We Need To Have A Talk: Gray Host Queue

LadyGP · June 14

We're one week into U50, and with that comes Vengeance and the removal of all PvP campaigns except Gray Host.
Quick note before I get into it: this thread isn't about whether Vengeance is good or bad. Some people love it, some don't, that's fine. Please take that debate somewhere else.
Quick note pt2: I clearly don't have ZoS analytics so alot of my "data" is coming from my own personal experiences, friends experiences, or conversation in zone chat - my numbers are close but not exact.

The queue problem is genuinely bad right now.

On a random Thursday around 5pm EST the queue starts forming. By 5:30 it's around 30, by 6:30 it's around 80. This past weekend people in zone chat were talking about queuing at 6pm and not getting in until 9:30pm. Three hours to play a video game on your day off and by the time you get in it's basically bedtime. That's a fundamental problem, especially when ZoS is actively trying to retain and bring back players.

The queue getting stuck bug makes this even worse. Waiting 90 minutes with your friends, watching them all get in, then sitting at position 21 for 20+ minutes before getting kicked back to spot 95... at that point most people are just logging off. That's not a dramatic reaction, that's a hard truth.

I get that more players, new sets, and new skills online means performance takes a hit and the cap decisions aren't simple. And yes, Vengeance exists as an alternative but the in-game experience between GH and Vengeance is night and day, so "just play Vengeance" isn't really a good-faith answer and I challange people to not default to that.

The crash problem compounds everything.

If you disconnect after 6:30pm, your night in GH is probably over. You're not getting back in. "Just go quest or do something else" some of us only play ESO for Cyrodiil PvP. That's it. If I crash and the queue is at 100, I'm closing the game and doing something else entirely. That's a loss for the player and a loss for ZoS and something that should be avoided at ALL costs.

What's the fix?

I don't have a clean answer. What I do know is that a lot of players who used to run the smaller campaigns are now funneled into GH because they have no other locked option. That's concentrated a ton of demand into one place.

ZoS has always kept pop caps close to the chest, but the general assumption is somewhere around 100-150 per faction. Demand clearly exists.. GH has a queue and Vengeance appears to be running around one bar. That suggests there's room and appetite for an overflow campaign, and it needs to be a locked one IMO.

The queue being long is actually a good sign.. people want to play.

But the experience around the queue is bad enough that people are giving up and leaving. That's the part that needs to be fixed.. and fixed fast.

tomofhyrule · June 14

This is an easy fix: reopen a second standard Campaign for overflow.

The devs seem to have assumed that Grey Host overflow would just go into Vengeance if it was open (and Vengeance has a much higher pop cap so it will not have a queue). They don't seem to have considered that the players who are in the Grey Host queue would not want to play Vengeance and would rather sit in queue for 3h than go to Vengeance.

We also know there will be a new 'midscale' PvP thing coming up that they mentioned but haven't talked about really at all. I'm assuming that since that looks essentially like "standard Cyrodiil, but without the horse-riding simulator," that it will pull from the GH queue.

Problem is, that doesn't exist yet. So until it does, the only place you can get Cyrodiil combat with standard rules is GH, which necessarily has a very low cap.

I'm not going to assume malice, but the devs really need to consider opening a Blackreach or something in addition to what they have so people can get in, and soon. The idea of only two Campaigns means that players now have a choice between sitting in 3h queues or playing a mode that they do not want to play in, and I feel like forcing that decision will make people choose the third option of uninstalling instead.

LadyGP · June 14

I hear ya - I think there is a lack of understanding though about how die hard - truly competitive - the OG PvPers are. The vast majority of us want GH and only GH and aren't going to leave to play a trimmed down version of it just to take some pressure off of GH performance/queue.

To your point - yes.. I will sit in queue for 3 hours if it means I get to play GH that night.Just one time though, if my queue locks or I crash I'm done for the night.

Pepegrillos · June 14

Open a no-CP overflow campaign.

Reginald_leBlem · June 14

Pepegrillos wrote: »

Open a no-CP overflow campaign.

