and play it)?
Here I will make a deal. As a PVP main, I will accept vengeance if we also apply it to TRIALS.
FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE. I want to limit your build potential in TRIALS if we have to suffer it in PVP.
Check, your move. Explain to us why that would be a bad decision.
"but I spent so much time on my build"..... UHH YEAH THATS MY POINT!4 -
aetherix8✭✭✭
Except vengeance is in no way preparation for actual live PvP. It's templated no skill zergfest. That's NOT how to prepare someone to create and play builds.
You boycott this test iteration entirely according to your own posts, therefore you have no idea whether it is a no-skill zergfest or not. It isn't anymore.
V1 was exactly that, I've never seen such massive zerg trains before, and although it was awesome to see so many players in Cyro, it was upsetting to see everyone running in one huge zerg.
V3 is quite different; players group up or run their guild's groups, and fights are spread on the map. I've also seen several players being able to fight outnumbered, keep killing their opponents, and survive all right during the entire keep fight (NBs are really strong in Vengeance when played by a skilled player).
You won't get this kind of a map in a zergfest. Five keeps burning, 3 factions at BRK (this fight was up for quite a while). I was at Nikel where some ungrouped players like me defended against a group of AD (no more than 20 players), so six objectives burning at the same time.
PC EU - V4hn14 -
aetherix8✭✭✭
Very hard to believe that the camp would be so popular on EU server and so hated on NA server. The PC NA servers are dead even during prime time right now.
Not sure it is very popular on PC EU. Maybe it is just that EU folks are reasonable people trying to help ZOS fix Cyro's performance by participating in this test.
PC EU - V4hn11 -
aetherix8✭✭✭The 4th iteration of Vengeance in December will be available alongside Grey Host. Could it just stay on please? With more build possibilities, one week is simply too short to test them all. In order to avoid disappointments, it should be clearly indicated in the title, description, and all over the place that this is a test campaign, and as such, it is going to be updated on a regular basis with additional features until tests are concluded and a final version is achieved.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_Kevin
So why not play no-proc, no CP Ravenwatch like we used to have?
Seems like the CP and sets are the problem, well we had a solution, but ZOS took that away. No-Proc PVP was great.
BGs are No-CP, Cyrodiil should be the same. No super GOD MODE ultra fast, infinite sustain, infinite heals, corrosive ROFL LAWL PWN builds that we see constantly.
No-proc RW is dead and buried. If you think it will ever come back, you will be sorely dissappointed. It was a great learning environment but it was plagued by it's own problems that drove players away.
That said, if ZOS is considering Vengeance as a potential mode, they must add sets at some point, and sooner rather than later. It could be Vengeance sets (reworked to reduce calcs) that you can only equip if you have them collected in your sticker book.
Vengeance as it is right now is far too simple and limited to be engaging in the long term.PC EU - V4hn13 -
aetherix8✭✭✭MincMincMinc wrote: »Vengeance is fine for a learning environment. Actually it is probably ideal for a learning environment in today's game. Early on ESO was far more vertical progression wise. Vertical progression had tiers to separate playerbases which is why we had u50 and then nocp and then you finally got to vetcp campaigns. However now that ESO is such a wide horizontal progression game there is no way to split up the playerbase. New players are cp160 within the first day if they want.
The only way to create those learning environments with horizontal progression is to cut back on systems. However at a certain point people wonder what systems are enabled? what about this or that? Which can be worse in some cases because it clouds the experience making the new player learn tons of more stuff just to play something that should be easier. This was the issue with the NOPROC nocp campaign. Even 10year vet players like me had to spend hours and hours testing random sets to see what worked. How can you expect new players to participate, who dont keep up with pts and patch notes or even read wiki pages and build editors.
IMO replacing the u50 and nocp campaign is a nobrainer, they are beyond dead. Then have two cp 30 day campaigns. Testing wise for proper data you NEED the ballgroup and vet CP guild group players though. THEY are the lag. How they play, the choices they make, the skills they prefer, the effects they choose. There will be very clear performance demand differences from ball group players vs lvl10 new players spamming light attack only.
