Community Update – Vengeance Testing & Cyrodiil

Sarannah · November 25

imPDA wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

We need an explanation as to why on these performance graphs the player number axis is blurred out.

That's a good question. I initially thought it might be because the numbers on the chart do not correspond to the actual values on the axes and it would be really clear without the blur, but it turns out it aligns pretty well.

As you can see, 18mm on the ruler corresponds to 900 players, which is 50 players per ruler mm. The lower cap at 360 aligns almost perfectly - 7mm * 50 = 350, which is close to 360. It's not an accurate measurement for sure, but everything looks legit so far.

But why blur it for real? It raises another suspicion: what if the values are not as advertised? For example, what if there are no 360 players in GH now, but 300 or even less? Let's assume the chart grid tick is 200, so 200 = 5mm (40 people per ruler mm). This would mean the lower (current) cap is around 7mm * 40 = 280 people and the new higher cap is 18 * 40 = 720. Could this be the truth? I don't know - it's hard to tell since the numbers are strongly blurred. I like to analyze things and decided to share this picture

Btw, as I remember, this chart was shown on Twitch after the first test, right? Does somebody have a recording of this stream?

Probably because they took two different playernumber graphs(each campaign filled) and placed them next to eachother manually. To make the 360 actually seem like 360 vs that 900 next to it. This is only visual to make it easier for players to understand the graph.

PeacefulAnarchy · November 25

imPDA wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

We need an explanation as to why on these performance graphs the player number axis is blurred out.

That's a good question. I initially thought it might be because the numbers on the chart do not correspond to the actual values on the axes and it would be really clear without the blur, but it turns out it aligns pretty well.

As you can see, 18mm on the ruler corresponds to 900 players, which is 50 players per ruler mm. The lower cap at 360 aligns almost perfectly - 7mm * 50 = 350, which is close to 360. It's not an accurate measurement for sure, but everything looks legit so far.

But why blur it for real? It raises another suspicion: what if the values are not as advertised? For example, what if there are no 360 players in GH now, but 300 or even less? Let's assume the chart grid tick is 200, so 200 = 5mm (40 people per ruler mm). This would mean the lower (current) cap is around 7mm * 40 = 280 people and the new higher cap is 18 * 40 = 720. Could this be the truth? I don't know - it's hard to tell since the numbers are strongly blurred. I like to analyze things and decided to share this picture

Btw, as I remember, this chart was shown on Twitch after the first test, right? Does somebody have a recording of this stream?

I think the answer is simply, they made this for that first stream when they didn't want to reveal numbers. They've decided to now reveal numbers but it's easier to just reuse the old picture.

The second graph, despite being labeled FPS, is clearly latency and the cutoff labels at the bottom say it's measured in ms.

G0K4R · November 25

If have no words for this. Its just sad.

What makes me sad the most is I was right when first hearing of Vengeance tests. There was this strong feeling Vengeance being a simple test is just a made up lie to replace Cyrodiil with in the end. And here we have it.

JustLovely · November 25

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: »

imPDA wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

We need an explanation as to why on these performance graphs the player number axis is blurred out.

That's a good question. I initially thought it might be because the numbers on the chart do not correspond to the actual values on the axes and it would be really clear without the blur, but it turns out it aligns pretty well.

As you can see, 18mm on the ruler corresponds to 900 players, which is 50 players per ruler mm. The lower cap at 360 aligns almost perfectly - 7mm * 50 = 350, which is close to 360. It's not an accurate measurement for sure, but everything looks legit so far.

But why blur it for real? It raises another suspicion: what if the values are not as advertised? For example, what if there are no 360 players in GH now, but 300 or even less? Let's assume the chart grid tick is 200, so 200 = 5mm (40 people per ruler mm). This would mean the lower (current) cap is around 7mm * 40 = 280 people and the new higher cap is 18 * 40 = 720. Could this be the truth? I don't know - it's hard to tell since the numbers are strongly blurred. I like to analyze things and decided to share this picture

Btw, as I remember, this chart was shown on Twitch after the first test, right? Does somebody have a recording of this stream?

I think the answer is simply, they made this for that first stream when they didn't want to reveal numbers. They've decided to now reveal numbers but it's easier to just reuse the old picture.

