brtomkin wrote: »

AngryPenguin wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

This is how a healthy map looks, and it is due to balanced populations. Yesterday, PC EU, each faction stood at 2 bars, AD briefly at 3 bars, but the other two factions were probably not that far away.

Factions having more or less the same number of players each, it is impossible for one of them to run in one huge megazerg. They have to break up the blob to defend/attack several objectives at the same time. Fights are spread across the map, and this is important performance-wise. Also, playing on such a map is a lot more fun.

ZOS needs to implement dynamic queue locks so there is no 3 bars vs. 1 bar situation that is detrimental to players' experience. @ZOS_Kevin @ZOS_GinaBruno

Um, No. How are guilds going to play their official guild raids with your proposal? I'm sick of non pvp players trying to dictate how to improve PvP. If ya'll had relevant and viable suggestions that would be one thing, but you don't.

If you are bringing an EP "raid" into a campaign that is already dominated by EP, then you should wait in queue until AD and DC population catches up. OR, you can bring your raid in on one of the underpopulated factions.

RaikaNA wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

RaikaNA wrote: »

Yeah, how are you supposed to enjoy vengeance when your faction isn't even playing?




Do we all have to join EP to enjoy it? What happen to this once fun event?

I didn't realize EP was the biggest PvDoor faction on PC NA as well. I guess they also tend to run in one big blob, so the moment you burn any objective, all of them show up to "defend."
This map looks so awful, it would be totally pointless to log in as DC or AD for ~30v300 fights. People play games to have fun. This doesn't look fun at all, even on the EP side IMO.

No faction should be allowed to reach 3 bars while other factions are at 1 bar. There needs to be a pop-lock in place once there are 50 or so more players on one faction; no one can join that faction anymore until the other two get enough players to be competitive. A faction hits 2 bars while the other two are still on 1 bar? Lock it until the other two factions have 2 bars too.

Forget the low pop bonus; it isn't at all efficient. Even if it were 5x the amount of AP, what does it matter if the moment you burn a single resource, 100 reds or yel or blue show up to "defend", and you never even cap it. I wouldn't go in there for 10x AP bonus.

ZOS needs to rethink how queuing into campaigns works if they intend to have 300+ players per faction. I suggest locking the queue for factions that are numerically superior, and this lock has to be dynamic and updating regularly (every 5-minute check).

Having increased population caps is a great goal in itself. It needs to be implemented properly though. Populations must be balanced by ZOS because clearly players will not be jumping ship to weaker factions to even the game.

Its shameful because at the beginning of the event... EP took every single thing on the map.. DC/ADscrolls... everything.. It's nearly impossible to play the objective.

Sadly I don't think ZOS even cares for PvP anymore. It's been like this for years now with no quality improvements in Cyrodill.

exiars10 wrote: »

Voted hard no.
Why?
ZOS statements mean nothing after U46.

Should I copy/paste Carry Day's interview what she said about (fake) subclassing and pure classes?
https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/68091
Not only they did opposite of that, they even doubled down in U47 and only after the huge backlash of community and prominent streamers, they backpedaled most of it, but still not everything.

So statements are just empty talk, only deeds count.

And speaking about deeds...
Vengeance 3 definitely has improved performance than V2 test, both FPS and latency wise even with new additions.
So IMO this is definitively a big step forward.

CalamityCat wrote: »

No, I'd rather let the devs test and gather the info they need and tell us what they're planning when they're able to make a more accurate statement. Rushing something out now just risks drama because "you said we were getting X and now we just have Y!"

It's fairly obvious to me that making Cyro run really well probably requires a re-do from the ground up. I would have thought it was obvious that we can't fix performance with just a few lines of code! Surely we want a proper effort to be made rather than some superficial tweaks?

I think it's quite insulting to the devs to see all the work they're doing with these tests and assume we'll get something really basic and restrictive at the end. Each iteration of Vengeance has included more stuff, so I'm not sure why this drama is still going on when they're literally unlocking more things with each round. I'm sure we'll get some balancing changes and some players will absolutely cry about things they don't like. But I'm also sure the devs want to give us a full PvP experience that's just like we're used to. Just without the lag.

Iriidius wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

There’s no Golden Pursuit for it and it’s running during the Undaunted event. It could’ve been planned better IMO..

Anyway despite being 0 bars I found more action than I would find in Gray Host at this time of day. If Vengeance is showing 0 bars, it could still very well be more populated than a Gray Host with 2 bars.

If you need a golden pursuit and no event going on at the moment to have population for your PvP camp... you've significantly lost the plot.

There is still more population than in Vengeance than in GreyHost,Blackreach and
Ravenwatch combined but Vengeance haters somehow expect it to get pop locked despite having the capacity of GreyHost,Blackreach and Ravenwatch combined.
And the same population as first Vengeance despite first one having golden pursuit and no rival event. And even first one was called empty for not being 24/7 pop locket.

PDarkBHood wrote: »

Also, don't forget (most of you need constant reminding), you do not have to subclass any of your characters if you do not want to. It is a choice, your choice to subclass.