The other major design hole we are seeing is right now vengeance now has its own system for stat changes. This was probably put in place to quickly allow players during testing to have build choice to some degree, while allowing zos to introduce and plug and play systems on demand. IMO they should have made the simple perk and loadout system MIMIC item sets and bonuses, mundus, enchants. As a training tool give new players a basic menu so they could learn about pairing item sets and quickly swap choices they would normally do ingame. Then start baking in each of the mundus, enchant, gear, item set bonus systems as they get vengeance reworks. Slowly greying them out in the vengeance test menu.
Except vengeance is in no way preparation for actual live PvP. It's templated no skill zergfest. That's NOT how to prepare someone to create and play builds.
If I completely ignore the "no skill zergfest" then, for a time, I agree with you.
Perfect learning environment needs to be much closer to what Cyro currently is, and that means adding sets, mundus, and basically all systems that exist in the game. We can argue whether we want to see 3 paragraphs long bonus item sets (NO), but an alternative mode would have to allow players to learn not only combat, but also building.
There's no room in Vengeance for theory crafting atm, and it's its biggest weakness. Figuring out your own builds is a lot of fun, and a mode without this aspect will be unappealing to many players imo.PC EU - V4hn10 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭MincMincMinc wrote: »Vengeance is fine for a learning environment. Actually it is probably ideal for a learning environment in today's game. Early on ESO was far more vertical progression wise. Vertical progression had tiers to separate playerbases which is why we had u50 and then nocp and then you finally got to vetcp campaigns. However now that ESO is such a wide horizontal progression game there is no way to split up the playerbase. New players are cp160 within the first day if they want.
The only way to create those learning environments with horizontal progression is to cut back on systems. However at a certain point people wonder what systems are enabled? what about this or that? Which can be worse in some cases because it clouds the experience making the new player learn tons of more stuff just to play something that should be easier. This was the issue with the NOPROC nocp campaign. Even 10year vet players like me had to spend hours and hours testing random sets to see what worked. How can you expect new players to participate, who dont keep up with pts and patch notes or even read wiki pages and build editors.
IMO replacing the u50 and nocp campaign is a nobrainer, they are beyond dead. Then have two cp 30 day campaigns. Testing wise for proper data you NEED the ballgroup and vet CP guild group players though. THEY are the lag. How they play, the choices they make, the skills they prefer, the effects they choose. There will be very clear performance demand differences from ball group players vs lvl10 new players spamming light attack only.
The other major design hole we are seeing is right now vengeance now has its own system for stat changes. This was probably put in place to quickly allow players during testing to have build choice to some degree, while allowing zos to introduce and plug and play systems on demand. IMO they should have made the simple perk and loadout system MIMIC item sets and bonuses, mundus, enchants. As a training tool give new players a basic menu so they could learn about pairing item sets and quickly swap choices they would normally do ingame. Then start baking in each of the mundus, enchant, gear, item set bonus systems as they get vengeance reworks. Slowly greying them out in the vengeance test menu.
Except vengeance is in no way preparation for actual live PvP. It's templated no skill zergfest. That's NOT how to prepare someone to create and play builds.
Game design 101, you should be tailoring the newer player experiences to mimic endgame. For instance the loadout and perk system should be replaced with vengeance item sets and other stat changes as you test to add them back in. A big simple step would be to make the cyrodil base spawn areas have gear vendors and crafting stations where you can make basic vengeance item sets. Or food, or mundus, or enchants. Literally put it in peoples faces or force them through a quest to make a basic gear layout. Literally make a starter training course off to the side where you are shown how CCs and CC breaking works, its no different than any other video game intro.