The second graph, despite being labeled FPS, is clearly latency and the cutoff labels at the bottom say it's measured in ms.

To me this is a very suspicious alteration of the graphs. It's even more ironic that the original post was being made in the sake of "transparency". So why is the number values on the player number axis blurred out for the sake of transparency.

And Jessica's post says that these values are FPS in her summary.

imPDA · November 25

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: »

I think the answer is simply, they made this for that first stream when they didn't want to reveal numbers. They've decided to now reveal numbers but it's easier to just reuse the old picture.

The second graph, despite being labeled FPS, is clearly latency and the cutoff labels at the bottom say it's measured in ms.

Yes, it is latency or (server) frame time, clearly not FPS. And it is good explanation of blur tbh, and this is why I wanted to see original translation again

On a side note, they really could have put more effort into the presentation and created new charts - it's not that difficult. Having presented statistical data myself, I always spent a significant amount of time ensuring it was clear for any potential viewer. It's just a good practice. Also, why isn't there a similar comparison for the other tests?

Eriboss5 · November 25

If you go with “Scenario 2: We would close all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and open one or two Vengeance ruleset campaigns sometime next year.” guild of 500+ will go to Ashes of Creation so quick. Most would rather play an alpha. Thats a ton of subs being lost and money.

Muizer · November 25

DenverRalphy wrote: »

I can't help but think that with Vengeance becoming permanent resulting in PvP no longer requiring balancing efforts (or at least any real focus on it), and once Subclassing lands whereever it's gonna land, then both PvP and PvE combat can be put on cruise control. At least I suspect that's the goal.

Indeed. Let's face it, imbalances in the combat system mainly impact competitive gameplay. That is inherently all of PvP, but only a fraction of PvE. So ditching active balancing for current PvP will give the devs a lot more leeway. The kind you would permit yourself if you were to introduce ........... say ........ subclassing? It's almost as if they moved into that lane already in anticipation of Vengeance being the solution to balance in PvP. If that's the case, then current PvP would become a kind of "use at your own risk" legacy mode.

DenverRalphy wrote: »

and Vengeance becoming permanant after initially being pitched as solely for testing purposes

I'm afraid that if people thought that it was more the result of wishful thinking on their part than anything ZOS actually said or did.

AD_ThisIsTheWay · November 25

Zos - I am very excited to hear more about the mid-sized campaign mode! I have the feeling the higher performance will be super attractive to the gray host die hards. They might not realize it now, but I think they will love it. You can still have the massive siege combat in your own custom gear, but the performance speeds will be a lot better. Sounds like a win-win to me! Also, less running and more fighting would be cool too.

Also, I'm very excited to hear more about your plans for the new PvP progression system! Can't wait to see what that is all about!

I would like to chime in and share my one major concern though, and this is in alignment with other peoples comments above. But I am worried that between gray host, vengeance, IC, mid-sized campaign, and BGs, we are spreading the population to thin. Sometimes, the menu can be too large.

Here is my super unhinged and biased opinion on the matter (I know this will attract some haters, but this is my truth) -
I would be fine with gray host going away. Everyone is upset and complaining about the performance (for good reason), and nobody is having fun anymore. ZOS has been transparent by admitting that the game has gotten too in depth to handle all of the ticks. Lets just recognize that it is time for ESO to EVOLVE. Sometimes in order to do that, you need to shed old skin. Can we just drop gray host and allow ZOS to focus more on refreshing the game with new content. Again, I think this mid-size campaign mode sounds like a great step in the right direction. Kudos to ZOS for thinking outside of the box.

I understand that a large portion of the community loves gray host. I really do. I used to love gray host as well. But what I don't understand, is how people will ONLY play ESO if gray host is around. Look, the writing is on the wall. The game needs to evolve and change in order to grow into the future. The ways of the past, 10 years ago, are no longer viable. Can you please try and be open to new game modes like the mid sized campaign? Please? If not, you might be the ones who are solely responsible for holding ZOS back and preventing ESO PVP from becoming great again.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · November 25

There is no way that current population on Greyhost is 360. that would be 120 across all factions which is the same as 10 groups worth.

During the time we were fighting a guild on EP They invited almost every single player on their faction and got to 86 vs us one night, this was when group cap was 24. and the campaign queue was in its 200+ era .

