LennaTheRussian wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

First, they said Vengeance IS coming ._.

Now, Vengeance IS here ._.



*Cracks knuckles* oh yea now thats what I'm talking about, thats REAL skill based PvP bro, sweatlords beware.

We're so back, this is gonna show all those Greyhost enjoyers for sure bro.

3:22 pm on a Monday, not even prime time btw. Completely useless screenshot, most people are at work. I'll screenshot the same time on greyhost and you'll complain that it's not prime time like you have before.

True today was even more empty

I just came out of Vengence PC/EU (the start of their primetime) and it was at times 2 bars on red and yellow 1 bar on blue we had battles of 50 a side over 3 keeps consecutively. It was a lot of fun

React wrote: »

blktauna wrote: »

I don't get why you have to put down Vengence. The people that want to go there will go there and the people who want GH will go there. Mutually exclusive groups, mostly.

If you have a problem with GH not being big enough, Yell at ZOS. If you want a blackreach type of overflow, yell at ZOS. That will get you what you need.

The folks in Vengence are doing their thing and it's got nothing to do with GH.

<snip>

The big issue for me is how much time and development resources have gone into vengeance. PVP doesn't get much to begin with, so to have all these months dedicated to developing a pvp system that I as a pvp player have no intention of interacting with just feels bad. If that time had instead been spent on this new smaller scale zone they've been teasing, for example - we'd probably have that piece of content already.
[/quote}

I'm very doubtful anything new was developed. Everything works the same as GH so this is probably from an earlier brance of cyrodil as a starting point and they went from there. Not exactly ground flooring anything.

React wrote: »

Disregarding the fact that vengeance was originally just supposed to be a data gathering tool and later became something we'd be permanently saddled with, it really never made much sense. Stripping away the entire combat system to it's bare minimum to allow for a large population was always doomed to fail - because the vast majority of that large population does not want to participate in this kind of stripped down environment to begin with. So now we've got this environment that seems largely dead, meaning it never will even achieve it's purpose of a "900 pop cap campaign" since it will likely never reach those numbers outside a PVP event.

Well look like the data they gathered told them folks enjoyed it and liked the stripped down system. On PCEU about an hor ago we had seiges of 40-50 a side of excellent fighting. Red and Yellow hit 2 bars. When I left red was still on 2 bars.

You do not speak for the vast majority.

React wrote: »

Meanwhile the PVP experience has gotten EVEN WORSE for GH players with the removal of BR/RW since they're now sitting in 50-100 queues every single night - and we haven't even gotten to the weekend yet. My queue on monday took me 1 hour 45 minutes, last night it took me 1 hour 15 minutes. That is a brutal amount of time merely to be able to enter cyrodiil, and for many people who are coming home after work - this is just going to mean they don't play anymore.

I whole heardtedly agree that there should be a blackreach to wait in because the queue is stupid and not right.
but that has nothing to do with Vengence existing. ZOS needs to step up and adjust this.

SneaK wrote: »

blktauna wrote: »

I don't get why you have to put down Vengence. The people that want to go there will go there and the people who want GH will go there. Mutually exclusive groups, mostly.

If you have a problem with GH not being big enough, Yell at ZOS. If you want a blackreach type of overflow, yell at ZOS. That will get you what you need.

The folks in Vengence are doing their thing and it's got nothing to do with GH.

While I’m sure that sentiment is shared amongst the small group of pVengeance folk, ZOS put regular Cyrodiil on the back burner for Vengeance, and people have every right to be upset about it. We now have longer queues, only one campaign for 3 alliances, and the ever looming threat of ZOS deleting our game mode.

So no, no quarter given. It’s yall vs us.

What "back burner"? Instead of what? Fixing the performance problems that are unfixable without changing the ruleset? This is the key point that some keep missing, or deliberately ignoring. ZOS cannot fix GH without altering the ruleset in some way. So what changes to the ruleset, that improve performance, and don't alter GH beyond your arbitrary point of acceptable, would you like? Is that ruleset going to be acceptable to all or just you?

Marto wrote: »

But I think it's a far more productive use of your time (and the devs) to provide feedback and suggestions on how to improve Vengeance until it scratches that itch, than to continue to waste time fixing standard Cyrodiil.

We don't owe the devs anything. We are the customer. This is a 12yr old game, not some game in beta testing. I know I won't be wasting my time playing it nor spending anymore money on this game if they continue to push Vengeance.

Stamicka wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

blktauna wrote: »

I don't get why you have to put down Vengence. The people that want to go there will go there and the people who want GH will go there. Mutually exclusive groups, mostly.

If you have a problem with GH not being big enough, Yell at ZOS. If you want a blackreach type of overflow, yell at ZOS. That will get you what you need.

The folks in Vengence are doing their thing and it's got nothing to do with GH.