Do we think live u50 pvp and nocp are any comparison to live greyhost pvp? You have maybe 10 people on those servers at any given time with the maps entirely one color and at best a pvdoor with one seiger that leaves before people get in. Even live vet BGs are no comparison to 12-24 man organized ball and zerg guilds stacking proc group sets to have 10x your stats.Zos should hire pvp consultants4 -
SaffronCitrusflower✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Very hard to believe that the camp would be so popular on EU server and so hated on NA server. The PC NA servers are dead even during prime time right now.
Not sure it is very popular on PC EU. Maybe it is just that EU folks are reasonable people trying to help ZOS fix Cyro's performance by participating in this test.
There were less than 30 players on PC NA this morning total for all three factions combined. Our one raid group which was only 10-12 players took everything on the map and all scrolls in less than 90 minutes. Then we logged off because there was nobody to fight and nothing left to take. The PC NA servers have NEVER been this dead, EVER.
And if you believe vengeance is just a test well, I don't know what to tell you. Are you new to ESO?
Edited by SaffronCitrusflower on September 23, 2025 4:23PM4 -
aetherix8✭✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »
Very hard to believe that the camp would be so popular on EU server and so hated on NA server. The PC NA servers are dead even during prime time right now.
Not sure it is very popular on PC EU. Maybe it is just that EU folks are reasonable people trying to help ZOS fix Cyro's performance by participating in this test.
There were less than 30 players on PC NA this morning total for all three factions combined. Our one raid group which was only 10-12 players took everything on the map and all scrolls in less than 90 minutes. Then we logged off because there was nobody to fight and nothing left to take. The PC NA servers have NEVER been this dead, EVER.
And if you believe vengeance is just a test well, I don't know what to tell you. Are you new to ESO?
I'm genuinely sad to read that the only platform participating in this round is PC EU. This is too bad for anyone on other platforms who wanted to participate but happens to play where a hardcore boycott is taking place.
ZOS should communicate their intentions better, otherwise it turns against them. They needed many players to test massive battles, but they withheld important information, and they basically sabotaged their own effort by failing to understand how far the playerbase's mistrust for the company goes.
I've been playing ESO long enough to take nothing for granted.
However, atm Vengeance is pretty much just a test. What ZOS is testing is another matter.
Are they testing performance fixes as they say? It seems to me that this is pretty much the case, since there's barely any lag in Vengeance (PC EU 1st evening 3bars each faction, massive battles occurring with little to no lag; 2nd evening 2bars each, AD briefly 3bars, massive battles occurring with basically no lag). ZOS must be really sick and tired of players complaining about lag every day for years now to come up with a solution that requires so much time and effort to test. My point is, when ZOS says "we're testing performance fixes", this is true and it is reflected in reality.
Are they testing a new PvP mode? At this point, it is safe to assume that might well be the case.
Are they testing the popularity of such a potential new PvP mode and whether it can succeed? Are they testing if it would be a good idea to replace current Cyro with Vengeance? That might also be the case.
Again, the point is, when ZOS says Vengeance is a performance test, it is true. But there's plenty they are not saying, like what else they are testing when Vengeance is on live, and what they intend to do once they get the results. Perhaps they don't know the answer yet.
Edited by aetherix8 on September 24, 2025 7:30AMPC EU - V4hn11 -
Iriidius✭✭✭✭✭MincMincMinc wrote: »Vengeance is fine for a learning environment. Actually it is probably ideal for a learning environment in today's game. Early on ESO was far more vertical progression wise. Vertical progression had tiers to separate playerbases which is why we had u50 and then nocp and then you finally got to vetcp campaigns. However now that ESO is such a wide horizontal progression game there is no way to split up the playerbase. New players are cp160 within the first day if they want.
The only way to create those learning environments with horizontal progression is to cut back on systems. However at a certain point people wonder what systems are enabled? what about this or that? Which can be worse in some cases because it clouds the experience making the new player learn tons of more stuff just to play something that should be easier. This was the issue with the NOPROC nocp campaign. Even 10year vet players like me had to spend hours and hours testing random sets to see what worked. How can you expect new players to participate, who dont keep up with pts and patch notes or even read wiki pages and build editors.
