Is it time to finalise Vengeance tweaks and move onto Grey Host testing?

Greasytengu · July 24

No

At this point I just want them to keep their hands off of Cyro altogether. let them go 'fix' PVE performance or something and leave Greyhost and Vengeance alone.

Usureki · July 24

Yes

I think this Vengance testing causes serious performance issues in all other areas of the game. I'm experiencing delays from the server since this forced test started. Not only they are taking away a core part of the game to force paying customers to do their testing, but IC suffers from random 2 seconds delays, I also have random input lag in BGs as well.

This is a miserable experience. Never again pls.

Twohothardware · July 24

There's no player base for Vengeance so I hope this was there last time testing. Every time they put it up on PlayStation we go from full player counts in Gray Host to zero bars on all three Alliances in Vengeance. A lot of those PvP player simply don't even log on to the game until Gray Host is back.

BigPlays420 · July 24

Yes

AdonisJorge wrote: »

BigPlays420 wrote: »

AdonisJorge wrote: »

First thing, if you can please stop the "pve players have not so say about it" arguments, it justs makes some people think that part of PVP community is toxic and elitist, "PVE players" are customers as much you are, it does not help and i ask that, if you are not that part of PVP community speak with your colleages about how it is not a good communication. I play like 70/30% PVE PVP and if i see anyone bashing that "PVP players have not to say in maters of PVE" i would not condone with that (like when some people bashed on PVP community about shattered paths nerf).

Second, veng as a test enviroment is not perfect and being treated as unpaid testers is not fair, i can agree with that. At the same time if this really helps with making PVP better i just try to help just i am trying right now. One thing that i find to be helpful is after the *** we ask what the game development team found with it, what was the results, if we participated the procces we have the right to access the results.

Third, imo ZOS communication have a lot to improve, idk if why things are like that but even ingame we do not know how some sets or buffs interact with each other, my impression is that is a general problem.

I have seen a comment on another thread that people may like GH as it is: aka broken with a lot lag and dsync, i really do not know how truthful is that, but, if it is true we must see if is worth the investment to "fix things" on GH or of ZOS just leave as it as like a "crazy power fantasy" enviroment and change their focus on other PVP gameplay types

Sorry about any typo, i am not a native english speaker

Of course PvE players are customers, and of course they're entitled to an opinion. But the people who actively engage with a piece of content should naturally carry more weight when discussing its future.

If ZOS were redesigning veteran trials, I wouldn't expect players who never step foot in PvE to dictate the direction of that content. Their feedback would still be welcome, but it shouldn't override the experience of the people who actually play it every day.

The same principle applies here. The concern isn't that PvE players should be silenced; it's that decisions about open-world PvP are increasingly being influenced by players who have no intention of sticking around once the incentives disappear. Meanwhile, the players who log into Gray Host every night are overwhelmingly saying they don't want these tests or this direction.

And it's only reinforced by how many people seem completely indifferent to the fact that our preferred PvP game mode is repeatedly being taken away. If veteran trial players had their trials removed for weeks at a time to test a new PvE mode, I doubt we'd see nearly as many people saying, "Just deal with it." Yet that's exactly what's expected of the Gray Host community.

Every customer has a voice. Not every voice carries the same level of expertise or investment in a particular part of the game.

Who said that players will not stick around when the incentives go away? Maybe the changes that they propose is one of the thinks that make them stay on the PVP. I completely disagree with your position and do not find it part of constructing a healthy discussion enviroment, PVP player can and i find it very produtive that they give their opinions about any PVE content, and i can simply disagree with them IF i find them wrong imo about some aspect of the game, but i will never attack their "origin" insted their arguments. No experience must override, ZOS must imo have the wisdom to filter and apply what can be applied on the best way possible

Your comment reinforces my point. The people advocating for these tests are, more often than not, not the people sustaining open-world PvP year-round. The regular Gray Host community will still be there after the incentives disappear. Vengeance won't.

Just look at Vengeance whenever Gray Host is active. That tells you everything you need to know.

hiyde · July 24

BigPlays420 wrote: »

What I am a fan of is respecting the customer. ZOS is backed by a multi-billion-dollar company.

I keep seeing people say this and it's absolutely incorrect. Microsoft is a multi-TRILLION dollar company...

NovelliESO · July 24

Yes

Marto wrote: »

I don't know about you, OP. But I played ESO during 2019-2023, when ZOS did countless tests on Grey Host, trying to see what to remove or change to improve performance.

None of it worked.

Vengeance has made more progress in 1 year than the old Grey Host tests did in 4

There is nothing true about this statement. If you remove everything from GH and play a simplistic game of course it will run smooth. Adding things slowly isn't making more progress, more progress is made when solutions are found. There hasn't been a single solution found this way, whereas there were solutions found in the original tests.

CptTekashi · July 24

Yes

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Lucasl402 wrote: »

CatalinaWineMixer2 wrote: »

It's time to cut our losses and take the risk that Vengeance will repair the damage the GH community has brought upon all of us. And still is. They would rather see people quit PvP or leave the game than not have their way. The longer it goes on, the more new players turn away. The more Vets become jaded and quit. The returning players take one look at it and say no.