Numbers have not been that high for over 4 years now.

I expect if anything that this 360 number comes from when they ran the previous tests years ago not actual recent gameplay.

Radiate77 · November 25

minnowfaun · November 25

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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.

AND

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.

I am so sick of hearing the team talk about "our goals" and "what we want for everyone." I don't give a flip the bird about what you want. You should be caring about what your players want.

alternatelder · November 25

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

There is no way that current population on Greyhost is 360. that would be 120 across all factions which is the same as 10 groups worth.

During the time we were fighting a guild on EP They invited almost every single player on their faction and got to 86 vs us one night, this was when group cap was 24. and the campaign queue was in its 200+ era .

Numbers have not been that high for over 4 years now.

I expect if anything that this 360 number comes from when they ran the previous tests years ago not actual recent gameplay.

Are you a dev? Do you have a source that these numbers aren't actual caps that isn't just guessing? I knew someone would come out and deny it, took longer than I thought though.

JustLovely · November 25

alternatelder wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

There is no way that current population on Greyhost is 360. that would be 120 across all factions which is the same as 10 groups worth.

During the time we were fighting a guild on EP They invited almost every single player on their faction and got to 86 vs us one night, this was when group cap was 24. and the campaign queue was in its 200+ era .

Numbers have not been that high for over 4 years now.

I expect if anything that this 360 number comes from when they ran the previous tests years ago not actual recent gameplay.

Are you a dev? Do you have a source that these numbers aren't actual caps that isn't just guessing? I knew someone would come out and deny it, took longer than I thought though.

Can you explain why the numbers on the player number axis are blurred out?

Cloudtrader · November 25

If only Grey Host and Vengeance are going to be around, I really will miss Blackreach. Blackreach has been my home on all my characters on PCNA and PCEU for years because I don't really care for Alliance-locking.

Also, if there will only be those two, perhaps we could rename Grey Host to a more content-neutral word? Western Skyrim came out so many years ago! Maybe something like Nemesis, to sort of match?

Radiate77 · November 25

So, I can’t state this enough…

Unless we end up receiving all new aspirational PvP gear to hunt down and acquire through Vengeance, removing our ability to run every other set from the equation will completely destroy the PvE game for players like me.

Most of my time in PvE has been spent trying to better my builds for PvP.

With a permanent Vengeance campaign, we need sets, and we need Subclassing + Scribing.

ESO works best when all of the content is interconnected. Without PvP players in PvE, or, PvE players in PvP, both systems fail. Groups start to not fill, tribalism happens, and people stop showing up.

This is the trajectory of Option 2. Give us a reason to play all content, other than titles of which we have countless.

Erickson9610 · November 25

Radiate77 wrote: »

With a permanent Vengeance campaign, we need sets, and we need Subclassing + Scribing.

Save the sets for Gray Host. Vengeance doesn't need them.

Subclassing can be implemented in Vengeance easily, but the Vengeance equivalent of Scribing will take some time to develop. The whole point of Vengeance is that abilities are optimized for performance, and Scribing abilities are not optimized for that at all.

JustLovely · November 25

Cloudtrader wrote: »

If only Grey Host and Vengeance are going to be around, I really will miss Blackreach. Blackreach has been my home on all my characters on PCNA and PCEU for years because I don't really care for Alliance-locking.

Also, if there will only be those two, perhaps we could rename Grey Host to a more content-neutral word? Western Skyrim came out so many years ago! Maybe something like Nemesis, to sort of match?

It's going to be either grey host or vengance. It will not be both....according to Jessica's explanation.

Erickson9610 · November 25

JustLovely wrote: »

Cloudtrader wrote: »

If only Grey Host and Vengeance are going to be around, I really will miss Blackreach. Blackreach has been my home on all my characters on PCNA and PCEU for years because I don't really care for Alliance-locking.

Also, if there will only be those two, perhaps we could rename Grey Host to a more content-neutral word? Western Skyrim came out so many years ago! Maybe something like Nemesis, to sort of match?

It's going to be either grey host or vengance. It will not be both....according to Jessica's explanation.

JustLovely · November 25

Erickson9610 wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

Cloudtrader wrote: »

If only Grey Host and Vengeance are going to be around, I really will miss Blackreach. Blackreach has been my home on all my characters on PCNA and PCEU for years because I don't really care for Alliance-locking.

