Maintenance for the week of January 5:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 5
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 5
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
Greyhost and Vengeance
-
Iriidius✭✭✭✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »
There are NOT many of you. Not even close. That's why they made Vengeance in the first place. The PvP population dropped so low they reworked the entire game mode, knowing full well that such a drastic rework would alienate some of those players.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »many of us
The side by side test proved that even fewer people will play vengeance than GH. There are even fewer people pushing for vengeance than still playing GH.
We saw the side by side populations and it was vengeance that was far less popular than GH.
I can see you'll just continue to argue the point, but the side by side "test" proved that vengeance will not be played by enough people to keep it going even if it's the only option.
You don't even play ESO anymore. ZOS should prioritize those of us who do.
So because ZOS prioritizing ballgroups made many players of other playtiles quit ZOS should continue prioritizing ballgroups so players of other playstiles dont return and even more of them quit?
If players keep commenting in forum despite not playing they havent fully moved away from the game and would probably return if the changes they ask for happen. Xylena said she plays every Vengeance Test.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »
That's what they've been doing, catering to the players who love proc sets, ball groups, and instakills so much that they're willing to suffer horrid performance for it.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »You don't even play ESO anymore. ZOS should prioritize those of us who do.
This strat failed so badly they had to scrap everything and start over.
This time they are prioritizing potential new and returning players. Devs already stated that Vengeance test pops dropped due to test fatigue, they have already accounted for players being sick of testing and waiting for Vengeance to go live.
ZOS still hasn't even tried limiting heal stacking. So nobody can reasonably claim they've catered to the feedback of GH players.
At this point guilds defending and using heal stacking are a major part of remaining GH players and advocats because almost everyone else has quit
so ZOS not trying to limit heal stacking is not a counterargument to Xylena comment or argument for ZOS not listening to feedback of GH players but rather the opposite.
Especially when Xylena already named ballgroups as one of the things ZOS is catering too.PC EU4 -
LPapirius✭✭✭✭✭
✭
It took around 3x the number of players to make Vengeance lag as much as GH.Vengeance didn't fix the performance issues. Vengeance the last go around had the same lag problems present in GH during big fights.
LOLIt's easier to fix one aspect of something than it is to build a whole new system.
No, vengeance lagged just as hard with about the same amount of players as cause issues in GH. Vengeance hasn't fixed anything because heal stacking is still a thing in vengeance.
ZOS is choosing not to even try to curtail heal stacking or fix anything else in GH because they want to force vengeance. (AKA maintenance mode. Vengeance is probably a foregone conclusion at this point.)
Why are you lobbying so hard for vengeance when you know so many PvP players hate it so much? You, yourself played in GH for over 9 years, now all of a sudden you hate it. Why?
Edited by LPapirius on 28 December 2025 23:142 -
LPapirius✭✭✭✭✭
✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »
There are NOT many of you. Not even close. That's why they made Vengeance in the first place. The PvP population dropped so low they reworked the entire game mode, knowing full well that such a drastic rework would alienate some of those players.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »many of us
The side by side test proved that even fewer people will play vengeance than GH. There are even fewer people pushing for vengeance than still playing GH.
We saw the side by side populations and it was vengeance that was far less popular than GH.
I can see you'll just continue to argue the point, but the side by side "test" proved that vengeance will not be played by enough people to keep it going even if it's the only option.
You don't even play ESO anymore. ZOS should prioritize those of us who do.
So because ZOS prioritizing ballgroups made many players of other playtiles quit ZOS should continue prioritizing ballgroups so players of other playstiles dont return and even more of them quit?
If players keep commenting in forum despite not playing they havent fully moved away from the game and would probably return if the changes they ask for happen. Xylena said she plays every Vengeance Test.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »
That's what they've been doing, catering to the players who love proc sets, ball groups, and instakills so much that they're willing to suffer horrid performance for it.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »You don't even play ESO anymore. ZOS should prioritize those of us who do.
This strat failed so badly they had to scrap everything and start over.