The game will move on without them. It's the only thing Zos hasn't tried yet. And probably the only thing that will work which is why GH is so against fair PvP. Ive said it before, Zos needs to take control of combat, establish, maintain and enforce the rules. It wont work any other way and its not fair to everyone if that is not what is going on. Especially when the same people know they can get any character or build nerfed just by threatening to harm the PvP population by boycotting an attempt to correct it like they are doing with Vengeance. Or attempting to silence people who speak out for fair PvP. Or trying to dissuade people who are sick of their characters and builds being ruined to cater to the smallest minority.

Please show us on the doll where the evil PvP player touched you. Good grief.

YOU ARE NOT A VICTIM BECAUSE THE PvP PLAYERS HAVE PUT IN MORE TIME AND EFFORT TO BE PROFICIENT AT PvP.

Switching to the latest overpowered unbalanced meta is not effort.

You think wearing the meta sets will automatically make you 1vX ? you silllllllyyyyyy boy lmao

Stamicka · July 24

Maybe (Comment)

NovelliESO wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

I don't know about you, OP. But I played ESO during 2019-2023, when ZOS did countless tests on Grey Host, trying to see what to remove or change to improve performance.

None of it worked.

Vengeance has made more progress in 1 year than the old Grey Host tests did in 4

There is nothing true about this statement. If you remove everything from GH and play a simplistic game of course it will run smooth. Adding things slowly isn't making more progress, more progress is made when solutions are found. There hasn't been a single solution found this way, whereas there were solutions found in the original tests.

What solutions were found during those original tests? Why would we even be here if they found a solution back then?

merevie · July 24

the backlash they mentioned they faced here wasn't reflective of opinions IN GAME

You sir, were clearly not in any faction zone chat last weekend when people realised this weekend's GH pvp was cancelled. They weren't nice responses and they didn't stop as people logged in and found out...

But you can go read a few comments in the streams to get the general gist of their 'opinions' on the choices made.

LadyLavina · July 24

Yes

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Players have deemed it its own thing. ZOS never have.

Slippery slope here, friend. If ZOS themselves weren't deeming it their own thing there wouldn't be passives/things related to it unlocked via the pvp veterancy system they added.

They can do whatever they'd like. Players can want something, but ZOS made the call counter to what the majority appears to have wanted.

There are some that wanted the mode long term , but not the majority. I'm not speaking for the majority at all, it's simply observable by looking at various ESO communities & speaking with the boots-on-the-ground in game.

The reason the tests were successful in terms of participation is because they were made to be the only option.

Vengeance-Only March 2025
Vengeance-Only June 2025
Vengeance-Only September 2025
Vengeance-Only for half the test November 2025

katanagirl1 · July 25

Maybe (Comment)

Ball groups are the problem, guys stacking so many heals and shields in that, just like last week at Dragonclaw, one group was being hit with six different Dwarven lancers and we couldn’t even put a dent in the health bar of a single player, yet alone kill any of them. It was unbelievable. How many calculations per second do you think were going on for each player of that group to keep them alive?

Even if the proc sets these ball groups are using weren’t causing lag, which from my perspective is an undeniable yes, it is a cancer that has seeped into PvP and means these guys can just hit a few button presses every now and then and wipe out any opposition. I bet if the devs would stop allowing these players to dominate with such a low level of effort that not only would it stop driving players away, it would also improve performance.

Otherwise, performance in GH is just fine. Fix the ball group lag and there is nothing else left to fix, except players who are on old PCs or last gen consoles. There is nothing else that can be done for that. Once I switched from PS4 to PS5, I no longer died before exiting a forward camp, and stopped getting long loading screens, and rarely ever get disconnected from the game.

Gray Host allows for more customization in builds than Vengeance, which is why most players prefer it, but it shouldn’t give a disproportionate advantage to super optimized groups that also impact the performance of others in the campaign.

Lagzee · July 25

Yes

Maybe i clicked to fast with this yes. I think if the goal of vengeance is to help regular cyrodiil then thats great, but i assumed them adding it along side gh/br was the end of it. Which is basically what they said, i remember a post where someone from zos said the options were basically replacing GH (which they said they didnt want to do) or putting vengeance along side GH. And then they did just that.

But now we have another test. So if the goal is to 1, help regular cyrodiil, and 2, fine tune vengeance to make it its own campaign then thats fine i suppose. My concern is, and has always been, that zos is going to replace regular cyrodiil. Which would be awful and kill pvp.

At this point I feel like we deff need a somewhat equalized playing field somewhere in the game. Like most mmos with pvp. But I have said since the start i think zos should have done what GW2 does and have BGs be that space, while the open world remains more FFA.

BGs could be similar to vengeance, with perks, limited sets/BG specific sets, and no cp. And tbh i just cannot understand why they didnt go this route. It works very well in GW2.

We saw what limiting sets did to no cp. Sure zos did a terrible job with the set list and information, but it seems people just dont want a cyrodiil with a lot of restrictions.

So ya, i think its fine if they keep testing this, if the goal is to help GH performance, and not replace, but i would sooner see BGs get the vengeance treatment than a new campaign. I think it would be better overall for the health of the game, and pvp.