No one wants that.

amiiegee · June 14

tomofhyrule wrote: »

This is an easy fix: reopen a second standard Campaign for overflow.

The devs seem to have assumed that Grey Host overflow would just go into Vengeance if it was open (and Vengeance has a much higher pop cap so it will not have a queue). They don't seem to have considered that the players who are in the Grey Host queue would not want to play Vengeance and would rather sit in queue for 3h than go to Vengeance.

We also know there will be a new 'midscale' PvP thing coming up that they mentioned but haven't talked about really at all. I'm assuming that since that looks essentially like "standard Cyrodiil, but without the horse-riding simulator," that it will pull from the GH queue.

Problem is, that doesn't exist yet. So until it does, the only place you can get Cyrodiil combat with standard rules is GH, which necessarily has a very low cap.

I'm not going to assume malice, but the devs really need to consider opening a Blackreach or something in addition to what they have so people can get in, and soon. The idea of only two Campaigns means that players now have a choice between sitting in 3h queues or playing a mode that they do not want to play in, and I feel like forcing that decision will make people choose the third option of uninstalling instead.

They just didn’t listen to what we the players actually want and rather closed the second propper campaign. It’s a shame

LadyGP · June 14

amiiegee wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

This is an easy fix: reopen a second standard Campaign for overflow.

The devs seem to have assumed that Grey Host overflow would just go into Vengeance if it was open (and Vengeance has a much higher pop cap so it will not have a queue). They don't seem to have considered that the players who are in the Grey Host queue would not want to play Vengeance and would rather sit in queue for 3h than go to Vengeance.

We also know there will be a new 'midscale' PvP thing coming up that they mentioned but haven't talked about really at all. I'm assuming that since that looks essentially like "standard Cyrodiil, but without the horse-riding simulator," that it will pull from the GH queue.

Problem is, that doesn't exist yet. So until it does, the only place you can get Cyrodiil combat with standard rules is GH, which necessarily has a very low cap.

I'm not going to assume malice, but the devs really need to consider opening a Blackreach or something in addition to what they have so people can get in, and soon. The idea of only two Campaigns means that players now have a choice between sitting in 3h queues or playing a mode that they do not want to play in, and I feel like forcing that decision will make people choose the third option of uninstalling instead.

They just didn’t listen to what we the players actually want and rather closed the second propper campaign. It’s a shame

I respect them having an idea and sticking with it.

I hope at this point they are willing to listen and make changes. It's easy to sit there and look at data and be like "oh we have a ton of people playing vengence and GH queue is long so people want to play."

Problem is.. how many people are going to veng and q for GH and IMO a really long queue for ANY GAME is a terrible thing. Yes, it indicates demand (being honest creating a long q is easy to do when you widdle down the pop month after month after month till it's nothing). But if people can't actually play because they spend the majority of the time waiting... thats a dangerous flaw that needs to be addressed. You only have so much time of people waiting hours and hours day after day to play before they say screw it and move onto a different game entirely.

LadyGP · June 14

Funny thing... finally done with work around the house.. have a few hours to relax... just queued up... q70.

Another point I didn't cover in my initial post is the use of AFK macros or "mouse gigglers" now that the long queues are back... thus making the afk in cyro and longer queue problems even worse.

Gabriel_H · June 14

LadyGP wrote: »

Funny thing... finally done with work around the house.. have a few hours to relax... just queued up... q70.

Another point I didn't cover in my initial post is the use of AFK macros or "mouse gigglers" now that the long queues are back... thus making the afk in cyro and longer queue problems even worse.

My first question to ZOS would be if they have the data on who is actually participating in Cyro PvP and who isn't. GH hasn't been this busy in eons, and it's not just that the other campaigns have gone as they were dead midweek, as was GH much of the time outside peak hours.

Now Vengeance goes live and all of a sudden everyone wants to be in GH?! Add into that not the queue length but the queue time. The time indicates turn-around time. I've heard stories about 3, 4 or even 5 hours in the queue the last week. That seems an abnormally long turnaround time.

At this point, I think ZOS need to open up another instance of GH, to assuage player annoyance, but I think they also need to release that data I mentioned.