While I’m sure that sentiment is shared amongst the small group of pVengeance folk, ZOS put regular Cyrodiil on the back burner for Vengeance, and people have every right to be upset about it. We now have longer queues, only one campaign for 3 alliances, and the ever looming threat of ZOS deleting our game mode.

So no, no quarter given. It’s yall vs us.

Where are you guys getting the idea that ZOS can only develop one thing at a time? Does someone have secret insight into their development process?

How do we know that they don’t have separate development teams for things? For example one team for Vengeance, one team for whatever new zone they’re currently developing, and one team for Grey Host.

It’s so needlessly divisive to frame it as an us vs them thing, as if the existence of Vengeance is somehow taking away from other parts of the game. We don’t know if that’s the case, none of us can say.

If taking away Blackreach caused this increase in queue times, fine, they should just add it back along with Grey Host and Vengeance. It’ll probably be dead, but if it shuts people up they should do it.

Both sides can coexist without ever bothering each other or taking away from each other.

Did you miss the part where they never committed to stating normal Cyro is a permanent feature yet Vengeance is?????? We are in a constant state of caution to everything ZOS does, because of things like this. And the white knights pretending that Vengeance is successful are waging war on people that don’t like it, while they worry ZOS will strip away the only good game mode ESO has.

It's rather unfortunate that hate threads like this are allowed to flourish.

Never mind Vengeance, why is Gray Host (Alliance Locked) being favoured above Blackreach (non alliance locked)?

On NA, Gray Host seemed to be the favourite server.

BUT, on EU, more people preferred Blackreach, which was always more populated than GH.

(Not many people bothered with Ravenwatch, and Icereach was almost invariably empty.)

Some of us have characters on more than one faction, and want to get the achievements for all factions (for various things like "kill X players", "capture X keeps", "flip X resources" and so on).

I'll just say: Gray Host, as the only remaining non-Vengeance server, was full. And Vengeance was empty.

jle30303 wrote: »

I'll just say: Gray Host, as the only remaining non-Vengeance server, was full. And Vengeance was empty.

And that’s been the case since the last test also, with greyhost next to it. And now it’s permanent and doa. The vengeance cope is very real, but hey maybe the weekend will see better numbers. I honestly don’t care and hope they enjoy it, because the Greyhost Queues are soooo ridiculous right now.

SneaK wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

blktauna wrote: »

I don't get why you have to put down Vengence. The people that want to go there will go there and the people who want GH will go there. Mutually exclusive groups, mostly.

If you have a problem with GH not being big enough, Yell at ZOS. If you want a blackreach type of overflow, yell at ZOS. That will get you what you need.

The folks in Vengence are doing their thing and it's got nothing to do with GH.

While I’m sure that sentiment is shared amongst the small group of pVengeance folk, ZOS put regular Cyrodiil on the back burner for Vengeance, and people have every right to be upset about it. We now have longer queues, only one campaign for 3 alliances, and the ever looming threat of ZOS deleting our game mode.

So no, no quarter given. It’s yall vs us.

Where are you guys getting the idea that ZOS can only develop one thing at a time? Does someone have secret insight into their development process?

How do we know that they don’t have separate development teams for things? For example one team for Vengeance, one team for whatever new zone they’re currently developing, and one team for Grey Host.

It’s so needlessly divisive to frame it as an us vs them thing, as if the existence of Vengeance is somehow taking away from other parts of the game. We don’t know if that’s the case, none of us can say.

If taking away Blackreach caused this increase in queue times, fine, they should just add it back along with Grey Host and Vengeance. It’ll probably be dead, but if it shuts people up they should do it.

Both sides can coexist without ever bothering each other or taking away from each other.

Did you miss the part where they never committed to stating normal Cyro is a permanent feature yet Vengeance is?????? We are in a constant state of caution to everything ZOS does, because of things like this. And the white knights pretending that Vengeance is successful are waging war on people that don’t like it, while they worry ZOS will strip away the only good game mode ESO has.

What are you talking about? If ZOS ever implied that they may totally replace normal Cyrodiil with Vengeance somewhere, please show me. Link it, quote it, whatever, I never saw that.

As for the rest, I am not a white knight for Vengeance. I don't play it personally, I have many critiques of how it is in its current state, and I'm not pretending it's successful at all.

I have a problem with the dishonest arguments here and the people trying to get rid of Vengeance completely. It's very unproductive and it makes no sense anyway.

One common argument I see is that Vengeance is the reason other forms of PvP don't get attention and that it takes attention away from where it needs to be. That argument is completely made up to be divisive, because Vengeance vs Grey Host isn't a zero sum game. We first heard about Vengeance in January of 2025. This means they were working on it in 2024.

