Gabriel_H wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Yesterday prime time Saturday night it was 2 bars for every faction on PC NA.

If Grey Host was active all three factions would have been popped locked.

Fewer and fewer people are coming back after every instance of vengeance.

Gabriel_H wrote: »

mocap wrote: »

It will become clear when (and if) they keep only two campaigns. But guilds are unlikely to play Vengeance, meaning it won't be popular. One or two bars during prime time, my bet.

Two bars in primetime on Vengeance is more than pop lock on Live.

You don't know this. Even Jessica blurred out the actual player numbers on the graphs she posted.

You mean the graphs that stated the player cap and you could see the side by side comparisons? /facepalm

Yep. Those are the graphs that have the player numbers blurred out. Take a look again, it's right there on the left axis. All the numbers are blurred out. They slapped a number on the graph but we have no idea if that number is actually reflective of the player numbers on the graphs or not, as that axis on the graphs is blurred out.

/facepalm is right.

We have corroborating evidence. Addons estimated Live population cap at around 300, it turns out it was 360, and they estimated Vengeance to be around 900, the same as ZOS stated.

Here's a very simple number extraction based on stated caps and simple area extrapolation:



The lines along the Y-axis are evenly spaced. You can see that the red line is just shy of half way between 250 and 500. Now, 500 - 250 = 250. 250/2 = 125. 250 + 125 = 375. So if the player cap is 360 it would fall where it is showing there.

Likewise, the green line is just over half-way between 750 and 1,000. 1000 - 750 = 250. 250/2 = 125. 750 + 125 = 875. So if the player cap is 900 it would fall just where it is showing.

Now, you can either believe ZOS's stated cap numbers or not, but regardless of actual numbers Vengeance has a population cap 2.67 times higher than Live - as shown by the graph.

Hey look! The player number axis on the left of the graphs are blurred out....just like everyone is pointing out.

Hey look, simple high school maths make that irrelevant.

Simple question, if its so irrelevant, why blur anything out in the first place?

They likely blurred the y-axis on the performance numbers as they are commercially sensitive, and simply went a bit overboard.

As I said, the graph shows that the Venegance population is 2.67x higher than the Live population. So you can either believe the player cap on Live is 360, which is the ballpark that players have been estimating for years, or not - and if not then by all means tell me what you think the current Live cap is.

Sorry, I don't believe anyone that says don't believe your eyes.

If you're trying to be transparent and present information to the community to build trust, you don't give them something that is hiding information. If its "commercially sensitive" say so or do something other than say "trust us bro", when the trust is already gone and has been for years.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Yesterday prime time Saturday night it was 2 bars for every faction on PC NA.

If Grey Host was active all three factions would have been popped locked.

Fewer and fewer people are coming back after every instance of vengeance.

Gabriel_H wrote: »

mocap wrote: »

It will become clear when (and if) they keep only two campaigns. But guilds are unlikely to play Vengeance, meaning it won't be popular. One or two bars during prime time, my bet.

Two bars in primetime on Vengeance is more than pop lock on Live.

You don't know this. Even Jessica blurred out the actual player numbers on the graphs she posted.

You mean the graphs that stated the player cap and you could see the side by side comparisons? /facepalm

Yep. Those are the graphs that have the player numbers blurred out. Take a look again, it's right there on the left axis. All the numbers are blurred out. They slapped a number on the graph but we have no idea if that number is actually reflective of the player numbers on the graphs or not, as that axis on the graphs is blurred out.

/facepalm is right.

We have corroborating evidence. Addons estimated Live population cap at around 300, it turns out it was 360, and they estimated Vengeance to be around 900, the same as ZOS stated.

Here's a very simple number extraction based on stated caps and simple area extrapolation:



The lines along the Y-axis are evenly spaced. You can see that the red line is just shy of half way between 250 and 500. Now, 500 - 250 = 250. 250/2 = 125. 250 + 125 = 375. So if the player cap is 360 it would fall where it is showing there.

Likewise, the green line is just over half-way between 750 and 1,000. 1000 - 750 = 250. 250/2 = 125. 750 + 125 = 875. So if the player cap is 900 it would fall just where it is showing.

Now, you can either believe ZOS's stated cap numbers or not, but regardless of actual numbers Vengeance has a population cap 2.67 times higher than Live - as shown by the graph.

Hey look! The player number axis on the left of the graphs are blurred out....just like everyone is pointing out.

Hey look, simple high school maths make that irrelevant.

Simple question, if its so irrelevant, why blur anything out in the first place?

They likely blurred the y-axis on the performance numbers as they are commercially sensitive, and simply went a bit overboard.

As I said, the graph shows that the Venegance population is 2.67x higher than the Live population. So you can either believe the player cap on Live is 360, which is the ballpark that players have been estimating for years, or not - and if not then by all means tell me what you think the current Live cap is.

Sorry, I don't believe anyone that says don't believe your eyes.