This time they are prioritizing potential new and returning players. Devs already stated that Vengeance test pops dropped due to test fatigue, they have already accounted for players being sick of testing and waiting for Vengeance to go live.
ZOS still hasn't even tried limiting heal stacking. So nobody can reasonably claim they've catered to the feedback of GH players.
At this point guilds defending and using heal stacking are a major part of remaining GH players and advocats because almost everyone else has quit
so ZOS not trying to limit heal stacking is not a counterargument to Xylena comment or argument for ZOS not listening to feedback of GH players but rather the opposite.
Especially when Xylena already named ballgroups as one of the things ZOS is catering too.
Except ZOS hasn't prioritized anyone in any way when it comes to PvP. GH in it's current state is the result of ZOS doing nothing. They haven't even tried limiting heal stacking in GH or in vengeance, and that's why vengeance has the same lag issues as GH in big fights.
No PvP regulars are making the pro vengeance arguments you are making.
Edited by LPapirius on 28 December 2025 23:113 -
CatoUnchained✭✭✭✭✭
✭
It took around 3x the number of players to make Vengeance lag as much as GH.Vengeance didn't fix the performance issues. Vengeance the last go around had the same lag problems present in GH during big fights.
LOLIt's easier to fix one aspect of something than it is to build a whole new system.
Really? How is it you know what the populations of both game modes were when nobody else does?
What I saw was that vengeance had the same performance issues GH has with about the same number of people in the fights. Big fights around keeps had about the same number of players and the same laggy performance in both modes this last go around for vengeance.
Vengeance is a mistake.4 -
Tigor✭✭✭Current Grey Host has too many ballgroups + 1vX, and Vengeance too less build challenges. To play the Cyrodiil map I would choose a finished Vengeance under better pvp conditions were organized groups and guilds are active again. Then the big pile of players would play for objectives and spread over the map. A finished Vengeance could have some new objectives included, some examples I now think about are, run the scroll in less then 30 min for bonus points, get out of a turned keep/ tower in less then 5 min without speed penalty. The current lag, ballgroups and 1vX are terrible conditions to play against, and should be tackled by ZoS, by bringing balance in the caps, and setting clear limits. Then we all know what we are dealing with and ZoS should also take the lead in presenting meta builds. Now there are too many unvalidated streamers and bad choices are then easily made.Decimation Elite (Ebonheart Pact) GM 5xAR50 PC-EU1 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭CatoUnchained wrote: »
It took around 3x the number of players to make Vengeance lag as much as GH.Vengeance didn't fix the performance issues. Vengeance the last go around had the same lag problems present in GH during big fights.
LOLIt's easier to fix one aspect of something than it is to build a whole new system.
Really? How is it you know what the populations of both game modes were when nobody else does?
What I saw was that vengeance had the same performance issues GH has with about the same number of people in the fights. Big fights around keeps had about the same number of players and the same laggy performance in both modes this last go around for vengeance.
Vengeance is a mistake.
Zos released the numbers in a post jessica made where vengeance reached the original population values from the beta tests of 900 players per campaign. Which is 3x the live GH which she said was 300 per campaign. Using third party addons we can get numbers ourselves which people have reported around 90-120 players per faction with some error which aligns with the GH live 100 per faction (300total) value zos stated.
We couldnt get veng number readings to be sure, but the graphs they showed align with 3x the population. Which we had given zos *** for early on in vengeance because at one point they were stating vengeance was at 4x the population, but the graphs they showed looked like 3x. Which they seemed to backtrack and confirm that it was infact 3x. They had tried to go to 4x on the first day of test 1 which started to go unstable so they reversed it for the rest of testing.
