StihlReign wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

More questions:
-What about faction locking in scenario 1? Will grey host stay faction locked? Will the vengeance campaign be faction locked? (to me it seems faction locking has to be removed, as it would stop players from entering a specific PvP mode completely on some characters)

100% Disagree. PvP becomes a cesspool of griefing/farming/trolling without faction lock.

ToddIngram wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

Scenario 2 is going to come, and it's fine. It just means that ESO finally aligns with the market expectations of MMOs. Most MMOs I've played have PvE and PvP skills adjusted separately. As soon as you load into a zone with potential PvP, the skills switch to a lighter, less damaging, more balanced version. Of course, sometimes devs abandon PvP, and players have to use their judgement to equalize between class imbalance, like self-banning certain skills, but the devs must provide the baseline separation between PvE and PvP separation.

The last iteration of Vengeance will allow for gear sets and CP, because it wouldn't make monetary sense to disable those in the long run. For all the veteran players who are leaving because of Vengeance, new players who expect a fair experience will be happy to fill their shoes.

At least a couple problems with your thinking here.

First, those who want to PvP are already playing PvP. Vengeance won't bring players from PvE to PvP. It will just drive the vast majority of the PvP players to quit ESO.

Second, if nothing is special about ESO PvP we may as well play other games that have better performance and customer support.

albertberku wrote: »

They are going to keep both Vengeance and Grey Host up and people will just choose wherever they want to play. Should they just leave broken Grey Host up forever so that ESO PvP rapidly dies? What do you exactly want? People dont want to bother with Grey Host and its broken PvP. The population is so low there is almost never 3 bars anymore except maybe 1 hour a day and there are no queues anymore. Just let the ESO PvP be more like similar to how a modern MMO should be and how it is out there for every other sane game. 0.25 sec reaction times, and 6 different skills hitting at the same time isnt it, not for a MMO. ESO PvP with its current state is a chaotic mess, it is not a design choice. Vengeance is a try to fix it. Doesnt really matter if 100 ESO PvP veterans that are so used to abusing broken gameplay mechanics will quit or not, Vengeance could possibly attract 1000s of new players.

LPapirius wrote: »

No, they're not going to keep Grey Host. They said very clearly they're aren't even going to try to fix it. Read the OP.

LPapirius wrote: »

No, everyone who's going to PvP is already doing so. Vengeance will not bring in 10% of of the players it will drive out of the game.

SneaK wrote: »

albertberku wrote: »

They are going to keep both Vengeance and Grey Host up and people will just choose wherever they want to play. Should they just leave broken Grey Host up forever so that ESO PvP rapidly dies? What do you exactly want? People dont want to bother with Grey Host and its broken PvP. The population is so low there is almost never 3 bars anymore except maybe 1 hour a day and there are no queues anymore. Just let the ESO PvP be more like similar to how a modern MMO should be and how it is out there for every other sane game. 0.25 sec reaction times, and 6 different skills hitting at the same time isnt it, not for a MMO. ESO PvP with its current state is a chaotic mess, it is not a design choice. Vengeance is a try to fix it. Doesnt really matter if 100 ESO PvP veterans that are so used to abusing broken gameplay mechanics will quit or not, Vengeance could possibly attract 1000s of new players.

You will quit ESO and which game you will play then? There are no other mainstream PvP game on the market that has that many broken combat gameplay mechanics ESO PvP currently has. At some point you will have to learn to play on an equal field if you want to continue doing PvP in online gaming and not just stacking every OP proc set that the newest patch introduced and every OP damage skill line, then just press a single button whole fight and call it "build diversity".

Seems like you’re saying balance is what has driven people away……

Sarannah wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

No, they're not going to keep Grey Host. They said very clearly they're aren't even going to try to fix it. Read the OP.

Correction: The OP/ZOS post states two possible options, and that ZOS is leaning towards option one. Which is to keep grey host and have a vengeance campaign running at the same time. And that they can't fix the performance issues in grey host without massive buildcompromises. But grey host does not seem to be going anywhere.