IMO replacing the u50 and nocp campaign is a nobrainer, they are beyond dead. Then have two cp 30 day campaigns. Testing wise for proper data you NEED the ballgroup and vet CP guild group players though. THEY are the lag. How they play, the choices they make, the skills they prefer, the effects they choose. There will be very clear performance demand differences from ball group players vs lvl10 new players spamming light attack only.
The other major design hole we are seeing is right now vengeance now has its own system for stat changes. This was probably put in place to quickly allow players during testing to have build choice to some degree, while allowing zos to introduce and plug and play systems on demand. IMO they should have made the simple perk and loadout system MIMIC item sets and bonuses, mundus, enchants. As a training tool give new players a basic menu so they could learn about pairing item sets and quickly swap choices they would normally do ingame. Then start baking in each of the mundus, enchant, gear, item set bonus systems as they get vengeance reworks. Slowly greying them out in the vengeance test menu.
Except vengeance is in no way preparation for actual live PvP. It's templated no skill zergfest. That's NOT how to prepare someone to create and play builds.
If you want to only prepare players to create and play builds than builds than a campaign without builds is of course not what you want. ZoS Could create a guide how to make builds ingame and a few npcs behaving like players to test build against in Duell or XvX fight like Battleground to teach players how to make builds and test them.
But Vengeance still shows players how to use skills and active defense in PvP and a lot of other things.
Maybe some players want to prepare to stay in Vengeance. Some players prepared for GreyHostPvP still prefer Vengeance for not having ballgroups.
0 -
Major_Mangle✭✭✭✭✭MincMincMinc wrote: »Vengeance is fine for a learning environment. Actually it is probably ideal for a learning environment in today's game. Early on ESO was far more vertical progression wise. Vertical progression had tiers to separate playerbases which is why we had u50 and then nocp and then you finally got to vetcp campaigns. However now that ESO is such a wide horizontal progression game there is no way to split up the playerbase. New players are cp160 within the first day if they want.
The only way to create those learning environments with horizontal progression is to cut back on systems. However at a certain point people wonder what systems are enabled? what about this or that? Which can be worse in some cases because it clouds the experience making the new player learn tons of more stuff just to play something that should be easier. This was the issue with the NOPROC nocp campaign. Even 10year vet players like me had to spend hours and hours testing random sets to see what worked. How can you expect new players to participate, who dont keep up with pts and patch notes or even read wiki pages and build editors.
IMO replacing the u50 and nocp campaign is a nobrainer, they are beyond dead. Then have two cp 30 day campaigns. Testing wise for proper data you NEED the ballgroup and vet CP guild group players though. THEY are the lag. How they play, the choices they make, the skills they prefer, the effects they choose. There will be very clear performance demand differences from ball group players vs lvl10 new players spamming light attack only.
The other major design hole we are seeing is right now vengeance now has its own system for stat changes. This was probably put in place to quickly allow players during testing to have build choice to some degree, while allowing zos to introduce and plug and play systems on demand. IMO they should have made the simple perk and loadout system MIMIC item sets and bonuses, mundus, enchants. As a training tool give new players a basic menu so they could learn about pairing item sets and quickly swap choices they would normally do ingame. Then start baking in each of the mundus, enchant, gear, item set bonus systems as they get vengeance reworks. Slowly greying them out in the vengeance test menu.
Except vengeance is in no way preparation for actual live PvP. It's templated no skill zergfest. That's NOT how to prepare someone to create and play builds.
If you want to only prepare players to create and play builds than builds than a campaign without builds is of course not what you want. ZoS Could create a guide how to make builds ingame and a few npcs behaving like players to test build against in Duell or XvX fight like Battleground to teach players how to make builds and test them.
