Do you feel that the ZOS devs have been honest about the original intent of the Vengeance Campaign?

DoofusMax · December 7

Yes

Yeah, mostly. Vengeance I pretty much stripped out everything except the bare essentials: limited class-based skills only, few weapon skills, no guild skills, no sets, no procs, etc. All the PvE stuff in the zone was disabled, so no merchants, no dailies, no resource harvesting, no fishing, etc. This also meant that new players couldn't do the Cyrodiil tutorial because no quests at all.

Vengeance II added some stuff back in and Vengeance III added a bit more. Vengeance IV has Cyrodiil itself pretty much fully turned on again, but still with reduced sets, skills, procs, and such.

While I get that regular PvP'ers are upset (I disagree with their reasons for being upset, but I get it), ZOS is doing exactly what anyone would do to methodically troubleshoot a problem: strip it down to bare minimums, then add stuff back in a little at a time to see at which point it breaks. I think some folks are just reading a lot into it, probably because it makes "ZOS hates us" more believable.

Marto · December 7

Yes

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

In every post, every livestream, and every statement ZOS has made it very clear that the purpose of the Vengeance tests is to test Vengeance.

But this isn’t true at all. We were all gaslit into believing the purpose of Vengeance was to tackle the issues in normal Cyrodiil. Never was it ever announced that Vengeance would one day be a permanent gamemode.

Exactly! It's like people have some weird amnesia or something.

Can you tell me where they said this?

Can you get me a link? A quote where a ZOS dev says the purpose of Vengeance is to apply the results to improve Greyhost?

Everyone talks as if it's an undisputable fact. But it's not on OP's screenshot, and it's not on anything I have ever read.

Everyone who's been following this issue from the beginning knows what ZOS' original statement of purpose was with vengeance. If the posts aren't still in the announcements section of the forum it's because the threads have been deleted or just moved down the list so far they're distant history, but I'm sure they can be found if you search for them.

So all your evidence was deleted? How convenient.

I insist. Get us a screenshot or quote where ZOS claims the purpose of Vengeance is to improve Greyhost.

spartaxoxo · December 7

Maybe (Comment below)

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

Definitely not. And the fact people are voting yes baffles me. “Do you feel that the ZOS devs have been honest about the original intent of the Vengeance Campaign?” - how have they been truthful? Man, this community…

I'm not understanding how anyone can see this any other way. ZOS said one thing all the while intending to do another. It's not ambiguous even in the remotest sense.

There must be some psychological phenomenon at play here.

You don't know if the intent was there. And that's where the difference in opinion lies. It's entirely possible that they genuinely intended it to be a test first, just as they said. If a company wants to make a new game mode and discontinue an old one, they typically just do that. They don't need to lie about such a thing.

They could have literally just said we're retiring this game mode due to performance and lack of participation and then introduced Vengeance fully formed down the line. They'd hardly be the first game to discontinue a game mode. Companies don't need elaborate schemes to do that.

And the risk of it eroding consumer trust for being so obvious is so high (and precisely what happened) that I honestly have a hard time believing that would have been the plan all along.

That said they amount of iterative development certainly makes them lying about it a possibility too. Like, who needs to create perks and load outs for a temporary test? That also doesn't make much sense to me.

There's no way for players to know for sure because intent is different than results. Lying requires intent. Both conclusions are reasonable based on the evidence that we have. That's why I voted maybe.

Marto · December 7

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

That said they amount of iterative development certainly makes them lying about it a possibility too. Like, who needs to create perks and load outs for a temporary test? That also doesn't make much sense to me.

The perks weren't there at the beginning. They were specifically created to address the biggest criticism of Vengeance: the lack of roles, builds, and customization.

ZOS started developing more features for Vengeance because the test was a resounding success. It fully accomplished their performance goals. Of course it didn't make everyone happy, but they believe the problems Vengeance has are fixable, and that's what they're working on now.

Get it to work first. Get it to be good second.

In the recent livestream about the class refreshes, the combat devs talk about having a 6-month development cadence. Sure, they weren't talking about PVP per se, but I don't think it's unreasonable for these perks to have required 4-6 months of development and internal testing before being released for open testing.

SaffronCitrusflower · December 7

No

Marto wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

In every post, every livestream, and every statement ZOS has made it very clear that the purpose of the Vengeance tests is to test Vengeance.