Amongst the players, there seems to be practically noone who wants grey host taken away. Even those who do not like grey host.

LPapirius wrote: »

No, everyone who's going to PvP is already doing so. Vengeance will not bring in 10% of of the players it will drive out of the game.

Maybe, maybe not. The difference in audiences may actually lead to a new population for a healthy vengeance campaign. As also stated in the OP, vengeance was received quite positive based on the survey. If the survey for vengeance was positive but grey host PvPers are overwhelmingly against vengeance, that means there is a new population that differs from the current PvP population that actually likes vengeance.

Not only that, but having vengeance running will allow ZOS to advertise massive scale PvP with hundreds of players without any performance issues again. Which ups the entire marketing for the game, which now often seems negative due to the performance issues on grey host. Changing the outside marketing view of the game towards a more positive one, including in PvP.

There seems to be no negatives to having both vengeance and grey host running at the same time.

SneaK wrote: »

albertberku wrote: »

They are going to keep both Vengeance and Grey Host up and people will just choose wherever they want to play. Should they just leave broken Grey Host up forever so that ESO PvP rapidly dies? What do you exactly want? People dont want to bother with Grey Host and its broken PvP. The population is so low there is almost never 3 bars anymore except maybe 1 hour a day and there are no queues anymore. Just let the ESO PvP be more like similar to how a modern MMO should be and how it is out there for every other sane game. 0.25 sec reaction times, and 6 different skills hitting at the same time isnt it, not for a MMO. ESO PvP with its current state is a chaotic mess, it is not a design choice. Vengeance is a try to fix it. Doesnt really matter if 100 ESO PvP veterans that are so used to abusing broken gameplay mechanics will quit or not, Vengeance could possibly attract 1000s of new players.

You will quit ESO and which game you will play then? There are no other mainstream PvP game on the market that has that many broken combat gameplay mechanics ESO PvP currently has. At some point you will have to learn to play on an equal field if you want to continue doing PvP in online gaming and not just stacking every OP proc set that the newest patch introduced and every OP damage skill line, then just press a single button whole fight and call it "build diversity".

Seems like you’re saying balance is what has driven people away……

Not balance, but the massive hurdle of months or training/gearing to even be able to start to PvPing in this game(balance would only come in play after this). Balance and hurdle are two very different things. Balance only comes into play when both sides are on equal footing to begin with, which is another thing vengeance provided.

Sarannah wrote: »

Correction: The OP/ZOS post states two possible options, and that ZOS is leaning towards option one. Which is to keep grey host and have a vengeance campaign running at the same time. And that they can't fix the performance issues in grey host without massive buildcompromises. But grey host does not seem to be going anywhere.

Sarannah wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. The difference in audiences may actually lead to a new population for a healthy vengeance campaign. As also stated in the OP, vengeance was received quite positive based on the survey. If the survey for vengeance was positive but grey host PvPers are overwhelmingly against vengeance, that means there is a new population that differs from the current PvP population that actually likes vengeance.

LPapirius wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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

The Goals
To recap where we started and where we’ve been with the Vengeance tests, earlier this year we set out to try some new things with Cyrodiil to address the following specific goals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

So where does this put us, and where do we as a dev team realistically think we’re headed for the future of Cyrodiil? With the caveat that the December test still needs to happen, we see two realistic paths forward:

• Scenario 1: We would open a Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign sometime next year with a special ruleset based on the previous and upcoming tests, and leave Grey Host open as it is now.
• Scenario 2: We would close all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and open one or two Vengeance ruleset campaigns sometime next year.

As a dev team, Scenario 1 is the one we strongly prefer and is the most likely. We want you to have a choice between playing in Vengeance or Gray Host, and would closely monitor both campaign populations to help inform any additional actions we should take moving forward.

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

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

Thank you all for your continued feedback and support. Your participation in the Vengeance tests and related surveys has been greatly appreciated. We’d like to remind everyone that when we send out surveys where it’s important we are able to verify that participants played the content, we have to send out the surveys via email. Please consider opting in to these emails if you haven’t already, so you may be included in future survey sends. Thank you!