Also, if there will only be those two, perhaps we could rename Grey Host to a more content-neutral word? Western Skyrim came out so many years ago! Maybe something like Nemesis, to sort of match?

It's going to be either grey host or vengance. It will not be both....according to Jessica's explanation.

She couched everything she said about vengeance in a way that makes it clear it will be one or the other, and most likely we will get vengeance as the main campaign with no grey host option, and there will be a smaller mini map if we want to use the sets we've spent years grinding to obtain.

Critical reading skills are essential to understanding these things. Read the whole post in it's entirety. And while your at it, explain why they blurred out those player numbers in the graphs presented please.

Radiate77 · November 25

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

With a permanent Vengeance campaign, we need sets, and we need Subclassing + Scribing.

Save the sets for Gray Host. Vengeance doesn't need them.

Subclassing can be implemented in Vengeance easily, but the Vengeance equivalent of Scribing will take some time to develop. The whole point of Vengeance is that abilities are optimized for performance, and Scribing abilities are not optimized for that at all.

What are you talking about?

Radiate77 wrote: »

…This is the trajectory of Option 2. Give us a reason to play all content, other than titles of which we have countless.

Let’s not pretend Option 2 isn’t entirely likely.

If/when we get Option 2, we need sets, otherwise players like me are not going to participate in PvE at the level we all currently do.

We need to prepare for the worst.

Erickson9610 · November 25

Radiate77 wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

With a permanent Vengeance campaign, we need sets, and we need Subclassing + Scribing.

Save the sets for Gray Host. Vengeance doesn't need them.

Subclassing can be implemented in Vengeance easily, but the Vengeance equivalent of Scribing will take some time to develop. The whole point of Vengeance is that abilities are optimized for performance, and Scribing abilities are not optimized for that at all.

What are you talking about?

Radiate77 wrote: »

…This is the trajectory of Option 2. Give us a reason to play all content, other than titles of which we have countless.

Let’s not pretend Option 2 isn’t entirely likely.

If/when we get Option 2, we need sets, otherwise players like me are not going to participate in PvE at the level we all currently do.

We need to prepare for the worst.

How is Option 2 even remotely possible? ZOS has stated several times that they do not want to go down that path. There's actually nothing stopping them from continuing to ignore Gray Host and leave it as it always has been.

In fact, they are offering several compromises, which will all exist simultaneously:

Gray Host, the same as it's always been. Large scale map with a lower population cap with in-depth builds.
Vengeance, a version of Cyrodiil with higher population caps but with simplified builds.
A new medium-sized map, with the same gameplay and builds as Gray Host but with a smaller map and improved performance.

There is no downside to having more options. And when Crossplay gets added, there'll most likely need to be an additional campaign open to support players coming in from other platforms.

As far as more incentive to play goes, I think that new PvP progression system that was briefly mentioned will go a long way. Ideally there'll be enough people to populate all three of those options listed above.

minnowfaun · 12:07AM

Erickson9610 wrote: »

How is Option 2 even remotely possible? ZOS has stated several times that they do not want to go down that path. There's actually nothing stopping them from continuing to ignore Gray Host and leave it as it always has been.

ZOS had stated several times that vengeance was "only a test."

Muizer · 12:11AM

Erickson9610 wrote: »

There is no downside to having more options.

Yes there is: If they keep current Cyrodiil and add Vengeance, then that is a serious increase in the amount of content to maintain and develop going forward. Considering the team evidently lacks resources to do so, something will have to give. My money is on current Cyrodiil PvP.

Radiate77 · 12:27AM

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

With a permanent Vengeance campaign, we need sets, and we need Subclassing + Scribing.

Save the sets for Gray Host. Vengeance doesn't need them.

Subclassing can be implemented in Vengeance easily, but the Vengeance equivalent of Scribing will take some time to develop. The whole point of Vengeance is that abilities are optimized for performance, and Scribing abilities are not optimized for that at all.

What are you talking about?

Radiate77 wrote: »

…This is the trajectory of Option 2. Give us a reason to play all content, other than titles of which we have countless.

Let’s not pretend Option 2 isn’t entirely likely.