But this isn’t true at all. We were all gaslit into believing the purpose of Vengeance was to tackle the issues in normal Cyrodiil. Never was it ever announced that Vengeance would one day be a permanent gamemode.

Exactly! It's like people have some weird amnesia or something.

Can you tell me where they said this?

Can you get me a link? A quote where a ZOS dev says the purpose of Vengeance is to apply the results to improve Greyhost?

Everyone talks as if it's an undisputable fact. But it's not on OP's screenshot, and it's not on anything I have ever read.

Everyone who's been following this issue from the beginning knows what ZOS' original statement of purpose was with vengeance. If the posts aren't still in the announcements section of the forum it's because the threads have been deleted or just moved down the list so far they're distant history, but I'm sure they can be found if you search for them.

So all your evidence was deleted? How convenient.

I insist. Get us a screenshot or quote where ZOS claims the purpose of Vengeance is to improve Greyhost.

You can do your own homework.

Marto · December 7

Yes

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

In every post, every livestream, and every statement ZOS has made it very clear that the purpose of the Vengeance tests is to test Vengeance.

But this isn’t true at all. We were all gaslit into believing the purpose of Vengeance was to tackle the issues in normal Cyrodiil. Never was it ever announced that Vengeance would one day be a permanent gamemode.

Exactly! It's like people have some weird amnesia or something.

Can you tell me where they said this?

Can you get me a link? A quote where a ZOS dev says the purpose of Vengeance is to apply the results to improve Greyhost?

Everyone talks as if it's an undisputable fact. But it's not on OP's screenshot, and it's not on anything I have ever read.

Everyone who's been following this issue from the beginning knows what ZOS' original statement of purpose was with vengeance. If the posts aren't still in the announcements section of the forum it's because the threads have been deleted or just moved down the list so far they're distant history, but I'm sure they can be found if you search for them.

So all your evidence was deleted? How convenient.

I insist. Get us a screenshot or quote where ZOS claims the purpose of Vengeance is to improve Greyhost.

You can do your own homework.

I'm not the one accusing the devs of lying. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Stridig · December 7

Marto wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

In every post, every livestream, and every statement ZOS has made it very clear that the purpose of the Vengeance tests is to test Vengeance.

But this isn’t true at all. We were all gaslit into believing the purpose of Vengeance was to tackle the issues in normal Cyrodiil. Never was it ever announced that Vengeance would one day be a permanent gamemode.

Exactly! It's like people have some weird amnesia or something.

Can you tell me where they said this?

Can you get me a link? A quote where a ZOS dev says the purpose of Vengeance is to apply the results to improve Greyhost?

Everyone talks as if it's an undisputable fact. But it's not on OP's screenshot, and it's not on anything I have ever read.

Everyone who's been following this issue from the beginning knows what ZOS' original statement of purpose was with vengeance. If the posts aren't still in the announcements section of the forum it's because the threads have been deleted or just moved down the list so far they're distant history, but I'm sure they can be found if you search for them.

So all your evidence was deleted? How convenient.

I insist. Get us a screenshot or quote where ZOS claims the purpose of Vengeance is to improve Greyhost.

You can do your own homework.

I'm not the one accusing the devs of lying. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

I can't believe we have people in the community who deny this or want to see proof. It's been linked in multiple threads, and there was an uproar from the PvP community when the first survey came out. The survey centered around fun and not performance. It's well known.

edward_frigidhands · December 7

No

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

So this was the announcement from March 22nd:

In particular the phrase: "Anything you see that's enabled or disabled during this test is purely for the sake of performance and getting calculations as low as possible on the server." emphasises to the players that Vengeance I was purely for testing.

Yet out of the two Tests so far, we are yet to see any testing on the Grey Host and Blackreach Campaign or even a test campaign with some minor disabling of features that can still preserve the majority of the original campaigns. The devs should have a pretty decent idea of what is causing the performance drop and an improvement of as little as 5% per player could be enough to pull Cyrodiil back into a playable state.

This lack of interest in testing these fixes in a regular campaign indicate to me the Vengeance Testing was less about fixing existing campaigns and introducing the Vengeance campaign.

If you have to ask, the answer is already evident. There are few very loud people who will claim otherwise and you will find the same ones posting in every thread on these forums. Everyone else knows what's up.

Vulkunne · December 7

Yes

They're running tests for a reason. Some say that Vengeance isn't fair, but it's also not fair to leave things in the state they're currently in. Something had to give. This is what happens when a correction has to be applied. It's not always a nice thing, it doesn't mean things can never change again, but sometimes it just has to be done. Would be far worse not to do anything.