Considering many people had no performance issues it is likely your own PC client FPS or your connection. The first test was flawless for me and the second test saw momentary pausing hiccups after they added all the resto staff aoe and overtime heal stacking for groups. (unless we really think it was them toggling things on like achievements lol)
Its a shame they didnt even use vengeance to test things we have been saying for a decade now like crosshealing, smarthealing, more single target aimed heals, aoe cap rules, hot stacking, dot stacking, buff stacking, unnecessary procs like weapon enchants, poisons, status effects. So many overall gameplay rules that they could change on live.Edited by MincMincMinc on 5 January 2026 14:36Zos should hire pvp consultants0 -
MorallyBipolar✭✭✭✭✭ToddIngram wrote: »
Yeah why haven't the devs thought of that? Are they stupid?ToddIngram wrote: »so the solution is to reduce ball group invincibility by limiting heal stacking and adjusting a few abused sets.
/s
ZOS could make fixes to GH that would improve performance and player satisfaction. Why they're choosing not to only they can say.
I agree. I feel like ZOS hasn't even tried to fix performance in PvP. Course, I'm just judging by their results.
Just limit heal stacking and nerf a few sets that are over performing and see where things stand.
When I see some improvements I'll believe they're trying.0 -
MorallyBipolar✭✭✭✭✭MincMincMinc wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »
It took around 3x the number of players to make Vengeance lag as much as GH.Vengeance didn't fix the performance issues. Vengeance the last go around had the same lag problems present in GH during big fights.
LOLIt's easier to fix one aspect of something than it is to build a whole new system.
Really? How is it you know what the populations of both game modes were when nobody else does?
What I saw was that vengeance had the same performance issues GH has with about the same number of people in the fights. Big fights around keeps had about the same number of players and the same laggy performance in both modes this last go around for vengeance.
Vengeance is a mistake.
Zos released the numbers in a post jessica made where vengeance reached the original population values from the beta tests of 900 players per campaign. Which is 3x the live GH which she said was 300 per campaign. Using third party addons we can get numbers ourselves which people have reported around 90-120 players per faction with some error which aligns with the GH live 100 per faction (300total) value zos stated.
We couldnt get veng number readings to be sure, but the graphs they showed align with 3x the population. Which we had given zos *** for early on in vengeance because at one point they were stating vengeance was at 4x the population, but the graphs they showed looked like 3x. Which they seemed to backtrack and confirm that it was infact 3x. They had tried to go to 4x on the first day of test 1 which started to go unstable so they reversed it for the rest of testing.
Considering many people had no performance issues it is likely your own PC client FPS or your connection. The first test was flawless for me and the second test saw momentary pausing hiccups after they added all the resto staff aoe and overtime heal stacking for groups. (unless we really think it was them toggling things on like achievements lol)
Its a shame they didnt even use vengeance to test things we have been saying for a decade now like crosshealing, smarthealing, more single target aimed heals, aoe cap rules, hot stacking, dot stacking, buff stacking, unnecessary procs like weapon enchants, poisons, status effects. So many overall gameplay rules that they could change on live.
ZOS blurred out the population numbers on those graphs they presented.
I'm at the watch what they do, not listen to what they say phase of our relationship.0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭MorallyBipolar wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »
It took around 3x the number of players to make Vengeance lag as much as GH.Vengeance didn't fix the performance issues. Vengeance the last go around had the same lag problems present in GH during big fights.
LOLIt's easier to fix one aspect of something than it is to build a whole new system.
Really? How is it you know what the populations of both game modes were when nobody else does?
What I saw was that vengeance had the same performance issues GH has with about the same number of people in the fights. Big fights around keeps had about the same number of players and the same laggy performance in both modes this last go around for vengeance.
Vengeance is a mistake.
Zos released the numbers in a post jessica made where vengeance reached the original population values from the beta tests of 900 players per campaign. Which is 3x the live GH which she said was 300 per campaign. Using third party addons we can get numbers ourselves which people have reported around 90-120 players per faction with some error which aligns with the GH live 100 per faction (300total) value zos stated.
We couldnt get veng number readings to be sure, but the graphs they showed align with 3x the population. Which we had given zos *** for early on in vengeance because at one point they were stating vengeance was at 4x the population, but the graphs they showed looked like 3x. Which they seemed to backtrack and confirm that it was infact 3x. They had tried to go to 4x on the first day of test 1 which started to go unstable so they reversed it for the rest of testing.