LadyGP · June 14

Gabriel_H wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Funny thing... finally done with work around the house.. have a few hours to relax... just queued up... q70.

Another point I didn't cover in my initial post is the use of AFK macros or "mouse gigglers" now that the long queues are back... thus making the afk in cyro and longer queue problems even worse.

My first question to ZOS would be if they have the data on who is actually participating in Cyro PvP and who isn't. GH hasn't been this busy in eons, and it's not just that the other campaigns have gone as they were dead midweek, as was GH much of the time outside peak hours.

Now Vengeance goes live and all of a sudden everyone wants to be in GH?! Add into that not the queue length but the queue time. The time indicates turn-around time. I've heard stories about 3, 4 or even 5 hours in the queue the last week. That seems an abnormally long turnaround time.

At this point, I think ZOS need to open up another instance of GH, to assuage player annoyance, but I think they also need to release that data I mentioned.

A lot of players have come back since U49... U50.... Ashes of Creation and New World going boom... there is no question that Cyro has been gaining player count over the last few months.

I don't just putting "up another instance of GH" is the answer. You're still going to have people who want to play on "the real pvp server". It's not that cut and dry.

spartaxoxo · June 14

They need to do two things

1) reopen Blackreach
2) Balance Vengeance better and add in perks that people can actually build into without having to grind.

That way Vengeance can be a meaningful alternative that is optional and not forced.

LadyGP · June 15

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They need to do two things

1) reopen Blackreach
2) Balance Vengeance better and add in perks that people can actually build into without having to grind.

That way Vengeance can be a meaningful alternative that is optional and not forced.

To be fair the AP you earn in veng is so easy.. it isn't really of a grind. Just from GH I'm up to lvl ~60. Veng ap seems like it's a 2 or 3x multipler on it compared to GH.

Yes to open blackreach.

Rohamad_Ali · June 15

We need two 30 day faction locked campaigns would be the logical conclusion.

Arrow312 · June 15

i think they must (re)open another camp. If i have a long queue like last WE i logged off and go play something else. I personally dont like the Vengence skillset and style and wont play it.

Normally i would go BR for waiting or IC. I not sure if the queue works with the new Tel Var changes, so i dont try it. Result i logged off and go for another game. I dont want to log into GH every morning and run a macro :-D

I dont know how many players like me. I only see my FL and there are normally more online during prime time or WE.

CameraBeardThePirate · June 15

Arrow312 wrote: »

i think they must (re)open another camp. If i have a long queue like last WE i logged off and go play something else. I personally dont like the Vengence skillset and style and wont play it.

Normally i would go BR for waiting or IC. I not sure if the queue works with the new Tel Var changes, so i dont try it. Result i logged off and go for another game. I dont want to log into GH every morning and run a macro :-D

I dont know how many players like me. I only see my FL and there are normally more online during prime time or WE.

You can still wait for the GH queue in IC. You just have to enter the queue before having TelVar on you. The TelVar changes only prevent you from starting a queue with 100 or more TV, they do not prevent you from accepting it.

DarkStrifeYT · June 15

I said it once I'll say it again, people would rather wait in queue than play vengeance

Necrotech_Master · June 15

DarkStrifeYT wrote: »

I said it once I'll say it again, people would rather wait in queue than play vengeance

how did that logic work when we did have blackreach available? not really well considering it was dead even when GH had 100+ person queue

multiple times over the last year GH has had 80-100+ person queue, and blackreach had 1 bar across the board

like ladygp said, even when there were alternate camps people only wanted to play in the "main" pvp one, so even adding blackreach back in likely wouldnt change much

i get that veng rules arent for everyone, but the GH queue has been a problem for years, not "just now"

xylteh · June 15

Gabriel_H wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Funny thing... finally done with work around the house.. have a few hours to relax... just queued up... q70.

Another point I didn't cover in my initial post is the use of AFK macros or "mouse gigglers" now that the long queues are back... thus making the afk in cyro and longer queue problems even worse.