Avran_Sylt · December 7

Yes

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/685603/community-update-vengeance-testing-cyrodiil/p12

snippet from the engineering team posted by Gina:

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

I understand that the team has stated that Gray Host can never be performant with higher player numbers in their eyes. However as players we have seen a massive increase to performance around the time that the servers first got upgraded on both NA and EU. This performance slowly over time degraded but was seen on both servers directly after the upgrades. To us players it feels like directly after the upgrade the servers were on a higher performance mode or package and they have been downgraded. It could also be as a result of more and more sets being added like Mara's balm etc. but this wouldn't really explain why things got better on EU after their upgrades considering the upgrades were quite far apart and NA performance was already degrading by the time EU got their upgrade. Why does the team think this performance downgrade happened after the upgrades to the servers were initially so rewarding performance wise?

(The following answer was provided by our Engineering team.)

This is hard to answer without a more holistic view of Cyrodiil's upbringing and natural cyclical behavior, so bear with me. Cyrodiil was introduced at a time when the game as a whole was much simpler (in regards to player systems and general complexity, item set complexity, class complexity, etc.), so the main factor that controlled performance degradation was population. We accounted for this and planned for a time when populations would need to shrink as player complexity grew. We made it a priority to adjust populations sparingly and eventually decided on populations that felt close to the intended 'massive group player experience' with a reasonable expectation of increased latency at higher populations.

Over time, pre hardware upgrade, we recognized that the combination of new systems, ability complexity scope creep, uncapping of area effects, etc, was drastically pushing the limit of what we and players considered 'a reasonable expectation of increased latency at higher populations', and we either needed to adjust populations further, or investigate the issue at its core. In attempt to avoid hindering player experience too much, we opted for the latter. Two efforts immediately began to account for this - a general pass on gameplay systems focused on optimization in mass PvP environments, and the hardware upgrade. While the former would inevitably become a long-term effort, evolving into today's Vengeance campaign, the hardware upgrade provided an immediate measurable result that was easily noticeable and overwhelmingly positive.

While the improvement was drastic, we did notice inconsistent changes over time - during non-peak hours, things remained consistently stable, but at peak hours, performance could shift drastically and frequently, just as it did before the upgrade (albeit in lower magnitude). This was somewhat expected with limited changes to gameplay, and after some investigation the result simply led us back to the secondary efforts noted above, and is in part why we've made such a drastic shift towards something like Vengeance more recently. Even before exploring Vengeance, we made many changes that aimed to reduce some of the load that comes with hundreds of players engaging in combat - some of these changes were very visible and announced (early changes to core mechanics like sprint and block, area effect improvements, etc.), while others were made silently in the background with no expected changes to gameplay experience. These changes resulted in noticeable improvements in specific scenarios, but had no impact on others, and it can be difficult to identify problem areas and make improvements while not drastically changing player experience across the game as a whole. An isolated change that improves a specific spike in 'lag' often results in no overall improvement if immediately replaced by a different behavior, or if surrounding spikes continue to exist.

In the time between identifying that we needed to focus on these efforts and the hardware upgrade, player behavior as a whole had changed generally in Cyrodiil to account for the noticeable performance degradation, and this behavior varied by day, hour, and realm. This pattern, or in some ways lack of pattern, was identified pre hardware upgrade at a high level, but had naturally declined in severity as degradation led to unplayable circumstances. Given the scale of the issue at the time, it was hard to identify behaviors that could use a focused effort. Post hardware upgrade, that general behavior and load remained as it was in a time of increased latency. Over time, behaviors changed to fill the gaps that arose as a result of the upgrade. While it is true that some realms don't share the same experiences most of the time, we often see variations of the same behaviors that lead to a degradation in performance or increased latency at peak hours across all realms, and non-peak hours remain consistently stable.

All of this is to say that the hardware upgrade dramatically improved the general experience on all live realms, and that remains true to this date - but adding something as simple as a new item set can shift behaviors in a way that leads to inconsistencies that we need to account for and address. Our efforts noted above continue to this date as well, alongside new systems and general additions to combat and the game as a whole. These changes aim to reduce natural debt that comes with an ever-evolving game like ESO. Vengeance is on one hand a big attempt to reset the scales, providing a new sandbox for us to experiment with, keeping these limitations in mind from the beginning. On the other hand, it has also proven a valuable tool for verifying some of these changes in isolation. While the results of Vengeance are overwhelmingly positive from a performance standpoint, we've already identified degradation at the same levels as Greyhost, albeit at much lower frequencies.