Considering many people had no performance issues it is likely your own PC client FPS or your connection. The first test was flawless for me and the second test saw momentary pausing hiccups after they added all the resto staff aoe and overtime heal stacking for groups. (unless we really think it was them toggling things on like achievements lol)
Its a shame they didnt even use vengeance to test things we have been saying for a decade now like crosshealing, smarthealing, more single target aimed heals, aoe cap rules, hot stacking, dot stacking, buff stacking, unnecessary procs like weapon enchants, poisons, status effects. So many overall gameplay rules that they could change on live.
ZOS blurred out the population numbers on those graphs they presented.
I'm at the watch what they do, not listen to what they say phase of our relationship.
Regardless of whether they blurred it out, its usable for us because again we can confirm with ingame addons that we know the GH pop is around 300 players. The only confirmation we have for the veng pop is that the divisions of the graph are linear and the pop value by division is 3x that of GH which again we know is around 300 players. Thus I think we can rather safely say 300 and 900 are correct.
Unless you want to argue that the graph divisions could be exponential.....which is not impossible, but pointless with the data range they are going to see.Zos should hire pvp consultants0 -
MorallyBipolar✭✭✭✭✭MincMincMinc wrote: »MorallyBipolar wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »
It took around 3x the number of players to make Vengeance lag as much as GH.Vengeance didn't fix the performance issues. Vengeance the last go around had the same lag problems present in GH during big fights.
LOLIt's easier to fix one aspect of something than it is to build a whole new system.
Really? How is it you know what the populations of both game modes were when nobody else does?
What I saw was that vengeance had the same performance issues GH has with about the same number of people in the fights. Big fights around keeps had about the same number of players and the same laggy performance in both modes this last go around for vengeance.
Vengeance is a mistake.
Zos released the numbers in a post jessica made where vengeance reached the original population values from the beta tests of 900 players per campaign. Which is 3x the live GH which she said was 300 per campaign. Using third party addons we can get numbers ourselves which people have reported around 90-120 players per faction with some error which aligns with the GH live 100 per faction (300total) value zos stated.
We couldnt get veng number readings to be sure, but the graphs they showed align with 3x the population. Which we had given zos *** for early on in vengeance because at one point they were stating vengeance was at 4x the population, but the graphs they showed looked like 3x. Which they seemed to backtrack and confirm that it was infact 3x. They had tried to go to 4x on the first day of test 1 which started to go unstable so they reversed it for the rest of testing.
Considering many people had no performance issues it is likely your own PC client FPS or your connection. The first test was flawless for me and the second test saw momentary pausing hiccups after they added all the resto staff aoe and overtime heal stacking for groups. (unless we really think it was them toggling things on like achievements lol)
Its a shame they didnt even use vengeance to test things we have been saying for a decade now like crosshealing, smarthealing, more single target aimed heals, aoe cap rules, hot stacking, dot stacking, buff stacking, unnecessary procs like weapon enchants, poisons, status effects. So many overall gameplay rules that they could change on live.
ZOS blurred out the population numbers on those graphs they presented.
I'm at the watch what they do, not listen to what they say phase of our relationship.
Regardless of whether they blurred it out, its usable for us because again we can confirm with ingame addons that we know the GH pop is around 300 players. The only confirmation we have for the veng pop is that the divisions of the graph are linear and the pop value by division is 3x that of GH which again we know is around 300 players. Thus I think we can rather safely say 300 and 900 are correct.
Unless you want to argue that the graph divisions could be exponential.....which is not impossible, but pointless with the data range they are going to see.
Except the population caps for the last vengeance instance was a fraction of the first instance. Jessica only presented the data from the first instance of vengeance in the post your citing. ZOS never told us or showed us anything related to any vengeance instance other than the first one when there was a golden pursuit artificially increasing player participation.
The problem with releasing only partial information like this is it begs the question of why they're not releasing the same data for other instances of vengeance.