My first question to ZOS would be if they have the data on who is actually participating in Cyro PvP and who isn't. GH hasn't been this busy in eons, and it's not just that the other campaigns have gone as they were dead midweek, as was GH much of the time outside peak hours.

Now Vengeance goes live and all of a sudden everyone wants to be in GH?! Add into that not the queue length but the queue time. The time indicates turn-around time. I've heard stories about 3, 4 or even 5 hours in the queue the last week. That seems an abnormally long turnaround time.

At this point, I think ZOS need to open up another instance of GH, to assuage player annoyance, but I think they also need to release that data I mentioned.

It's not "all of a sudden everyone wants to be in GH" it's related to u50 and the fact that people are finally able to play and compete on pureclass again instead of few dk and subclassing metas so they are coming back to cyro. Also blackreach and ravenwatch still had their small communities and active players which had to move to GH.

LadyGP · June 15

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

DarkStrifeYT wrote: »

I said it once I'll say it again, people would rather wait in queue than play vengeance

how did that logic work when we did have blackreach available? not really well considering it was dead even when GH had 100+ person queue

multiple times over the last year GH has had 80-100+ person queue, and blackreach had 1 bar across the board

like ladygp said, even when there were alternate camps people only wanted to play in the "main" pvp one, so even adding blackreach back in likely wouldnt change much

i get that veng rules arent for everyone, but the GH queue has been a problem for years, not "just now"

We are seeing a few different things converge at once.

1) There is a flood of old players coming back to the game - in particular the PVP area (U49, leadership mindset shift, AoC blowing up, New World blowing up, to name a few reasons why).

2) The removal of the other camps are causing the players in those "dead" camps to find a new home.. and it seems like that home isn't Vengence.

Both of these are funneling people into GH. With another camp you're going to peel off some players who don't care about being in "the main pvp camp" and thus releif a bit of pressure from the queue.

I'm not saying the queue is going to drop from 120 during prime to 20... but it might drop from 120 to 60. It might not form at 3pm est and instead a queue starts closer to 6pm est.

I think all of those things are good.

While I have said I wish the pop cap would increase even considering the lag... after how terrible the server fps was last night for EVERYONE... I honestly don't think the game/servers could handle it with whatever new skills/sets are melting the server with extreme calculations.

It's really... really bad. I haven't had a drop of lag in the last year (after having years of lag caused from ISP issues) but since U50 under high pressure fights.. the poor hamsters.

Veinblood1965 · June 15

Maybe I just haven't seen it but it would go a long ways towards rebuilding player trust if ZoS would officially state the population cap and WHY there is a cap, and what plans if any there are to increase the CAP. I unsubbed a while back but honestly I would have been willing to pay a little more per month to be able to play instead of wait in queue. PvP in ESO is probably some of the best PvP I've played in any game. I'm sure ZoS has tossed around all sorts of good ideas, can you imagine how incredibly fun it could be if it had it's own dedicated team who had the funds on par with PVE funds? I'd definitely sign right back up.

Eldovar · June 15

At this point I think it would be an interesting technical and social experiment to just copy GH ruleset and make a GH1 and GH2.

In theory it would fix and double the queues. But in practice people would probably keep queuing into GH1 only and keep complaining about queues.

BXR_Lonestar · June 15

Yeah, there's a lot of unintended problems associated with the que, not just the que times themselves that I think they failed to consider. For instance, what about those people who are just trying to get into Cyrodil to check out the Golden's wares? Now you have to line up and wait sometimes an hour or more to get in just to spend 2 minutes in there looking at the Golden's goods. Or same issue - but what if you're trying to spend your AP on PVP gear for PVP (i.e., you want to buy Deadly Strike for a new build)?

And once you are on a character, because of the long que times, you are stuck playing that character all night long, regardless of whether that character is or is not what you need for the combat situation. Example? When we're pushing, I like to be a healer, but when we're defending, I have a tank that is very helpful in defensive battles. I can't exactly switch between the two without losing my spot in Cyrodil.