But Vengeance still shows players how to use skills and active defense in PvP and a lot of other things.
Maybe some players want to prepare to stay in Vengeance. Some players prepared for GreyHostPvP still prefer Vengeance for not having ballgroups.
Only reason you don´t see ballgroups in Vengeance is because of the 3 target AoE caps, the second you remove those you gonna see ballgroups in Vengeance.Ps4 EU 2016-2020
PC/EU: 2020 -1 -
Iriidius✭✭✭✭✭Major_Mangle wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Vengeance is fine for a learning environment. Actually it is probably ideal for a learning environment in today's game. Early on ESO was far more vertical progression wise. Vertical progression had tiers to separate playerbases which is why we had u50 and then nocp and then you finally got to vetcp campaigns. However now that ESO is such a wide horizontal progression game there is no way to split up the playerbase. New players are cp160 within the first day if they want.
The only way to create those learning environments with horizontal progression is to cut back on systems. However at a certain point people wonder what systems are enabled? what about this or that? Which can be worse in some cases because it clouds the experience making the new player learn tons of more stuff just to play something that should be easier. This was the issue with the NOPROC nocp campaign. Even 10year vet players like me had to spend hours and hours testing random sets to see what worked. How can you expect new players to participate, who dont keep up with pts and patch notes or even read wiki pages and build editors.
IMO replacing the u50 and nocp campaign is a nobrainer, they are beyond dead. Then have two cp 30 day campaigns. Testing wise for proper data you NEED the ballgroup and vet CP guild group players though. THEY are the lag. How they play, the choices they make, the skills they prefer, the effects they choose. There will be very clear performance demand differences from ball group players vs lvl10 new players spamming light attack only.
The other major design hole we are seeing is right now vengeance now has its own system for stat changes. This was probably put in place to quickly allow players during testing to have build choice to some degree, while allowing zos to introduce and plug and play systems on demand. IMO they should have made the simple perk and loadout system MIMIC item sets and bonuses, mundus, enchants. As a training tool give new players a basic menu so they could learn about pairing item sets and quickly swap choices they would normally do ingame. Then start baking in each of the mundus, enchant, gear, item set bonus systems as they get vengeance reworks. Slowly greying them out in the vengeance test menu.
Except vengeance is in no way preparation for actual live PvP. It's templated no skill zergfest. That's NOT how to prepare someone to create and play builds.
If you want to only prepare players to create and play builds than builds than a campaign without builds is of course not what you want. ZoS Could create a guide how to make builds ingame and a few npcs behaving like players to test build against in Duell or XvX fight like Battleground to teach players how to make builds and test them.
But Vengeance still shows players how to use skills and active defense in PvP and a lot of other things.
Maybe some players want to prepare to stay in Vengeance. Some players prepared for GreyHostPvP still prefer Vengeance for not having ballgroups.
Only reason you don´t see ballgroups in Vengeance is because of the 3 target AoE caps, the second you remove those you gonna see ballgroups in Vengeance.
Than why are all ballgroupler in other thread asking to reinstate crosshealing rather than to remove aoe target cap? Crosshealing/sets is what ballgroups need to get overpowered the most and not uncapped offensive aoe.
With aoe target cap they can still kill up to 3 players at a time while getting only up to 3 of their members hit by enemy aoe attacks. There already are a lot of coordinated groups sharing multitarget heals, shields and sets to zerg down solo players and ballgroups often hit only up to 3 players either when everyone spreads.