The isolation of these incidents has already led to a slew of changes that we can make in the background, benefitting the game as a whole with no perceived changes in gameplay. We've already started to trickle these changes in with U48, but plan to continue these efforts until degradation is reduced in Cyrodiil, and the game as a whole. It's important to note that all of the above is in the context of Cyrodiil simply because that is where the core issues are easier to identify, but all improvements are shared across the game where applicable.

Basically I view it as:

Yes, I think they were honest in their statement for Vengeance I, but the scope of their plans probably lie within: They're going to practically redesign all classes and abilities to both be more performant and better integrate with class identity, Scribing, and Subclassing. Vengeance is a good testbed to test abilities essentially starting over from scratch from the performance aspect.

I'm thinking we're in the phase where "ESO 2" is being developed Ship of Theseus style on the live game, starting with the area most in need of a "start over" due to tech debt, being PvP. (Because I doubt people would ever buy a distinct ESO 2 if it also meant they lost everything they bought and earned in ESO 1).

I think full-map Greyhost will probably be axed in favor of a smaller-map version to better reflect the pop-cap and reduce Horse simulator, with Battle Spirit more liberally used across all modes (as stated in the same quote just afterwards), but they'll keep a nearly full build-crafting PvP Keep fighting zone available, if for no other reason to be another benchmark to optimize.

DenverRalphy · December 7

Maybe (Comment below)

In the live streams they stated under no uncertain terms that Vengeance is not a permanent Cyrodiil campaign. That it would be used for testing purposes only to gather data towards fixing and improving the current campaigns. On more than once occasion.

No, there aren't any forum posts from ZOS staff mirroring what was said in the live streams. That's one more piece of information lost due to the lack of communication issues that we're all hoping is being remedied.

Though I will say that During the u48 reveal stream I did note that the man with the plan couldn't look the camera in the eye while talking about Vengeance and PvP. He kept looking up and away like there was something noteworthy on the ceiling behind him.

spartaxoxo · December 7

Maybe (Comment below)

Marto wrote: »

I'm not the one accusing the devs of lying. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

The devs have claimed it was about performance from the jump and there's several websites that cite this information. It's fine if you don't think the devs are lying but it's obvious that people aren't making this claim for no reason.

Some of it was on streams which is why it's difficult to surface.

I have quoted relevant parts of the new posts here but you can view the whole initial announcement for yourself.

Part of the ongoing effort to improve performance and stability in ESO’s open-world PvP experience, Cyrodill Champions has now found its way to the PC/Mac live servers with the Vengeance campaign. . . Note that the templatizing of characters is an experiment and does not necessarily mean that these changes will be made to the Alliance War in the future. By introducing templatized characters for this specific test, we can isolate the variables that impact performance, helping us plan future improvements.

https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/67731

Q. What are the next steps after the Cyrodiil Champions testing? For example, if maxing player population is the performance goal, and it's met, will the next step be adding additional skills to the character template and seeing where it breaks? How would that be done? E.g., adding a few weapon skills or adding a few sets. – kiheikat
A. The whole goal of the test is to prove out if the complexity of abilities is a core problem performance-wise. We've run a number of tests looking at various other things over the last few years on live, (CP/No-CP, Proc sets, group healing, population caps, target caps, hardware...etc.) and this is the next step in that progression.

The results of the test will determine our next steps - either way, though, what is on PTS today is not even close to a full feature. Anything we move forward with will need loads of work to flesh out.

And this is from the Q&A at the same time. You'll see here that they claim the WHOLE goal is testing and that was is being tested is not even close to a full feature. They did add other stuff to vengeance since then, but I don't think most players would agree that it wasn't even close to a full feature based off what's currently being tested.

They did also state that results of the test would inform further actions even then though. Nevertheless, they strongly emphasized that it was a performance test whose entire goal was testing performance. And that we should view it similarly as other performance testing that had been done throughout the years like no-proc.

They emphasized over and over that this was a test and not a full feature. This only alongside the iterative development is why I'm in the maybe camp. I can see both sides very easily. There is a LOT of reasons to feel lied to, just as there are good reasons to feel it was truthful. They did emphasize over and over again it was just a test to improve Cyrodiil. But they did also state that how successful it was would determine their next steps in the same first Q&A.