If you're trying to be transparent and present information to the community to build trust, you don't give them something that is hiding information. If its "commercially sensitive" say so or do something other than say "trust us bro", when the trust is already gone and has been for years.

Way to dodge a simple question. Maybe take your own advice.

Edit: And nor for nothing but you are also denying what you see with your own eyes - being the stated player caps.

The point is nobody knows the population numbers truly @Gabriel_H because the chart hides the figures on the left. I’m not dodging your question, your question is simply besides the point. Which is you’re basing your argument off of something that none of us here can be clear on and can only assume and take the word of from Zos themselves.

My signature should adequately explain to you why for me that’s just not something I’m willing to do.

You want to take their statements on good faith, good for you but no one else here has to.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

The point is nobody knows the population numbers truly @Gabriel_H because the chart hides the figures on the left. I’m not dodging your question, your question is simply besides the point. Which is you’re basing your argument off of something that none of us here can be clear on and can only assume and take the word of from Zos themselves.

Addons and players have been estimating the number for years, and that number is in the ballpark that ZOS stated. So again: What do you think the current Live player cap is?

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

My signature should adequately explain to you why for me that’s just not something I’m willing to do.

Tests give data, data informs decision, decisions alter outcomes. All your signature demonstrates is you don't understand that.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

You want to take their statements on good faith, good for you but no one else here has to.

No, I want to have an objective discussion about things without the bad faith arguments, subjective feelings, and the dismissal off-hand of anything - despite some of those things being objective reality - that doesn't fit a pre-determined narrative.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

Pepegrillos wrote: »

People don't realize Vengeance is there in part to get new/casual players into PvP. It's a ramp to the other modes (although some people will most likely stay there). If Vengeance isn't viable, the other modes probably won't be viable either in the long run, because there is no new blood coming in.

I disagree, that’s like saying if you don’t like cheese pizza you won’t like supreme. Vengeance is a shallow experience that offers less than Greyhost, there’s less sense of mastery to a game like say, helldivers where you can quickly jump in and play as though you weren’t gone for months vs something you need to practice at and stay up to date on like this, which is why while I enjoy helldivers, I play eso PvP a lot more.

This will vary for some certainly but there’s a reason Greyhost has retained a sizeable population for so long compared to other campaigns.

We play an mmo to level up, get loot, unlock and level skills, to grow.

Where is the growth in vengeance? New players may gravitate to content that is accessible to them from their level, yes clearly, but eso needs a true endgame to retain them. If not for Greyhost and the equivalent past campaign names in its stead, IE proc max level locked faction PvP I would have quit this game ages ago.

Vengeance is a simplified mode that's easier to grasp, has no grind attached, and presents smaller power differences between the old and the new crowd. It also revolves around big crowds, which always has been a cover for newer/casual players. It seems rather obvious that such setup is a better entry ground than whatever current Cyro offers. I get why veterans don't like it, but that's a separate issue from its relevance as an introduction to PvP and the server-side/lag matter.

If you think people are lining up in 2025 to invest hundreds of hours getting 1vx'd, bomber, and ball-grouped by veterans in ESO, all while learning a series of convoluted and unrewarding systems, I don't know what to tell you.

xR3ACTORx wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

[

Hey look, simple high school maths make that irrelevant.

Hey look, the graphic says FPS which is clearly labeled wrong.

And even I could make a graphic with blurred numbers and write 900 caps on it. Come on, bro. Don't act like you don't know.

Ya, it's just not believable anymore that some of the pro vengeance comments are coming from a desire for good faith debates. They're just trying to create conflict and get these threads shut down and/or heavily edited.

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Now, you can either believe ZOS's stated cap numbers or not, but regardless of actual numbers Vengeance has a population cap 2.67 times higher than Live - as shown by the graph.

After Hardware renewing performance was at highpeak. Any graphs?

Now they argue the same way like 10 Years ago and when it went live, nothing was playable. And the peak? Its not relevant cause there are just not enough Players to reach that peak. That makes it obsolet to argue with that peak.

Viable, with all that bugs atm? No for sure not, but that doesnt matter cause they want to play that shiit live.

fizzybeef wrote: »

First of all, i cant believe people are still arguing with that person who thinks they are always right and act as if they have some insider knowledge we dont have, while want to become a dev.

Second : Vengeange is not viable, thats exactly what happened as soon gh was back on pc eu and in the next days more people will leave vengeance because its less populated




On PS EU vengeance never had a single bar, people are either boycotting it or just despiting to play it.

Either way. Its a fail.

It's already been established 1 bar in Vengeance = 3 bars in Greyhost

In your screenshot, Vengeance has more players.

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

mocap wrote: »

One of the issues with Vengeance is if the enemy has 2 bars and you only 1, you're most likely screwed. You'll just get zerged down. So, it's not just about having 2 bars (or whatever) — everyone must have kinda equal amount of players.