Edited by MorallyBipolar on 5 January 2026 16:040 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭MorallyBipolar wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MorallyBipolar wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »
It took around 3x the number of players to make Vengeance lag as much as GH.Vengeance didn't fix the performance issues. Vengeance the last go around had the same lag problems present in GH during big fights.
LOLIt's easier to fix one aspect of something than it is to build a whole new system.
Really? How is it you know what the populations of both game modes were when nobody else does?
What I saw was that vengeance had the same performance issues GH has with about the same number of people in the fights. Big fights around keeps had about the same number of players and the same laggy performance in both modes this last go around for vengeance.
Vengeance is a mistake.
Zos released the numbers in a post jessica made where vengeance reached the original population values from the beta tests of 900 players per campaign. Which is 3x the live GH which she said was 300 per campaign. Using third party addons we can get numbers ourselves which people have reported around 90-120 players per faction with some error which aligns with the GH live 100 per faction (300total) value zos stated.
We couldnt get veng number readings to be sure, but the graphs they showed align with 3x the population. Which we had given zos *** for early on in vengeance because at one point they were stating vengeance was at 4x the population, but the graphs they showed looked like 3x. Which they seemed to backtrack and confirm that it was infact 3x. They had tried to go to 4x on the first day of test 1 which started to go unstable so they reversed it for the rest of testing.
Considering many people had no performance issues it is likely your own PC client FPS or your connection. The first test was flawless for me and the second test saw momentary pausing hiccups after they added all the resto staff aoe and overtime heal stacking for groups. (unless we really think it was them toggling things on like achievements lol)
Its a shame they didnt even use vengeance to test things we have been saying for a decade now like crosshealing, smarthealing, more single target aimed heals, aoe cap rules, hot stacking, dot stacking, buff stacking, unnecessary procs like weapon enchants, poisons, status effects. So many overall gameplay rules that they could change on live.
ZOS blurred out the population numbers on those graphs they presented.
I'm at the watch what they do, not listen to what they say phase of our relationship.
Regardless of whether they blurred it out, its usable for us because again we can confirm with ingame addons that we know the GH pop is around 300 players. The only confirmation we have for the veng pop is that the divisions of the graph are linear and the pop value by division is 3x that of GH which again we know is around 300 players. Thus I think we can rather safely say 300 and 900 are correct.
Unless you want to argue that the graph divisions could be exponential.....which is not impossible, but pointless with the data range they are going to see.
Except the population caps for the last vengeance instance was a fraction of the first instance. Jessica only presented the data from the first instance of vengeance in the post your citing. ZOS never told us or showed us anything related to any vengeance instance other than the first one when there was a golden pursuit artificially increasing player participation.
The problem with releasing only partial information like this is it begs the question of why they're not releasing the same data for other instances of vengeance.
But you dont know what the pop cap is for the following tests, we cant know since there is no data posted and the pops didnt fill out for any addons to possibly record it. The only reasonable engineering assumption would be that the caps remain the same as the baseline to keep data comparisons relevant. The population values of the last tests failed to cap out because no incentives were made and zos failed to add enough into the test to keep it new and interesting. Without incentives we cant hope to pop cap 900 players if at best we get 300players nightly with a 50 person que.
IMO they should've gotten vengeance halfway design wise between live and the first test. Testing is kinda pointless unless you get the game back to a state with all your systems in place. We should already have mundus, food, race, attributes, noproc passives, morphs, noproc sets, etc......Get as many systems in place with potential cascading proc effects disabled and see how many pop the server sustains
Judging by how zos already released plans for a new pvp mode, releasing any following data is pointless for them. They saw no results turning on and off easy backend systems like achievements, guildstores, etc so instead they are gonna probably gut GH pop by half and redesign a new map to suit the lower population. The big question is what happens when the game continues to be design bloated to the point where that half population starts to lag? At some point the game will be bloated so much that pve overland/raid group populations are enough to lag the servers.Edited by MincMincMinc on 5 January 2026 16:34Zos should hire pvp consultants0 -
MorallyBipolar✭✭✭✭✭MincMincMinc wrote: »MorallyBipolar wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MorallyBipolar wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »
It took around 3x the number of players to make Vengeance lag as much as GH.Vengeance didn't fix the performance issues. Vengeance the last go around had the same lag problems present in GH during big fights.