It feels kind of like that "I play both sides so I always come out on top," meme, for me. Which is more common for large corporations than outright lying for both legal and consumer trust reasons.

spartaxoxo · December 7

Maybe (Comment below)

I also want to pull this quote from the initial annoucement

Not only does this campaign help test Cyrodiil’s performance while under specific conditions, but it also allows you to battle your fellow players on a completely even playing field. No matter your experience level or items, everybody who enters the Vengeance campaign is at the same power level—leaving only your skill to determine the victor!

Because I actually didn't notice this before now, until the question of them saying it was only a test was raised in this thread. This shows to me that they probably were always aware that Vengeance could be used a more balanced alternative game mode.

lostineternity · December 7

No

No, they are liars

https://www.twitch.tv/bethesda/clip/PiliableViscousVultureYee-vgOAcBzXslpdc_iE

edward_frigidhands · December 7

No

.

Marto · December 7

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

I'm not the one accusing the devs of lying. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

The devs have claimed it was about performance from the jump and there's several websites that cite this information. It's fine if you don't think the devs are lying but it's obvious that people aren't making this claim for no reason.

Some of it was on streams which is why it's difficult to surface.

I have quoted relevant parts of the new posts here but you can view the whole initial announcement for yourself.

Right. The devs said the goal of the first tests was to test the performance...

The performance of Vengeance.

That's just basic reading comprehension. If I tell you "I'm going to take the car for repairs. Do you know where the keys are?" it's pretty obvious I'm asking for the car keys. Not the house keys, not the motorcycle keys. The car keys.

I think this is where a lot of confusion and perceived dishonesty comes from. People read statements ZOS said about Vengeance, and imagined they were talking about Grey Host.

I feel utterly ridiculous even typing this, but here are the quotes, with some extra stuff on bold to make it more clear. It shouldn't be necessary, but apparently the community has no reading comprehension.

Part of the ongoing effort to improve performance and stability in ESO’s open-world PvP experience IN VENGEANCE, Cyrodill Champions has now found its way to the PC/Mac live servers with the Vengeance campaign. . . Note that the templatizing of characters is an experiment IN VENGEANCE and does not necessarily mean that these changes will be made to the Alliance War IN VENGEANCE OR GREYHOST in the future. By introducing templatized characters TO VENGEANCE for this specific test IN VENGEANCE, we can isolate the variables that impact performance IN VENGEANCE, helping us plan future improvements FOR VENGEANCE.

Q. What are the next steps after the Cyrodiil Champions testing? For example, if maxing player population IN VENGEANCE is the performance goal, and it's met, will the next step be adding additional skills to the character template IN VENGEANCE and seeing where VENGEANCE breaks? How would that be done? E.g., adding a few weapon skills or adding a few sets TO VENGEANCE. – kiheikat
A. The whole goal of the test is to prove out if the complexity of abilities IN VENGEANCE is a core problem performance-wise FOR VENGEANCE. We've run a number of tests IN GREYHOST looking at various other things over the last few years on live GREYHOST, (CP/No-CP, Proc sets, group healing, population caps, target caps, hardware...etc.) and this is the next step in that progression.

The results of the test will determine our next steps FOR VENGEANCE - either way, though, what is on PTS today is not even close to a full feature VENGEANCE. Anything we move forward with IN VENGEANCE will need loads of work ON VENGEANCE to flesh out VENGEANCE.

spartaxoxo · December 7

Maybe (Comment below)

Marto wrote: »

Right. The devs said the goal of the first tests was to test the performance...

The performance of Vengeance.

That's just basic reading comprehension. If I tell you "I'm going to take the car for repairs. Do you know where the keys are?" it's pretty obvious I'm asking for the car keys. Not the house keys, not the motorcycle keys. The car keys.

I think this is where a lot of confusion and perceived dishonesty comes from. People read statements ZOS said about Vengeance, and imagined they were talking about Grey Host.

I feel utterly ridiculous even typing this, but here are the quotes, with some extra stuff on bold to make it more clear. It shouldn't be necessary, but apparently the community has no reading comprehension.

You added the extra stuff and it is not what was stated.

Part of the ongoing effort to improve performance and stability in ESO’s open-world PvP experience, Cyrodill Champions has now found its way to the PC/Mac live servers with the Vengeance campaign

Here's the actual first part of that quote. It does not say "in vengeance." That's something you added.