Except you mean cap to aoe heals and buffs: Without that one ballgroup crosshealing gets much much stronger almost as on GreyHost, that’s why it should not be removed.0 -
ToddIngram✭✭✭The 4th iteration of Vengeance in December will be available alongside Grey Host. Could it just stay on please? With more build possibilities, one week is simply too short to test them all. In order to avoid disappointments, it should be clearly indicated in the title, description, and all over the place that this is a test campaign, and as such, it is going to be updated on a regular basis with additional features until tests are concluded and a final version is achieved.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_Kevin
How about a permanent version of vengeance for PvE? Sounds good to me.6 -
aetherix8✭✭✭ToddIngram wrote: »The 4th iteration of Vengeance in December will be available alongside Grey Host. Could it just stay on please? With more build possibilities, one week is simply too short to test them all. In order to avoid disappointments, it should be clearly indicated in the title, description, and all over the place that this is a test campaign, and as such, it is going to be updated on a regular basis with additional features until tests are concluded and a final version is achieved.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_Kevin
How about a permanent version of vengeance for PvE? Sounds good to me.
Why don't we just ask ZOS to shut down the game entirely? Make some effort and come up with better solutions for PvP than railing against PvE players.PC EU - V4hn12 -
xR3ACTORx✭✭What you mean railing against pve players? PvE has serious performance issues and a test would probably help finding out the reasons for those issues.
I mean why should ZOS waste ressources on fixing pvp (which only a few sweatlords enjoy) instead of fixing pve lags when majority plays pve?
For me cyro runs fine.Edited by xR3ACTORx on September 28, 2025 10:01AM2 -
aetherix8✭✭✭What you mean railing against pve players? PvE has serious performance issues and a test would probably help finding out the reasons for those issues.
I mean why should ZOS waste ressources on fixing pvp (which only a few sweatlords enjoy) instead of fixing pve lags when majority plays pve?
For me cyro runs fine.
Somehow, the tone and wording of many posts suggesting PvE Vengeance doesn't convince me these are genuine performance-improving demands. And why post it in PvP forum if it is really well-intentioned toward the PvE community? General discussion would be more appropriate, where PvE players would actually read it.
Otherwise, I agree that PvE has it's own issues but AFAIK it mostly affects the end-game group content.PC EU - V4hn12 -
ShutUpitsRed✭✭✭More build possibilities lol. Sure, but frankly I have more performance issues in PvE than in PvP. I'm pretty sure it's all those ridiculous flashy proc sets and even more ridiculously flashing mechanics in DLC content. Maybe we should have a vengeance pve server with no flashy dungeon mechanics or procs et cetera? Make sure to keep the rewards dropping though. Skip the PvE vendors that week though of course.
Also, run it during Whitestrake's.0 -
aetherix8✭✭✭Yes, beyond any doubt, flashy stuff trashes the PvE performance. But we know perfectly well by now that holy flashy procs aren’t the cause coz it was already tested, and removing them did not improve the performance in PvP at all, so why would that be any different in PvE. Therefore it must be the combo of flashy mechs being repeatedly flushed down by a flashy laser beam. It should all be just dimmed sepia, the same for PvP; that would work 100%. And only having the courage to port into a sepia dungeon should guarantee cool and unique (and flashy) rewards without having to complete it, but no quests, keys, or achievs. Ideally, should also run during BG weekends every month until further notice.PC EU - V4hn10
-
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, beyond any doubt, flashy stuff trashes the PvE performance. But we know perfectly well by now that holy flashy procs aren’t the cause coz it was already tested, and removing them did not improve the performance in PvP at all, so why would that be any different in PvE. Therefore it must be the combo of flashy mechs being repeatedly flushed down by a flashy laser beam. It should all be just dimmed sepia, the same for PvP; that would work 100%. And only having the courage to port into a sepia dungeon should guarantee cool and unique (and flashy) rewards without having to complete it, but no quests, keys, or achievs. Ideally, should also run during BG weekends every month until further notice.
Well that's not entirely a silver bullet. They tested just removing proc sets which was not enough on its own to solve the issue. It is annoying that they never did a data stream for those tests like we saw after vengeance 1. Really this just points to a combination of systems being designed in a way to operate poorly together. Test wise this is probably why they thought going from the ground up was their better option since they could spend eternity implementing random combinations and rules to cut down ticks.