If/when we get Option 2, we need sets, otherwise players like me are not going to participate in PvE at the level we all currently do.

We need to prepare for the worst.

How is Option 2 even remotely possible? ZOS has stated several times that they do not want to go down that path. There's actually nothing stopping them from continuing to ignore Gray Host and leave it as it always has been.

In fact, they are offering several compromises, which will all exist simultaneously:
Gray Host, the same as it's always been. Large scale map with a lower population cap with in-depth builds.

Vengeance, a version of Cyrodiil with higher population caps but with simplified builds.

A new medium-sized map, with the same gameplay and builds as Gray Host but with a smaller map and improved performance.

There is no downside to having more options. And when Crossplay gets added, there'll most likely need to be an additional campaign open to support players coming in from other platforms.

As far as more incentive to play goes, I think that new PvP progression system that was briefly mentioned will go a long way. Ideally there'll be enough people to populate all three of those options listed above.

You’ve never experienced this? Where you’re told two options, one of which you don’t want, and you start off with the better one while being undermined the whole time?

What do you think, Jess meant when she said that no more work could be done on Grayhost?

Read between the lines.

They may not want to do it, but that doesn’t mean they won’t. The fact that it is even an idea on the table, speaks volumes.

Now answer me this, why WOULDN’T they want to remove Grayhost? They can’t fix it. Why would they leave an experience in the game that will by their words, never improve? Who would want to even invest time into that?

It’s the New World situation all over again.
Why would anybody play a live service that is done being serviced? Grayhost is done. The sooner we can all accept that, we can begin to sculpt Vengeance into what it needs to be.

Erickson9610 · 12:32AM

Muizer wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

There is no downside to having more options.

Yes there is: If they keep current Cyrodiil and add Vengeance, then that is a serious increase in the amount of content to maintain and develop going forward. Considering the team evidently lacks resources to do so, something will have to give. My money is on current Cyrodiil PvP.

We have 4 Cyrodiil campaigns, and only one of them is active. One of the unused campaigns can be replaced with Vengeance — and since levels don't matter in Vengeance, my vote goes to replacing the Under 50 campaign.

We already know that we're not getting updates to every feature every year (no updates to Companions, Scribing, Tales of Tribute, Infinite Archive, etcetera this year) so we'll just have to wait until there is a new initiative to update PvP content. We know we're getting a new PvP map next year and a new PvP progression system, so we have content to look forward to. And who knows, maybe balancing Vengeance will give ZOS a better understanding of how the rest of the game can be balanced.

minnowfaun wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

How is Option 2 even remotely possible? ZOS has stated several times that they do not want to go down that path. There's actually nothing stopping them from continuing to ignore Gray Host and leave it as it always has been.

ZOS had stated several times that vengeance was "only a test."

I understand the sentiment here. But, I really don't think removing Gray Host is something they're willing to do. It costs them more than they would gain to remove what's already here. They could either keep Gray Host as it is and upset nobody, or remove Gray Host for some unknown reason and upset several people. They're choosing to keep Gray Host and open a new, alternative campaign.

I would look at the addition of a Vengeance campaign for PvP as an unexpected new feature. What started as merely a test was so well-received by the community that it's being made into a permanent option. I genuinely believe Vengeance will last longer than No-Proc Cyrodiil.

Erickson9610 · 12:35AM

Radiate77 wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

With a permanent Vengeance campaign, we need sets, and we need Subclassing + Scribing.

Save the sets for Gray Host. Vengeance doesn't need them.

Subclassing can be implemented in Vengeance easily, but the Vengeance equivalent of Scribing will take some time to develop. The whole point of Vengeance is that abilities are optimized for performance, and Scribing abilities are not optimized for that at all.

What are you talking about?

Radiate77 wrote: »

…This is the trajectory of Option 2. Give us a reason to play all content, other than titles of which we have countless.

Let’s not pretend Option 2 isn’t entirely likely.

If/when we get Option 2, we need sets, otherwise players like me are not going to participate in PvE at the level we all currently do.

We need to prepare for the worst.

How is Option 2 even remotely possible? ZOS has stated several times that they do not want to go down that path. There's actually nothing stopping them from continuing to ignore Gray Host and leave it as it always has been.

In fact, they are offering several compromises, which will all exist simultaneously:
Gray Host, the same as it's always been. Large scale map with a lower population cap with in-depth builds.