Vengeance wasn't ongoing. It was new. The ongoing effort was Grey Host and other already existing campaigns.

tomofhyrule · December 7

Maybe (Comment below)

Marto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

I'm not the one accusing the devs of lying. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

The devs have claimed it was about performance from the jump and there's several websites that cite this information. It's fine if you don't think the devs are lying but it's obvious that people aren't making this claim for no reason.

Some of it was on streams which is why it's difficult to surface.

I have quoted relevant parts of the new posts here but you can view the whole initial announcement for yourself.

Right. The devs said the goal of the first tests was to test the performance...

The performance of Vengeance.

That's just basic reading comprehension. If I tell you "I'm going to take the car for repairs. Do you know where the keys are?" it's pretty obvious I'm asking for the car keys. Not the house keys, not the motorcycle keys. The car keys.

I think this is where a lot of confusion and perceived dishonesty comes from. People read statements ZOS said about Vengeance, and imagined they were talking about Grey Host.

Let me come in with a counterexample here: Vengance was not a thing when they said they were testing it.

To your example, that's someone saying "I'm going to take the vehicle for repairs." and then completely ignoring the car in the driveway to go buy a motorcycle to repair. Sure, it wasn't specified that they weren't talking about the car... but that was the only thing in the driveway until they got back from the repair shop with a motorcycle.

spartaxoxo · December 7

Maybe (Comment below)

The whole goal of the test is to prove out if the complexity of abilities is a core problem performance-wise. We've run a number of tests looking at various other things over the last few years on live, (CP/No-CP, Proc sets, group healing, population caps, target caps, hardware...etc.) and this is the next step in that progression.

Here's another highlight from the Q&A.

It's very clearly stating we should view this as the next performance test in the series of tests specifically designed to improve the performance on live.

Marto · December 7

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

Right. The devs said the goal of the first tests was to test the performance...

The performance of Vengeance.

That's just basic reading comprehension. If I tell you "I'm going to take the car for repairs. Do you know where the keys are?" it's pretty obvious I'm asking for the car keys. Not the house keys, not the motorcycle keys. The car keys.

I think this is where a lot of confusion and perceived dishonesty comes from. People read statements ZOS said about Vengeance, and imagined they were talking about Grey Host.

I feel utterly ridiculous even typing this, but here are the quotes, with some extra stuff on bold to make it more clear. It shouldn't be necessary, but apparently the community has no reading comprehension.

You added the extra stuff and it is not what was stated.

Part of the ongoing effort to improve performance and stability in ESO’s open-world PvP experience, Cyrodill Champions has now found its way to the PC/Mac live servers with the Vengeance campaign

Here's the actual first part of that quote. It does not say "in vengeance." That's something you added.

Vengeance wasn't ongoing. It was new. The ongoing effort was Grey Host and other already existing campaigns.

My god, you people really don't know how to read.

When they say "ESO’s open-world PvP experience" they're talking about the overall experience of playing PVP in an open-world. It's just another way of saying "Non-dueling, non-battleground PVP experience"

And yes, until recently, "Non-dueling, non-battleground PVP experience" was synonymous with Greyhost. But it's not anymore. That's why they worded it like that. They're talking about creating a new "Non-dueling, non-battleground PVP experience", which is why they wrote "ESO’s open-world PvP experience"

ZOS is going to have to start writing their posts like they're talking to babies. Because people really go out of their way to misread every word.

Al_Ex_Andre · December 7

Maybe (Comment below)

Maybe, because I always thought that PvP will be simplified for the sake of server performance, so whatever was said, it was the intent since day one for me, or that's what I did read in my mind.

spartaxoxo · December 7

Maybe (Comment below)

Marto wrote: »

ZOS is going to have to start writing their posts like they're talking to babies. Because people really go out of their way to misread every word.

On-going effort =/= brand new thing. They said over and over that it was just a performance test but they also said they would decide what they wanted to do next based off the results of that test.

If ZOS is telling the truth, then the truth would be that the performance tests made it clear that fixing Cyrodiil isn't possible, so they decided to make vengeance a full campaign. Which is also exactly how they presented the announcement.

You're the only arguing that they never stated it about fixing Cyrodiil performance.

Marto · December 7

Yes

tomofhyrule wrote: »

To your example, that's someone saying "I'm going to take the vehicle for repairs." and then completely ignoring the car in the driveway to go buy a motorcycle to repair. Sure, it wasn't specified that they weren't talking about the car... but that was the only thing in the driveway until they got back from the repair shop with a motorcycle.