Current Vengeance is all about zerg vs zerg and whoever has bigger zerg, wins. Nothing else matters.

Right, unironically Grey Host might hold an advantage with its lower pop cap, in that the scales can't tip too far in one direction via playercount.

Crossplay (whenever that happens) may help with Vengeance if it helps it hit triple poplock during primetime hours. but if the pop balance is skewed during those times it'll harm retention.

I dont think that's true for a console perspective. As someone who rarely played Gray host, low population numbers never prevented any of the side campaigns dying.

That's what killed both Ravenwatch and Blackreach. Gray host just has the luxury of never going below 9 bars, but if it did, population imbalance would hurt it bad

Population imbalance has always been a thing that severely hurts Cyrodiil. because who wants to play when a zerg of 60+ people run a map with only yourself as an opponent? No one, that's why the side campaigns die

Indeed.

Many casual PvP players just want easy wins while sort of tagging along with a big group (ancient ages ago, I was this type of player as well). Hence, the bandwagon effect to simply jump over to the winning side is very high. And that is indeed what killed-off the other campaigns (at least on PC-NA): when one zerg became insurmountable due to numbers, the other alliances simply left the campaign or joined the bigger zerg.

You can see that on full display in Vengeance as well. One side loses a big fight and suddenly they lose a bar a population while the winning side gains a bar of population. Funny how that works. I'm sure that it's all just a coincidence!

LPapirius wrote: »

Except this is not established fact.

As shown earlier in the thread, estimates done through addons match the official numbers provided by ZOS (360 for live, 900 for Vengeance)

Why would we not believe this information as factual, when all the evidence points towards it?

this is my general take: given the missteps zos has made and been making with the game's direction for a while now, my guess is that vengeance will become the one and only campaign. as much as no one wants it (me included) and as much as a mistake it would be to get rid of grey host, the evidence we have seen thus far is zos making one mistake after another, the writhing wall event being the biggest debacle of the game's decade-long existence. believing that zos will finally make the right decision about the direction of the game is wishful thinking. i wish they would even as i write this. but if we base our predictions on past evidence, that evidence shows one mistake after another. i don't see that changing

I think the latest version of Vengeance is viable-- certainly the most viable of all the versions we've seen.

For example, I don't think the first version would have been viable as it was, despite how afterward some players were asking ZOS to make Vengeance the new (and presumably the only?) campaign in Cyrodiil. That first version was too bare-bones, and for that reason it would not (in my opinion) have successfully attracted enough players despite being able to support far more players than the current live campaigns can.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't even have been tempted to play the previous version of Vengeance if given the choice between that and Gray Host, just because I couldn't successfully solo-capture resources from the NPC guards-- and when I queue into Cyrodiil (in Gray Host) and my alliance has too few numbers to compete against one or both of the other alliances (as is often the case during certain hours of the night if I'm playing ESO at those hours), then solo-capturing resources might well be the only viable way I can try to help my alliance's score in the campaign.

On the other hand, the current version of Vengeance offers enough flexibility that I can adjust my setup to where I'm now able to solo-capture resources as I can in Gray Host. And as far as fighting in actual PvP battles, the results for me are pretty much consistent with Gray Host-- I die a lot, but sometimes I can help kill enemy players in XvX battles. I think I've even managed to kill enemy players a time or two in 1v1 fights, although that's definitely a rare occurrence for me (also in Gray Host).

So I can definitely see myself continuing to play in Vengeance at least part of the time once it goes live, although I'm certainly going to be reverting to Gray Host during the second half of this test cycle in order to better compare the two. I still enjoy the Gray Host campaign, and would like to see it remain as an option-- if only so we have someplace to use all those Cyrodiil PvP sets that we get from the Rewards for the Worthy. There has been too much invested in Cyrodiil over the years to see most of it (such as the PvP sets) get scrapped if Gray Host were to be removed entirely instead of keeping it alongside Vengeance.

Nothing like controlling the variables in analysis...why is the vengeance campaign not alliance locked, too?

/rhetorical

As to its viability, I doubt we were ever going to be judges of that. Possibly because "players don't know what they want." Or somesuch.

With some balance efforts (I'm looking at you, NB) efforts, a few more layers of perks rather than just 3 so we can customize a bit further and really shape builds/counter-builds, and so forth...? Maybe it's viable for more than a week or two of play every few months.

As it stands right now, I find Vengeance to be a nice little side-game distraction when my regular PvP isn't available, with some really speedy AP. When the population is present, it's fun if not particularly 'serious' PvP but I burn out on it after a while and I feel like most other people will too - and it's not gonna be much fun at low pop levels, which is gonna be a downward spiral.

It's too dependent on big population that is going to be very hard to maintain without heavy incentivizing, because the novelty won't last once it's permanent.

It also runs the risk that the more you play, the more you get into PvP and get talented at it, the less Vengeance caters to you personally. The smaller skill window is constrictive, the more familiar you get.