You have convinced me that ZOS is only considering Scenario 2. The data presented in these graphs is hugely misrepresentative of participation rates and performance quality. Why isn't everybody freaked out and up in arms because the player numbers graphs have the actual player numbers blurred out? So we actually have no idea if the player numbers are even what ZOS is claiming in these graphs. And by the last instance of vengeance participation rates were far below normal live Cyrodiil while performance was about the same as normal Grey Host. Why are they keeping this data from us?

This is an inexcusable situation created solely by ZOS. It's clear now vengeance was never a test. So ZOS lied when they said it was a test to improve normal live Cyrodiil. We know it was a lie because now they're saying they're never going to make any effort to improve normal live Cyrodiil going forward. So why should anyone invest any $ into ESO going forward? ZOS is saying they're not going to do their jobs, so why should they get paid? If I were MS I'd read the statement that ZOS isn't even going to try and fix Grey Host as a statement that is time to go ahead and fire the rest of everyone working at the studio. No reason to keep people on staff who have committed to not doing their work.

Personally I will never play any version of vengeance going forward, ever, for any reason. I'll just have to leave the game if ZOS takes away normal live Cyrodiil. And it really doesn't matter at this point. ZOS and their vengeance has already driven the vast majority of the PvP community, so may as well remove PvP all together by implementing vengeance.

SneaK wrote: »

albertberku wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Seems like you’re saying balance is what has driven people away……

I believe what drives people away is that
1. There are too few viable playstyles and builds in Grey Host currently. And the gap between a viable build and not viable build is huge. It is 30% - 40% difference. It is not S/A/B/C Tier anymore. Your build is either S Tier or D Tier. And the definition of S Tier is also clear: Weapon Dmg build with damage skill lines equipped, high sustain/high health/high crit/streak build. And any other playstyle or build, good luck with that..
2. You can just hit people with too many skills at once without any visual/sound indication. You just kill someone and noone knows what happened and you check your death recap, there are all the skills that you didnt see got hit by. And you check CombatMetrics you see like 15 skills, you dont know what is going on.

You can tolerate this to a some degree/know what is happening but for that you need to play at least like 1000 / 2000 hours and with all classes/skills. Because the game is never sharing any information with you, no visual clues, no sound clues. You are in a fight with someone else, in a split second you briefly see someone is running at you and next thing you hear incap sound, and you go for a block but you get stunned already and then next thing you see is your death recap which goes like this:

Incap (Mr. Tryhard) - 10k
Contingency (Mr. Tryhard) - 7k
Deep Fissure (Mr. Tryhard) - 8k
Energy Overload (Mr. Tryhard) - 6k
Sliver Assault (Mr.Tryhard) - 10k
Kjalnar (Mr. Tryhard) - 7k

And the thing is you cant possibly know if the player slots an unblockable stun like spear throw. You could try to block but then they may open with spear throw instead of an blockable stun, if you have bad luck. And it is always chaos because you cant predict or learn from playing/watching anymore what is going to happen next. It is just pure chaos.

And that is why the definition of being a "good" player in ESO PvP currently is running right and left like crazy, spamming dodges/streak/warden charms, and breaking LoS through your group members. Because everything is just so random, you just move like crazy and then hope you wont get hit by too many skills randomly at a wrong time.

I believe this is the main reason why people leave right now..

I know, balance is the main complaint, not performance. But they chose to work on performance and not balance. I honestly don’t lag in PvP more than I do in PvE. But I am 1000% fed up with the imbalance created by hybridization/scribing/subclassing. I say imbalance cause that’s what it is, certain 3-4 builds to rule them all. The affect of this is so widely felt across the game however it’s more than just balance, it’s made aspects of the game obsolete. When theorycrafting completely dies, the game will. Right now it’s on a breathing machine cause whatever you draw up is like 1/100 chance to be able to compete against the meta.