Vengeance, a version of Cyrodiil with higher population caps but with simplified builds.

A new medium-sized map, with the same gameplay and builds as Gray Host but with a smaller map and improved performance.

There is no downside to having more options. And when Crossplay gets added, there'll most likely need to be an additional campaign open to support players coming in from other platforms.

As far as more incentive to play goes, I think that new PvP progression system that was briefly mentioned will go a long way. Ideally there'll be enough people to populate all three of those options listed above.

You’ve never experienced this? Where you’re told two options, one of which you don’t want, and you start off with the better one while being undermined the whole time?

What do you think, Jess meant when she said that no more work could be done on Grayhost?

Read between the lines.

They may not want to do it, but that doesn’t mean they won’t. The fact that it is even an idea on the table, speaks volumes.

Now answer me this, why WOULDN’T they want to remove Grayhost? They can’t fix it. Why would they leave an experience in the game that will by their words, never improve? Who would want to even invest time into that?

It’s the New World situation all over again.
Why would anybody play a live service that is done being serviced? Grayhost is done. The sooner we can all accept that, we can begin to sculpt Vengeance into what it needs to be.

They wouldn't remove Gray Host because it has a dedicated player base who would leave if it was removed. That's not hard to believe.

If anything, I can see Vengeance becoming the new standard, with Gray Host being like how No-Proc was to regular Cyrodiil. It's clear to me that Vengeance is how ZOS intends Cyrodiil to be, but as long as Gray Host has a dedicated crowd, it will stick around. That's probably why ZOS wants to make this new medium-sized map — it'll have the gameplay of regular Cyrodiil but with the scale that ZOS wants from the battles.

xDeusEJRx · 1:04AM

Personally, I would play a permanent vengeance campaign - as this would replace the no CP no proc campaign that I used to play in Ravenwatch.

However, that being said: my personal like for vengeance/no proc style campaign does not mean I want other rules sets eliminated. I sincerely hope scenario 1 is the situation that comes to pass and Gray host maintains it's current rule set and vengeance stays it's own thing.

What originally upset ravenwatch players originally was having their campaign taken from them and replaced (twice with introduction of no procs and removal of it).

I want the game to have more options, rather than less.

BergisMacBride · 1:41AM

Muizer wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

There is no downside to having more options.

Yes there is: If they keep current Cyrodiil and add Vengeance, then that is a serious increase in the amount of content to maintain and develop going forward. Considering the team evidently lacks resources to do so, something will have to give. My money is on current Cyrodiil PvP.

I’d agree here. They’ll continue to pour resources into Vengeance for balance, etc. Classic Cyrodiil would essentially go into a semi and eventually permanent maintenance mode. They’ve pretty much said in their opinion it’s impossible to improve current Cyrodiil performance, so why would they commit other resources to it? Maybe a few set adjustments, but beyond that it doesn’t seem doable with their current staffing.

StihlReign · 1:45AM

Once Template PvP is the only option, ESOs combat problems should be solved. Beam to rank in PvE, template to play PvP.

Combat bugs don't really matter in PvE, neither does sub-classing or heal or shield stacking, or AOE damage caps, nerfs will no longer be required, Beam ability and rotation parsing will most likely be the high level PvE meta. I suspect dungeon participation will probably crash, you really only need a few sets to PvE most content in ESO. Maybe 5-7 at most, so no longer a need to Mythic/dungeon chase unless it's needed for the new meta/record. Just run the set, do the parse.

The game started with Cyrodiil, not sure the current devs have created any long term popular repeatable combat in the game so it will be interesting to see how things go once GH is removed. It's not that there isn't content, but a lot of it is setup around a system of chores that support PvP combat (you don't need flowers, potions, poisons, Soul Gems, gold mats, food etc to PvE or do an Event).

Definitely going to be interesting to see how Vengeance is received now that there's some honesty around the intent. It sounds incredibly boring, but time will tell...20 more years.

PhxOldGamer68 · 3:42AM

Just make a separate Cyro and IC PVP only and a separate PVE only. That will make both PVP and PVE players really happy! I would love to quest Cyro and IC without ganks. I already enjoy Cyro PVP, but the PVE part is a distraction and not needed.