Maintenance for the week of December 8:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 8
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 8
Do you feel that the ZOS devs have been honest about the original intent of the Vengeance Campaign?
-
robwolf666✭✭✭✭✭
✭YesYes - at the time... what else could they possibly have said before any testing had been done?
Things just might have changed over time.1 -
Muizer✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yesmoderatelyfatman wrote: »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.
It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild, not fix, Cyrodiil PvP with Vengeance. And before anyone says 'just a test', that quite evidently referred to Vengeance I, which they stressed because usually what goes live is not a test, but a complete feature. Blame ZOS, perhaps, for letting this misunderstanding persist, but IMHO they didn't create it. Wishful thinking did.Please stop making requests for game features. ZOS have enough bad ideas as it is!0 -
lostineternity✭✭✭✭Nomoderatelyfatman wrote: »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.
It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild
Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.
They said It hundreds of time on streams on forum in interviews and dev talks.
If not than it's pretty clear they lied all this time.
Of course their plans could change during this year and they had to communicate this properly but they didn't. They continued to lie until this moment. That's the issue. Their communication with community is the worst in the industry and I'm so f8888ng tired to pretend that such behavior is normal.Edited by lostineternity on December 8, 2025 2:35PM2 -
BardokRedSnow✭✭✭✭✭NoEdit: nvmEdited by BardokRedSnow on December 8, 2025 2:26PMZos then: Vengeance is just a test bro
Zos now: Do you want Vengeance permanent or permanent...0 -
Melivar✭✭✭YesI think it was originally meant as just a test with the first round.
With the second round they were possible still hopeful but also thinking this might be the way forward.
And from there we have gotten to where we are today.0 -
licenturion✭✭✭✭✭
✭Maybe (Comment below)I feel like they started this as a test as they said they would.
But along the way plans and roadmap change. They were probably surprised with the engagement and the survey results. There was also a significant change jn leadership and plans for the future might have changed.
Nothing is ever set in stone with live service game development. If you want a static game experience you should play single player games. I played many games over the years that really changed during their lifespan (like Overwatch). You either go along for the ride or step off if you don’t like the destination anymore.1 -
Muizer✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yeslostineternity wrote: »moderatelyfatman wrote: »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.
It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild
Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.
Read Firor's Letter.
"We need to seriously address Cyrodiil performance. Our (ambitious) goal is to return it to the concurrency levels we supported in 2014. So, we will be experimenting with a Cyrodiil campaign where all classes will have PvP-specific (and more performant) skills that replace the standard player skills with the expectation that we can support more players per campaign"
This is pretty much what they've been doing.
In fact I honestly do not know what you'd expect them to learn from a 'test' that is designed to find out how far skills need to be simplified and still be performant other than a new, simplified set of abilities that do work. If they found anything else, like a way to make skills more performant without changing their functionality, it would be a complete fluke!
Edited by Muizer on December 8, 2025 5:03PMPlease stop making requests for game features. ZOS have enough bad ideas as it is!3 -
LPapirius✭✭✭✭✭
✭Nolostineternity wrote: »moderatelyfatman wrote: »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.
It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild
Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.
Read Firor's Letter.
"We need to seriously address Cyrodiil performance. Our (ambitious) goal is to return it to the concurrency levels we supported in 2014. So, we will be experimenting with a Cyrodiil campaign where all classes will have PvP-specific (and more performant) skills that replace the standard player skills with the expectation that we can support more players per campaign"
This is pretty much what they've been doing.
In fact I honestly do not know what you'd expect them to learn from a 'test' that is designed to find out how far skills need to be simplified and still be performant other than a new, simplified set of abilities that do work. If they found anything else, like a way to make skills more performant without changing their functionality, it would be a complete fluke!
That person left the company six months ago. And yes, he was the leading game creator and dev.
Edited by LPapirius on December 8, 2025 6:32PM1 -
Wolfshade✭✭✭✭✭
✭... we will be experimenting with a Cyrodiil campaign...
...and not make it part of a game. All the concerns about that where pointed out and it all doesnt matter cause by every step they communicated more and more it will come live. Thats the way they do it since years and this is the perfect example of it.
0 -
lostineternity✭✭✭✭Nolostineternity wrote: »moderatelyfatman wrote: »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.
It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild
Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.
In fact I honestly do not know what you'd expect them to learn from a 'test'
Me? Nothing. I don't expect anything good them for a while now. It was their description of Vengeance not mine.2 -
Marto✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yeslostineternity wrote: »lostineternity wrote: »moderatelyfatman wrote: »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.
It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild
Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.
In fact I honestly do not know what you'd expect them to learn from a 'test'
Me? Nothing. I don't expect anything good them for a while now. It was their description of Vengeance not mine.
Where?
Seriously people. You can't just repeat over and over "The devs said..." or "It was clearly stated..." or "everyone knows..."
You got the facts wrong, simply put. You willingly or accidentally misunderstood their words."According to the calculations of the sages of the Cult of the Ancestor Moth, the batam guar is the cutest creature in all Tamriel"0 -
LPapirius✭✭✭✭✭
✭Nolostineternity wrote: »lostineternity wrote: »moderatelyfatman wrote: »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.
It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild
Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.
In fact I honestly do not know what you'd expect them to learn from a 'test'
Me? Nothing. I don't expect anything good them for a while now. It was their description of Vengeance not mine.
Where?
Seriously people. You can't just repeat over and over "The devs said..." or "It was clearly stated..." or "everyone knows..."
You got the facts wrong, simply put. You willingly or accidentally misunderstood their words.
Actually it's you who keeps putting forth the false narrative.
At least three people have linked you to or posted direct quotes to the info you are demanding and you're acting like you still haven't seen it.2 -
Marto✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yeslostineternity wrote: »lostineternity wrote: »moderatelyfatman wrote: »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.
It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild
Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.
In fact I honestly do not know what you'd expect them to learn from a 'test'
Me? Nothing. I don't expect anything good them for a while now. It was their description of Vengeance not mine.
Where?
Seriously people. You can't just repeat over and over "The devs said..." or "It was clearly stated..." or "everyone knows..."
You got the facts wrong, simply put. You willingly or accidentally misunderstood their words.
Actually it's you who keeps putting forth the false narrative.
At least three people have linked you to or posted direct quotes to the info you are demanding and you're acting like you still haven't seen it.
Can you please go to those quotes and explain the logical process through which you determined the quotes are talking about improving performance in Greyhost Cyrodiil?
I know that sounds stupid and pedantic. But I have already explained my logical process. And just to recap I'm going to write it down again.- The title of the announcement, forum thread, or post included "Vengeance".
- The topic of conversation was the Vengeance Campaign.
- There were many sentences that explicitly said the objectives relate to the Vengeance campaign.
- There were zero sentences that explicitly said the objectives relate to the Greyhost campaign.
- There were many sentences that didn't specify. FFor example, whenever they said something like "We'll collect feedback and plan improvements" without specifying improvements on what. However, because the title of the thread and the topic of conversation was Vengeance, I believe these sentences are also talking about Vengeance.
If I can write it down, so can you."According to the calculations of the sages of the Cult of the Ancestor Moth, the batam guar is the cutest creature in all Tamriel"0