LPapirius wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

Correction: The OP/ZOS post states two possible options, and that ZOS is leaning towards option one. Which is to keep grey host and have a vengeance campaign running at the same time. And that they can't fix the performance issues in grey host without massive buildcompromises. But grey host does not seem to be going anywhere.

I think people are just disappointed that option 1 sounds very much like: "Dear tenants, we won't repair the building's plumbing after all, because it's too difficult. Instead, we suggest you move to this apartment that's half the size, one hour away by car, and in a worse neighborhood. But if you're fine living without running water, you can of course stay here."

Personally, I'm kind of neutral on this, but I get that even if Grey Host remains, it's not really great news for those who were hoping for any kind of improvement of the existing gameplay.

Sarannah wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. The difference in audiences may actually lead to a new population for a healthy vengeance campaign. As also stated in the OP, vengeance was received quite positive based on the survey. If the survey for vengeance was positive but grey host PvPers are overwhelmingly against vengeance, that means there is a new population that differs from the current PvP population that actually likes vengeance.

OP states that the first two tests received positive feedback, although the only actual number given is that 80% of participants rated the skill lines in test #2 favorably. Honestly, if the player feedback was so positive, I would have expected ZOS to throw around a lot more numbers to make a point, but perhaps I'm reading too much into what's (not) been said.

But more importantly, the enthusiasm for Vengeance does not seem to stick. They explicitly say that for the third test, the feedback results "were more mixed than the results following the first two and we saw less positivity overall. More survey participants noted fatigue with the tests and a desire to be able to play their own unique characters and builds in Cyrodiil, and frustration that the test ran during another in-game event." And they still have 2-3 more tests planned...

ZOS ran that PvP related Golden Pursuit for the first test for a reason. Now we know that reason was so they could present the graphs in the OP and present artificially inflated participation numbers. Not because they think vengeance will ever be popular. In fact, the action shows they know already that nobody wants to play vengeance. That's why they didn't give the PvE players a carrot, they came them a five star full four course steak dinner, and now ZOS is trying to say "look how many people liked their free steak dinner!".

LPapirius wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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

The Goals
To recap where we started and where we’ve been with the Vengeance tests, earlier this year we set out to try some new things with Cyrodiil to address the following specific goals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

So where does this put us, and where do we as a dev team realistically think we’re headed for the future of Cyrodiil? With the caveat that the December test still needs to happen, we see two realistic paths forward:

• Scenario 1: We would open a Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign sometime next year with a special ruleset based on the previous and upcoming tests, and leave Grey Host open as it is now.
• Scenario 2: We would close all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and open one or two Vengeance ruleset campaigns sometime next year.

As a dev team, Scenario 1 is the one we strongly prefer and is the most likely. We want you to have a choice between playing in Vengeance or Gray Host, and would closely monitor both campaign populations to help inform any additional actions we should take moving forward.

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

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

Thank you all for your continued feedback and support. Your participation in the Vengeance tests and related surveys has been greatly appreciated. We’d like to remind everyone that when we send out surveys where it’s important we are able to verify that participants played the content, we have to send out the surveys via email. Please consider opting in to these emails if you haven’t already, so you may be included in future survey sends. Thank you!

You have convinced me that ZOS is only considering Scenario 2. The data presented in these graphs is hugely misrepresentative of participation rates and performance quality. Why isn't everybody freaked out and up in arms because the player numbers graphs have the actual player numbers blurred out? So we actually have no idea if the player numbers are even what ZOS is claiming in these graphs. And by the last instance of vengeance participation rates were far below normal live Cyrodiil while performance was about the same as normal Grey Host. Why are they keeping this data from us?

This is an inexcusable situation created solely by ZOS. It's clear now vengeance was never a test. So ZOS lied when they said it was a test to improve normal live Cyrodiil. We know it was a lie because now they're saying they're never going to make any effort to improve normal live Cyrodiil going forward. So why should anyone invest any $ into ESO going forward? ZOS is saying they're not going to do their jobs, so why should they get paid? If I were MS I'd read the statement that ZOS isn't even going to try and fix Grey Host as a statement that is time to go ahead and fire the rest of everyone working at the studio. No reason to keep people on staff who have committed to not doing their work.