And I'm going to have to turn all my PVP characters into crafters just so I have something to do while waiting in que. Going into the sewers isn't going to work because the moment I have over 100 telvar on me, I can miss my que because I can't get back to base in a minute to dump off my telvar. So the change they made to please people who were getting upset about people queing out to save telvar now ALSO acts as a barrier to entry to get into GH.

And I really don't see Vengeance getting any play. Every time I peak in there, the whole map is red, and nothing is moving, which indicates that red is the only color that has sufficient population overflow to do anything in there - and there's no counters to numbers in Vengeance. It's just nothing but zerg.

Honestly, the easiest answer here seems to be to just ditch Vengeance and bring back BR. I'd prefer if it was alliance locked, but either way, the game just doesn't have the population to support a Vengeance-like campaign.

LadyGP · June 15

BXR_Lonestar wrote: »

Yeah, there's a lot of unintended problems associated with the que, not just the que times themselves that I think they failed to consider. For instance, what about those people who are just trying to get into Cyrodil to check out the Golden's wares? Now you have to line up and wait sometimes an hour or more to get in just to spend 2 minutes in there looking at the Golden's goods. Or same issue - but what if you're trying to spend your AP on PVP gear for PVP (i.e., you want to buy Deadly Strike for a new build)?

And once you are on a character, because of the long que times, you are stuck playing that character all night long, regardless of whether that character is or is not what you need for the combat situation. Example? When we're pushing, I like to be a healer, but when we're defending, I have a tank that is very helpful in defensive battles. I can't exactly switch between the two without losing my spot in Cyrodil.

And I'm going to have to turn all my PVP characters into crafters just so I have something to do while waiting in que. Going into the sewers isn't going to work because the moment I have over 100 telvar on me, I can miss my que because I can't get back to base in a minute to dump off my telvar. So the change they made to please people who were getting upset about people queing out to save telvar now ALSO acts as a barrier to entry to get into GH.

And I really don't see Vengeance getting any play. Every time I peak in there, the whole map is red, and nothing is moving, which indicates that red is the only color that has sufficient population overflow to do anything in there - and there's no counters to numbers in Vengeance. It's just nothing but zerg.

Honestly, the easiest answer here seems to be to just ditch Vengeance and bring back BR. I'd prefer if it was alliance locked, but either way, the game just doesn't have the population to support a Vengeance-like campaign.

DANGIT I forgot to check the golden this weekend. Arg.

In all seriousness, you're right.

There are so many additional factors that impact the queue aside from just... queue is long this stinks.

I literally had the crafter situation you spoke of, this weekend. I was working on my WW build and it was like 1pm on Sunday.. someone in my guild said hey queue up its 57. I now had to queue up on my toon and throw together some build because I can no longer swap back between toons to make gear without losing my spot.

* Side note that I don't see talked about alot is the queue stuck bug that happens from porting around to various areas.. you're pretty much stuck in one area while you wait in queue because the more you port around, it seems anyways, the higher chance you get of your queue getting stuck.

I also agree on the vengence points you made. The first feedback I had from test 1 was that vengence simply feels like a numbers game.. zerg vs zerg whoever has the most wins. In GH its fairly common for zergs to get defeated by skilled groups but in Vengence it feels like nothing you do really changes the fight... just numbers win flat out.

As for getting rid of the Vengence camp and going to a BR or something... while I agree with you... I see ZERO chance that ZoS will bite that bullet after spending all the resources and years of effort into this camp. I think the vast majority of us who play in Gh on a regular basis could tell the current direction of Vengence (no build options and zerg only matters) was going to cause it to fail so it's a tad disappointing to see nothing in their direction really changes over the last year or so of tests.

I would be absolutely shocked if they came out and said.. yeah this didn't work... the numbers just aren't there and the unintended consequences are far too high now and it's causing us to purge players (watch the player count if we go another 2 or 3 weeks of literally 2.5-3 hour queues during prime)... and they changes course.

I guess my goal is just to solicit as much feedback as possible for the current problems we face and hopefully we can get some insight from ZoS on if they feel a fix is needed.. and what said fix would be.

LadyGP · June 15

Eldovar wrote: »

At this point I think it would be an interesting technical and social experiment to just copy GH ruleset and make a GH1 and GH2.