LOLIt's easier to fix one aspect of something than it is to build a whole new system.
Really? How is it you know what the populations of both game modes were when nobody else does?
What I saw was that vengeance had the same performance issues GH has with about the same number of people in the fights. Big fights around keeps had about the same number of players and the same laggy performance in both modes this last go around for vengeance.
Vengeance is a mistake.
Zos released the numbers in a post jessica made where vengeance reached the original population values from the beta tests of 900 players per campaign. Which is 3x the live GH which she said was 300 per campaign. Using third party addons we can get numbers ourselves which people have reported around 90-120 players per faction with some error which aligns with the GH live 100 per faction (300total) value zos stated.
We couldnt get veng number readings to be sure, but the graphs they showed align with 3x the population. Which we had given zos *** for early on in vengeance because at one point they were stating vengeance was at 4x the population, but the graphs they showed looked like 3x. Which they seemed to backtrack and confirm that it was infact 3x. They had tried to go to 4x on the first day of test 1 which started to go unstable so they reversed it for the rest of testing.
Considering many people had no performance issues it is likely your own PC client FPS or your connection. The first test was flawless for me and the second test saw momentary pausing hiccups after they added all the resto staff aoe and overtime heal stacking for groups. (unless we really think it was them toggling things on like achievements lol)
Its a shame they didnt even use vengeance to test things we have been saying for a decade now like crosshealing, smarthealing, more single target aimed heals, aoe cap rules, hot stacking, dot stacking, buff stacking, unnecessary procs like weapon enchants, poisons, status effects. So many overall gameplay rules that they could change on live.
ZOS blurred out the population numbers on those graphs they presented.
I'm at the watch what they do, not listen to what they say phase of our relationship.
Regardless of whether they blurred it out, its usable for us because again we can confirm with ingame addons that we know the GH pop is around 300 players. The only confirmation we have for the veng pop is that the divisions of the graph are linear and the pop value by division is 3x that of GH which again we know is around 300 players. Thus I think we can rather safely say 300 and 900 are correct.
Unless you want to argue that the graph divisions could be exponential.....which is not impossible, but pointless with the data range they are going to see.
Except the population caps for the last vengeance instance was a fraction of the first instance. Jessica only presented the data from the first instance of vengeance in the post your citing. ZOS never told us or showed us anything related to any vengeance instance other than the first one when there was a golden pursuit artificially increasing player participation.
The problem with releasing only partial information like this is it begs the question of why they're not releasing the same data for other instances of vengeance.
But you dont know what the pop cap is for the following tests, we cant know since there is no data posted and the pops didnt fill out for any addons to possibly record it. The only reasonable engineering assumption would be that the caps remain the same as the baseline to keep data comparisons relevant. The population values of the last tests failed to cap out because no incentives were made and zos failed to add enough into the test to keep it new and interesting. Without incentives we cant hope to pop cap 900 players if at best we get 300players nightly with a 50 person que.
IMO they should've gotten vengeance halfway design wise between live and the first test. Testing is kinda pointless unless you get the game back to a state with all your systems in place. We should already have mundus, food, race, attributes, noproc passives, morphs, noproc sets, etc......Get as many systems in place with potential cascading proc effects disabled and see how many pop the server sustains
Judging by how zos already released plans for a new pvp mode, releasing any following data is pointless for them. They saw no results turning on and off easy backend systems like achievements, guildstores, etc so instead they are gonna probably gut GH pop by half and redesign a new map to suit the lower population. The big question is what happens when the game continues to be design bloated to the point where that half population starts to lag? At some point the game will be bloated so much that pve overland/raid group populations are enough to lag the servers.