On top of that we don't know how time consuming it was to develop. The skills in Vengeance don't have any new animations as far as I've seen and they are just extremely basic versions of skills already in the game. Outside of that Vengeance is just an isolated Cyrodiil instance with higher population caps and a different colored sky. I won't pretend to know how long it took to put Vengeance together, but I would not be surprised if it was done with a small team, very little resources, and little time. I wouldn't think that adding more simple skills is a lot of work either.

ESO always has multiple different things being developed at once behind the scenes and before we even know about it. For example, with major patches we used to get both a trial and a new zone. It's not like the trial team has to drop what they're doing to go work on the new zone, it's way more likely that they are totally separate teams that are doing work at the same time. So why are you guys acting like ZOS decided to drop everything they were working on for PvP to focus on Vengeance rather than considering the idea that it was a side project with a dedicated team? You're just manufacturing outrage for no good reason.

If you're unhappy that PvP in general doesn't get much attention, I get that, but it doesn't have much to do with Vengeance cause Vengeance itself is an attempt to do something about PvP. So you should point your finger to the right place.

You're wasting your time being mad about something that started development way back in 2024 and is already in the game. If they scrap it completely now, then it actually will become a total waste. I agree with the people here that Vengeance is not in a very good state right now, but it does have potential. It's more worthwhile to recommend improvements rather than deletion since it's a part of the game now. Maybe it's naive of me to expect ZOS to create a good PvP environment through Vengeance, but it would be just as naive to expect Grey Host to be fixed after watching it go downhill for a literal decade. It's beyond fixing and it's as bad as ever.

If you don't like Vengeance, don't go. It can remain dead in a corner like Ravenwatch was, it doesn't hurt you. However, there are some people who do enjoy Vengeance and it remains true that Vengeance is way more accessible than Grey Host. You guys should really be celebrating an accessible entry point into PvP and the fact that it gets interest from PvErs. Normal Cyrodiil barely gets any new people, and evidently it's net losing people because populations have been getting lower every year that passes. Getting people who otherwise wouldn't touch PvP interested is a big first step. They could branch out to other areas of PvP if they improve. You're not doing the PvP population any favors by trying to get rid of an actually accessible Cyrodiil instance.

I get that the new longer queues suck, I think that's a reasonable complaint, and for that they should just add Blackreach back. However, the Vengeance outrage and calls to get it removed aren't helping anything at all. You guys will end up killing a possible path that could've been used to improve PvP.

Stamicka wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

blktauna wrote: »

I don't get why you have to put down Vengence. The people that want to go there will go there and the people who want GH will go there. Mutually exclusive groups, mostly.

If you have a problem with GH not being big enough, Yell at ZOS. If you want a blackreach type of overflow, yell at ZOS. That will get you what you need.

The folks in Vengence are doing their thing and it's got nothing to do with GH.

While I’m sure that sentiment is shared amongst the small group of pVengeance folk, ZOS put regular Cyrodiil on the back burner for Vengeance, and people have every right to be upset about it. We now have longer queues, only one campaign for 3 alliances, and the ever looming threat of ZOS deleting our game mode.

So no, no quarter given. It’s yall vs us.

Where are you guys getting the idea that ZOS can only develop one thing at a time? Does someone have secret insight into their development process?

How do we know that they don’t have separate development teams for things? For example one team for Vengeance, one team for whatever new zone they’re currently developing, and one team for Grey Host.

It’s so needlessly divisive to frame it as an us vs them thing, as if the existence of Vengeance is somehow taking away from other parts of the game. We don’t know if that’s the case, none of us can say.

If taking away Blackreach caused this increase in queue times, fine, they should just add it back along with Grey Host and Vengeance. It’ll probably be dead, but if it shuts people up they should do it.

Both sides can coexist without ever bothering each other or taking away from each other.

Did you miss the part where they never committed to stating normal Cyro is a permanent feature yet Vengeance is?????? We are in a constant state of caution to everything ZOS does, because of things like this. And the white knights pretending that Vengeance is successful are waging war on people that don’t like it, while they worry ZOS will strip away the only good game mode ESO has.

What are you talking about? If ZOS ever implied that they may totally replace normal Cyrodiil with Vengeance somewhere, please show me. Link it, quote it, whatever, I never saw that.

As for the rest, I am not a white knight for Vengeance. I don't play it personally, I have many critiques of how it is in its current state, and I'm not pretending it's successful at all.

I have a problem with the dishonest arguments here and the people trying to get rid of Vengeance completely. It's very unproductive and it makes no sense anyway.

One common argument I see is that Vengeance is the reason other forms of PvP don't get attention and that it takes attention away from where it needs to be. That argument is completely made up to be divisive, because Vengeance vs Grey Host isn't a zero sum game. We first heard about Vengeance in January of 2025. This means they were working on it in 2024.