In theory it would fix and double the queues. But in practice people would probably keep queuing into GH1 only and keep complaining about queues.

I'm with you but... gamers are too hard headed. We will go to the "OG GH" where all our friends, and enemies, are. If that means I have to sit through a 2 hour queue to be able to spend my night killing people who hate whisper me all night... so be it.

decairn · June 15

Veinblood1965 wrote: »

Maybe I just haven't seen it but it would go a long ways towards rebuilding player trust if ZoS would officially state the population cap and WHY there is a cap, and what plans if any there are to increase the CAP. I unsubbed a while back but honestly I would have been willing to pay a little more per month to be able to play instead of wait in queue. PvP in ESO is probably some of the best PvP I've played in any game. I'm sure ZoS has tossed around all sorts of good ideas, can you imagine how incredibly fun it could be if it had it's own dedicated team who had the funds on par with PVE funds? I'd definitely sign right back up.

ZOS are on record within the last few months on stating cap is 120 per faction in GH, 300 per faction in Vengeance (and last year they wouldn't ever acknowledge the question even, so that's progress of a sort). There's a cap because servers can't handle the amount of math required above those levels. There's no stated plans to increase the cap because these levels are what ZOS believes are what can be adequately managed, and in making these campaign changes they want to see how the populations settle down before doing anything else. There is room for a bit more math on Vengeance, but ZOS said their considering more AoE targets and proc sets for future.

Eldovar · June 15

LadyGP wrote: »

Eldovar wrote: »

At this point I think it would be an interesting technical and social experiment to just copy GH ruleset and make a GH1 and GH2.

In theory it would fix and double the queues. But in practice people would probably keep queuing into GH1 only and keep complaining about queues.

I'm with you but... gamers are too hard headed. We will go to the "OG GH" where all our friends, and enemies, are. If that means I have to sit through a 2 hour queue to be able to spend my night killing people who hate whisper me all night... so be it.

Yeah, that is why I suggested it as an interesting experiment. Making GH2, reopening the old campaigns, deleting Vengeance...it will not solve the problem.

Because the only solution is the thing ZOS said they can't and won't do: fixing it from the ground up. And we all know even that will get a lot of pushback if someone their favorite set, proc or AOE is even slightly changed or dropped in favor of performance.

LadyGP · June 15

Eldovar wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Eldovar wrote: »

At this point I think it would be an interesting technical and social experiment to just copy GH ruleset and make a GH1 and GH2.

In theory it would fix and double the queues. But in practice people would probably keep queuing into GH1 only and keep complaining about queues.

I'm with you but... gamers are too hard headed. We will go to the "OG GH" where all our friends, and enemies, are. If that means I have to sit through a 2 hour queue to be able to spend my night killing people who hate whisper me all night... so be it.

Yeah, that is why I suggested it as an interesting experiment. Making GH2, reopening the old campaigns, deleting Vengeance...it will not solve the problem.

Because the only solution is the thing ZOS said they can't and won't do: fixing it from the ground up. And we all know even that will get a lot of pushback if someone their favorite set, proc or AOE is even slightly changed or dropped in favor of performance.

I'm getting off topic a bit here with this one but one thing I'll say is...

I wish we could just make PvP and PvE versions of sets. Rework the way healing works a bit and shielding works a bit for the PvP side of things. Tweak the way ball groups impact the server (example. You can tell the moment a ball group is about to push into a keep because of the server fps lockup right before the push when they buff up). Ball groups 100% have a place in PvP... we just need to have an honest conversation about how to reduce the impact they have on the server via calculation cost.

I'm curious to see what this smaller pvp map thing is. Right now it seems, from the outside anyways, that ZoS mindset is less "lets rework this from the ground up for the x time" and more of a.. how can we push people to other areas and out of GH.

I really hope I'm wrong with the asusmption of the mindset but this is what my guts been telling me based on their actions over the last few years.