Lets say we have 1x button press which does an aoe that hits 10x people that does a dot and a hot that hits 10x and 10x people which also does 5x effects each and procs status effects that do another 3x effects and hits several proc sets that do another 5x effects.......and so on. We have already seen the live tests where they remove one of these systems, yet no drastic improvement. Removing these systems only ruins gameplay though. The purpose of AoE is to hit and Area with an effect to hit multiple targets. The purpose of an over time effect is to hit people over time. Inherently these systems create ticks which propel the other proc conditions off of ticks to the moon.
Ideally you would use the pve and pvp split system they made for vengeance to take the live skills and implement specific rule changes like people have been asking for for years.- Hots and dots not stacking, which was how they originally worked to force players to use other morphs for diversity while also preventing a single BiS meta. This also soft caps groups preventing them from stacking out of control efficiently. In essence solo and smaller groups hardly overlap, but in 50v50 situations where it is a moshpit anyways this could cut down drastically on ticks.
- No crosshealing, or less crosshealing where you could make inefficient morphs crossheal outside of group. Or change certain skills like how we see vengeance have more skillful AIMED single target healing skills. Instead of live pvp where groups are incentivized to ball up with no downsides. (balls are harder to aim at targets, while also being easier for smartheals to do their thing automatically)
- Aoe caps could be selectively baked into skills. You could have spammable skills like jabs capped at 3x where less frequently used and "gamechanger" skills like ultimates hit uncapped.
- Maybe zerg ballgroup sets like rallying cry should proc off of single target aimed skills instead of incentivizing these players to spam aoe hots to meet guaranteed proc conditions with no cooldowns for a 5 piece item giving out 5k wd. Even though most 5 piece sets solo only reach about 450-700wd.
- etc......we can think of a ton of rule changes to cut back on unnecessary calculations in scenarios where they really don't matter. If there is a zerg of 50 people.....does the zergling really know whether their light attack even hit anyone? Or whether their aoe actually hit that 7th person?
Edited by MincMincMinc on September 29, 2025 3:36PMZos should hire pvp consultants1 -
SaffronCitrusflower✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭ToddIngram wrote: »The 4th iteration of Vengeance in December will be available alongside Grey Host. Could it just stay on please? With more build possibilities, one week is simply too short to test them all. In order to avoid disappointments, it should be clearly indicated in the title, description, and all over the place that this is a test campaign, and as such, it is going to be updated on a regular basis with additional features until tests are concluded and a final version is achieved.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_Kevin
How about a permanent version of vengeance for PvE? Sounds good to me.
Why don't we just ask ZOS to shut down the game entirely? Make some effort and come up with better solutions for PvP than railing against PvE players.
PvE players are not victims in this discussion. The PvP players are.
but it is nice to see one of the three most vocal supporters of vengeance admit that they are a PvE main and that you'd view a PvE vengeance version to be the same as shutting down the game. So you do understand how bad vengeance is at least enough to know you don't want it in the part of the game you want to play.4 -
aetherix8✭✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »ToddIngram wrote: »The 4th iteration of Vengeance in December will be available alongside Grey Host. Could it just stay on please? With more build possibilities, one week is simply too short to test them all. In order to avoid disappointments, it should be clearly indicated in the title, description, and all over the place that this is a test campaign, and as such, it is going to be updated on a regular basis with additional features until tests are concluded and a final version is achieved.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_Kevin
How about a permanent version of vengeance for PvE? Sounds good to me.
Why don't we just ask ZOS to shut down the game entirely? Make some effort and come up with better solutions for PvP than railing against PvE players.
PvE players are not victims in this discussion. The PvP players are.
but it is nice to see one of the three most vocal supporters of vengeance admit that they are a PvE main and that you'd view a PvE vengeance version to be the same as shutting down the game. So you do understand how bad vengeance is at least enough to know you don't want it in the part of the game you want to play.
It's a discussion. There are no victims.PC EU - V4hn10