Personally I will never play any version of vengeance going forward, ever, for any reason. I'll just have to leave the game if ZOS takes away normal live Cyrodiil. And it really doesn't matter at this point. ZOS and their vengeance has already driven the vast majority of the PvP community, so may as well remove PvP all together by implementing vengeance.

LPapirius wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

Correction: The OP/ZOS post states two possible options, and that ZOS is leaning towards option one. Which is to keep grey host and have a vengeance campaign running at the same time. And that they can't fix the performance issues in grey host without massive buildcompromises. But grey host does not seem to be going anywhere.

I think people are just disappointed that option 1 sounds very much like: "Dear tenants, we won't repair the building's plumbing after all, because it's too difficult. Instead, we suggest you move to this apartment that's half the size, one hour away by car, and in a worse neighborhood. But if you're fine living without running water, you can of course stay here."

Personally, I'm kind of neutral on this, but I get that even if Grey Host remains, it's not really great news for those who were hoping for any kind of improvement of the existing gameplay.

Sarannah wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. The difference in audiences may actually lead to a new population for a healthy vengeance campaign. As also stated in the OP, vengeance was received quite positive based on the survey. If the survey for vengeance was positive but grey host PvPers are overwhelmingly against vengeance, that means there is a new population that differs from the current PvP population that actually likes vengeance.

OP states that the first two tests received positive feedback, although the only actual number given is that 80% of participants rated the skill lines in test #2 favorably. Honestly, if the player feedback was so positive, I would have expected ZOS to throw around a lot more numbers to make a point, but perhaps I'm reading too much into what's (not) been said.

But more importantly, the enthusiasm for Vengeance does not seem to stick. They explicitly say that for the third test, the feedback results "were more mixed than the results following the first two and we saw less positivity overall. More survey participants noted fatigue with the tests and a desire to be able to play their own unique characters and builds in Cyrodiil, and frustration that the test ran during another in-game event." And they still have 2-3 more tests planned...

ZOS ran that PvP related Golden Pursuit for the first test for a reason. Now we know that reason was so they could present the graphs in the OP and present artificially inflated participation numbers. Not because they think vengeance will ever be popular. In fact, the action shows they know already that nobody wants to play vengeance. That's why they didn't give the PvE players a carrot to encourage participation, they gave them a five star full four course steak dinner, and now ZOS is trying to say "look how many people liked their free steak dinner!". Sadly the end result is to pit the PvE and PvP communities against each other over this issue.

MJallday wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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

The Goals
To recap where we started and where we’ve been with the Vengeance tests, earlier this year we set out to try some new things with Cyrodiil to address the following specific goals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

So where does this put us, and where do we as a dev team realistically think we’re headed for the future of Cyrodiil? With the caveat that the December test still needs to happen, we see two realistic paths forward:

• Scenario 1: We would open a Vengeance Cyrodiil campaign sometime next year with a special ruleset based on the previous and upcoming tests, and leave Grey Host open as it is now.
• Scenario 2: We would close all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and open one or two Vengeance ruleset campaigns sometime next year.

As a dev team, Scenario 1 is the one we strongly prefer and is the most likely. We want you to have a choice between playing in Vengeance or Gray Host, and would closely monitor both campaign populations to help inform any additional actions we should take moving forward.

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

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

Thank you all for your continued feedback and support. Your participation in the Vengeance tests and related surveys has been greatly appreciated. We’d like to remind everyone that when we send out surveys where it’s important we are able to verify that participants played the content, we have to send out the surveys via email. Please consider opting in to these emails if you haven’t already, so you may be included in future survey sends. Thank you!

The major problem with scenario 1 is that you’ll be diluting an already sparse player base further

Right now on Xbox eu there’s barely 150
Players online

Imagine that being cut in half

During events you might get more. But scenario 1 would make an empty space even emptier

If GH can’t cope with the Lag (and by your own stats it can’t) Your best best right now is closing cyro and just having 1 vengeance campaign