I'm still semi tweaked from the Vengence live stream where they said over and over and over and over this is in no way the shape vengence will take.. this is just a test... it will look nothing like this etc.. but it's exactly like test 1.. just more skills thrown in.

anyways, I'm leaning into the "we like vengence we hate vengence" conversation that I was trying to avoid by making this thread.

Shifting focus back on the super long brutal queues.

LadyGP · June 15

decairn wrote: »

Veinblood1965 wrote: »

Maybe I just haven't seen it but it would go a long ways towards rebuilding player trust if ZoS would officially state the population cap and WHY there is a cap, and what plans if any there are to increase the CAP. I unsubbed a while back but honestly I would have been willing to pay a little more per month to be able to play instead of wait in queue. PvP in ESO is probably some of the best PvP I've played in any game. I'm sure ZoS has tossed around all sorts of good ideas, can you imagine how incredibly fun it could be if it had it's own dedicated team who had the funds on par with PVE funds? I'd definitely sign right back up.

ZOS are on record within the last few months on stating cap is 120 per faction in GH, 300 per faction in Vengeance (and last year they wouldn't ever acknowledge the question even, so that's progress of a sort). There's a cap because servers can't handle the amount of math required above those levels. There's no stated plans to increase the cap because these levels are what ZOS believes are what can be adequately managed, and in making these campaign changes they want to see how the populations settle down before doing anything else. There is room for a bit more math on Vengeance, but ZOS said their considering more AoE targets and proc sets for future.

Yeah, around the cap numbers we have been guessing at for a while.

Just another nugget.. I'm curious to see the vengence numbers in about a month. Right now the vegenc battle pass thing... if you really want to grind it quick vengence is the place to go with how easy the AP is.. it honestly feels like a 3x of the ap you get in GH.

There are a lot of good rewards there so what happens to Vengence once the vast majority of PvE people get their rewards?

BardokRedSnow · June 15

Gabriel_H wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Funny thing... finally done with work around the house.. have a few hours to relax... just queued up... q70.

Another point I didn't cover in my initial post is the use of AFK macros or "mouse gigglers" now that the long queues are back... thus making the afk in cyro and longer queue problems even worse.

GH hasn't been this busy in eons

Listen, buddy. You don't have to participate in every thread just because it exists. I wish people here would stop larping as pvpers and speaking on matters you don't know about.

GH is so active that on a weekday I have to queue up by 5pm to avoid waiting in line, and if im not in by 7:30 at least im probably not getting in til after 9pm. Its been like this since at least the dragonknight remake.

Many of y'all here I see haven't even logged into eso in months, sometimes years, but are here commenting like you're in it day in day out. Stop it.

SaffronCitrusflower · June 15

Dear ZOS,

Your plan to force people into vengeance by creating a situtation where Grey Host has triple digit queues during the times most people are available to play IS NOT GOING TO WORK.

Most players would rather log out than play vengeance, and they won't wait through 3 hour queues very many times before logging off and never returning. And the veterancy system is a transparent attempt to force us in a direction we will never go.

Please just do what you've told us you were doing for a decade, and fix Grey Host performance. We know you can do it because ya'll did it when you replaced the servers. You haven't even tried limiting heal or shield stacking yet. Why not?

Sincerely,

@ZOS_Kevin
@ZOS_GinaBruno

BardokRedSnow · June 15

LadyGP wrote: »

Eldovar wrote: »

At this point I think it would be an interesting technical and social experiment to just copy GH ruleset and make a GH1 and GH2.

In theory it would fix and double the queues. But in practice people would probably keep queuing into GH1 only and keep complaining about queues.

I'm with you but... gamers are too hard headed. We will go to the "OG GH" where all our friends, and enemies, are. If that means I have to sit through a 2 hour queue to be able to spend my night killing people who hate whisper me all night... so be it.

I dont think its about being hard headed at all, even with two greyhosts there will always be a main campaign and an off campaign, especially since more casual players on your side and against you will likely be there too.

There's examples of this already also, midyear mayhem. Zos already knows that for certain events they have to open more campaigns because they do it every time this event opens up. And every time, all of them are full, sometimes newbies, often times greyhost regulars, especially since less players means more ap in that campaign.