We're already there mate.0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭MorallyBipolar wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MorallyBipolar wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MorallyBipolar wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »
It took around 3x the number of players to make Vengeance lag as much as GH.Vengeance didn't fix the performance issues. Vengeance the last go around had the same lag problems present in GH during big fights.
LOLIt's easier to fix one aspect of something than it is to build a whole new system.
Really? How is it you know what the populations of both game modes were when nobody else does?
What I saw was that vengeance had the same performance issues GH has with about the same number of people in the fights. Big fights around keeps had about the same number of players and the same laggy performance in both modes this last go around for vengeance.
Vengeance is a mistake.
Zos released the numbers in a post jessica made where vengeance reached the original population values from the beta tests of 900 players per campaign. Which is 3x the live GH which she said was 300 per campaign. Using third party addons we can get numbers ourselves which people have reported around 90-120 players per faction with some error which aligns with the GH live 100 per faction (300total) value zos stated.
We couldnt get veng number readings to be sure, but the graphs they showed align with 3x the population. Which we had given zos *** for early on in vengeance because at one point they were stating vengeance was at 4x the population, but the graphs they showed looked like 3x. Which they seemed to backtrack and confirm that it was infact 3x. They had tried to go to 4x on the first day of test 1 which started to go unstable so they reversed it for the rest of testing.
Considering many people had no performance issues it is likely your own PC client FPS or your connection. The first test was flawless for me and the second test saw momentary pausing hiccups after they added all the resto staff aoe and overtime heal stacking for groups. (unless we really think it was them toggling things on like achievements lol)
Its a shame they didnt even use vengeance to test things we have been saying for a decade now like crosshealing, smarthealing, more single target aimed heals, aoe cap rules, hot stacking, dot stacking, buff stacking, unnecessary procs like weapon enchants, poisons, status effects. So many overall gameplay rules that they could change on live.
ZOS blurred out the population numbers on those graphs they presented.
I'm at the watch what they do, not listen to what they say phase of our relationship.
Regardless of whether they blurred it out, its usable for us because again we can confirm with ingame addons that we know the GH pop is around 300 players. The only confirmation we have for the veng pop is that the divisions of the graph are linear and the pop value by division is 3x that of GH which again we know is around 300 players. Thus I think we can rather safely say 300 and 900 are correct.
Unless you want to argue that the graph divisions could be exponential.....which is not impossible, but pointless with the data range they are going to see.
Except the population caps for the last vengeance instance was a fraction of the first instance. Jessica only presented the data from the first instance of vengeance in the post your citing. ZOS never told us or showed us anything related to any vengeance instance other than the first one when there was a golden pursuit artificially increasing player participation.
The problem with releasing only partial information like this is it begs the question of why they're not releasing the same data for other instances of vengeance.
But you dont know what the pop cap is for the following tests, we cant know since there is no data posted and the pops didnt fill out for any addons to possibly record it. The only reasonable engineering assumption would be that the caps remain the same as the baseline to keep data comparisons relevant. The population values of the last tests failed to cap out because no incentives were made and zos failed to add enough into the test to keep it new and interesting. Without incentives we cant hope to pop cap 900 players if at best we get 300players nightly with a 50 person que.
IMO they should've gotten vengeance halfway design wise between live and the first test. Testing is kinda pointless unless you get the game back to a state with all your systems in place. We should already have mundus, food, race, attributes, noproc passives, morphs, noproc sets, etc......Get as many systems in place with potential cascading proc effects disabled and see how many pop the server sustains
Judging by how zos already released plans for a new pvp mode, releasing any following data is pointless for them. They saw no results turning on and off easy backend systems like achievements, guildstores, etc so instead they are gonna probably gut GH pop by half and redesign a new map to suit the lower population. The big question is what happens when the game continues to be design bloated to the point where that half population starts to lag? At some point the game will be bloated so much that pve overland/raid group populations are enough to lag the servers.
We're already there mate.
Oh I know, but the game is cooked once we see pve population hard decline because of server lag. Combine that with all their endgame design choices and people leaving because of monetization choices, etc, etc.Zos should hire pvp consultants0