On top of that we don't know how time consuming it was to develop. The skills in Vengeance don't have any new animations as far as I've seen and they are just extremely basic versions of skills already in the game. Outside of that Vengeance is just an isolated Cyrodiil instance with higher population caps and a different colored sky. I won't pretend to know how long it took to put Vengeance together, but I would not be surprised if it was done with a small team, very little resources, and little time. I wouldn't think that adding more simple skills is a lot of work either.

ESO always has multiple different things being developed at once behind the scenes and before we even know about it. For example, with major patches we used to get both a trial and a new zone. It's not like the trial team has to drop what they're doing to go work on the new zone, it's way more likely that they are totally separate teams that are doing work at the same time. So why are you guys acting like ZOS decided to drop everything they were working on for PvP to focus on Vengeance rather than considering the idea that it was a side project with a dedicated team? You're just manufacturing outrage for no good reason.

If you're unhappy that PvP in general doesn't get much attention, I get that, but it doesn't have much to do with Vengeance cause Vengeance itself is an attempt to do something about PvP. So you should point your finger to the right place.

You're wasting your time being mad about something that started development way back in 2024 and is already in the game. If they scrap it completely now, then it actually will become a total waste. I agree with the people here that Vengeance is not in a very good state right now, but it does have potential. It's more worthwhile to recommend improvements rather than deletion since it's a part of the game now. Maybe it's naive of me to expect ZOS to create a good PvP environment through Vengeance, but it would be just as naive to expect Grey Host to be fixed after watching it go downhill for a literal decade. It's beyond fixing and it's as bad as ever.

If you don't like Vengeance, don't go. It can remain dead in a corner like Ravenwatch was, it doesn't hurt you. However, there are some people who do enjoy Vengeance and it remains true that Vengeance is way more accessible than Grey Host. You guys should really be celebrating an accessible entry point into PvP and the fact that it gets interest from PvErs. Normal Cyrodiil barely gets any new people, and evidently it's net losing people because populations have been getting lower every year that passes. Getting people who otherwise wouldn't touch PvP interested is a big first step. They could branch out to other areas of PvP if they improve. You're not doing the PvP population any favors by trying to get rid of an actually accessible Cyrodiil instance.

I get that the new longer queues suck, I think that's a reasonable complaint, and for that they should just add Blackreach back. However, the Vengeance outrage and calls to get it removed aren't helping anything at all. You guys will end up killing a possible path that could've been used to improve PvP.

How can you really comment on any of this without having followed the whole saga?

“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.”

This sparked numerous threads and 16 pages of comments on the actual post.

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

The looming threat of scenario 2 literally means as an old head Cyro person, it’s in our best interest for Vengeance to flop.

SneaK wrote: »

How can you really comment on any of this without having followed the whole saga?

“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.”

This sparked numerous threads and 16 pages of comments on the actual post.

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

I literally have a comment on the thread that you just linked so clearly I was there and I have followed the whole saga.

Second, you cut off the most important part of that quote

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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.

They were being transparent about their paths forward, but they straight up mentioned that they have a strong preference to keep Grey Host in the game and that removing it was way more unlikely. That is the scenario that played out.

They never said they wanted to remove Grey Host, they actually said that they would much rather keep it. Framing it otherwise is not a true representation of what they said.

A common trend I’ve noticed, not just in this thread but in several others, is PC EU players claiming Vengeance is not dead, while players from almost every other server are saying the opposite.

As a PC NA player, I can tell you that Vengeance has been dead since day one, while Gray Host has been pop-locking extremely early. Even if PC EU’s first few days had decent numbers — say, around 100 players per faction — it’s already pretty clear that players still do not prefer Vengeance over Gray Host.

Vengeance is the newest addition to PvP. It has been months since the last test, and the new Veterancy system rewards are directly tied to Vengeance’s build system. Despite all of that, it is still less popular than Gray Host.

Give it a week, or at most a month, and I think even PC EU will see the same result: the campaign will be empty.

Stamicka wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Nor is that what I said. Simply put, again, they have stated Vengeance is permanent, they have not stated GH is permanent.

Until they clarify that, there is no world where I want to see Vengeance succeed. Sorry, just how it goes. It’s not what I spent money on.

Also, telling me I’m framing something misrepresenting when you literally snip out the part of your dialogue I was replying to, is, something.

Stamicka wrote: »

What are you talking about? If ZOS ever implied that they may totally replace normal Cyrodiil with Vengeance somewhere, please show me. Link it, quote it, whatever, I never saw that.

To me they were pretty clear that they probably weren't going to remove Grey Host, otherwise they wouldn't have called it "unlikely". As you can see, it's now the next year and scenario 1, the one they stated was more likely, is the scenario that actually happened.

I don't really think it's up in the air anymore that Grey Host is on the chopping block. They weren't strongly considering removing it anyway.

Clear and careful are different, to me, they are very carefully using words like available in regards to GH, and permanent in regards to Vengeance. Which is shameful.