If you're going to take the analogy that way, then ZOS titled the thread "Introducing: Motorcycle". It's not vague, dude. The title of the threads said Vengeance, and every paragraph and sentence talked about Vengeance.

If a developer starts a forum thread talking about X

And they say "We're going to release X for testing and collecting feedback, so we can plan future improvements."

It's not that hard to understand the thing they want to improve is X

Aylish · 12:02AM

No

They literally told us that everything with Vengeance is just to learn where performance issues come from to make Cyro perform better.

Now they gave up on Cyrodiil like „ok, Vengeance works. Let‘s keep it.“

moderatelyfatman · 12:36AM

No

DoofusMax wrote: »

Yeah, mostly. Vengeance I pretty much stripped out everything except the bare essentials: limited class-based skills only, few weapon skills, no guild skills, no sets, no procs, etc. All the PvE stuff in the zone was disabled, so no merchants, no dailies, no resource harvesting, no fishing, etc. This also meant that new players couldn't do the Cyrodiil tutorial because no quests at all.

Vengeance II added some stuff back in and Vengeance III added a bit more. Vengeance IV has Cyrodiil itself pretty much fully turned on again, but still with reduced sets, skills, procs, and such.

While I get that regular PvP'ers are upset (I disagree with their reasons for being upset, but I get it), ZOS is doing exactly what anyone would do to methodically troubleshoot a problem: strip it down to bare minimums, then add stuff back in a little at a time to see at which point it breaks. I think some folks are just reading a lot into it, probably because it makes "ZOS hates us" more believable.

ZOS's behaviour after the first Vengeance test could fit the explanation you have given. But if the intent was to improve Regular Cyrodiil, where has the follow up occurred?
We should have been receiving testing in Greyhost or Blackreach by now. Where is the skill changes, limitations to desyc producing proc-sets (DC and RoA), cross healing etc?
This absolute lack of changes to Regular Cyrodiil lead me to believe that ZOS never intended to fix these but instead to foist of a casual friendly version of PvP to bolster their numbers.

Militan1404 · 4:24AM

No

No they havent been honest, they managed to kind of fix cyro for a while a couple of years ago, but now they cant? And whats the point of having more testing and have vengeance as the only campain when they allready have decied that they cant fix cyro. At least IC and bgs are crowded in the mean time. And they havent even tried with cross healing, and sets like DC and ROA to see if they effects preformance as players been asking for years. What i suspect its really about is that with Vengeance they save much time and money and have to do minimal class and set balance and much work on the servers. Kind of like with sub-classing, they proboly tought that if every player had every skill line available they could just spend less work on balance. But how did that work? Lots of players left becouse their is no class identity anymore. and now they have to go on their knees and fix their mess once again.

DoofusMax · 7:26AM

Yes

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

ZOS's behaviour after the first Vengeance test could fit the explanation you have given. But if the intent was to improve Regular Cyrodiil, where has the follow up occurred?
We should have been receiving testing in Greyhost or Blackreach by now. Where is the skill changes, limitations to desyc producing proc-sets (DC and RoA), cross healing etc?
This absolute lack of changes to Regular Cyrodiil lead me to believe that ZOS never intended to fix these but instead to foist of a casual friendly version of PvP to bolster their numbers.

I'm looking at the furor generated by the few days for each Vengeance thus far and extending that reaction to permanently pasting any of it onto the regular Cyrodiil campaigns. Torches and pitchforks, anyone? ZOS is being pretty transparent that the data they've gathered thus far points to two options for Cyrodiil: (1) leaving Gray Host as it is and closing down other campaigns in favor of a Vengeance-like ruleset (the preferred option) or (2) closing down everything except a couple of Vengeance-like campaigns. I think neither option will go over well.

edward_frigidhands · 7:56AM

No

lostineternity wrote: »

No, they are liars

https://www.twitch.tv/bethesda/clip/PiliableViscousVultureYee-vgOAcBzXslpdc_iE

frogthroat · 8:40AM

Maybe (Comment below)

I think they might have originally thought it only as a test to gather data but along the way they could not fix it properly, so they decided to make the test environment the live environment.

Like when troubleshooting Windows you might need to boot to simplified mode. The difference is, you won't settle for the simplified mode becoming your standard boot, which is happening here.

amiiegee · 8:50AM

No

We have been lied to. I do not have any trust in their words anymore.