Yes - at the time... what else could they possibly have said before any testing had been done?
Things just might have changed over time.

Muizer wrote: »

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

This lack of interest in testing these fixes in a regular campaign indicate to me the Vengeance Testing was less about fixing existing campaigns and introducing the Vengeance campaign.

It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild

Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.
They said It hundreds of time on streams on forum in interviews and dev talks.

If not than it's pretty clear they lied all this time.

Of course their plans could change during this year and they had to communicate this properly but they didn't. They continued to lie until this moment. That's the issue. Their communication with community is the worst in the industry and I'm so f8888ng tired to pretend that such behavior is normal.

I think it was originally meant as just a test with the first round.

With the second round they were possible still hopeful but also thinking this might be the way forward.

And from there we have gotten to where we are today.

lostineternity wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

This lack of interest in testing these fixes in a regular campaign indicate to me the Vengeance Testing was less about fixing existing campaigns and introducing the Vengeance campaign.

It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild

Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.

Read Firor's Letter.

"We need to seriously address Cyrodiil performance. Our (ambitious) goal is to return it to the concurrency levels we supported in 2014. So, we will be experimenting with a Cyrodiil campaign where all classes will have PvP-specific (and more performant) skills that replace the standard player skills with the expectation that we can support more players per campaign"

This is pretty much what they've been doing.

In fact I honestly do not know what you'd expect them to learn from a 'test' that is designed to find out how far skills need to be simplified and still be performant other than a new, simplified set of abilities that do work. If they found anything else, like a way to make skills more performant without changing their functionality, it would be a complete fluke!

Muizer wrote: »

lostineternity wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

This lack of interest in testing these fixes in a regular campaign indicate to me the Vengeance Testing was less about fixing existing campaigns and introducing the Vengeance campaign.

It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild

Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.

Read Firor's Letter.

"We need to seriously address Cyrodiil performance. Our (ambitious) goal is to return it to the concurrency levels we supported in 2014. So, we will be experimenting with a Cyrodiil campaign where all classes will have PvP-specific (and more performant) skills that replace the standard player skills with the expectation that we can support more players per campaign"

This is pretty much what they've been doing.

In fact I honestly do not know what you'd expect them to learn from a 'test' that is designed to find out how far skills need to be simplified and still be performant other than a new, simplified set of abilities that do work. If they found anything else, like a way to make skills more performant without changing their functionality, it would be a complete fluke!

That person left the company six months ago. And yes, he was the leading game creator and dev.

Muizer wrote: »

lostineternity wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

This lack of interest in testing these fixes in a regular campaign indicate to me the Vengeance Testing was less about fixing existing campaigns and introducing the Vengeance campaign.

It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild

Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.

In fact I honestly do not know what you'd expect them to learn from a 'test'

Me? Nothing. I don't expect anything good them for a while now. It was their description of Vengeance not mine.

Marto wrote: »

lostineternity wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

lostineternity wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

This lack of interest in testing these fixes in a regular campaign indicate to me the Vengeance Testing was less about fixing existing campaigns and introducing the Vengeance campaign.

It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild

Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.

In fact I honestly do not know what you'd expect them to learn from a 'test'

Me? Nothing. I don't expect anything good them for a while now. It was their description of Vengeance not mine.

Where?

Seriously people. You can't just repeat over and over "The devs said..." or "It was clearly stated..." or "everyone knows..."

You got the facts wrong, simply put. You willingly or accidentally misunderstood their words.

Actually it's you who keeps putting forth the false narrative.

At least three people have linked you to or posted direct quotes to the info you are demanding and you're acting like you still haven't seen it.

Marto wrote: »

LPapirius wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

lostineternity wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

lostineternity wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

This lack of interest in testing these fixes in a regular campaign indicate to me the Vengeance Testing was less about fixing existing campaigns and introducing the Vengeance campaign.

It was pretty clear from the start the intent was to rebuild

Not it's not, you are talking absolute bs. From the start it was clearly stated that this is just a test to UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE OF PERFORMANCE issues.
Iterational test starting with bare minimum and adding back mechanics, and the moment performance drops we know what exactly caused it.

In fact I honestly do not know what you'd expect them to learn from a 'test'

Me? Nothing. I don't expect anything good them for a while now. It was their description of Vengeance not mine.

Where?

Seriously people. You can't just repeat over and over "The devs said..." or "It was clearly stated..." or "everyone knows..."

You got the facts wrong, simply put. You willingly or accidentally misunderstood their words.

Actually it's you who keeps putting forth the false narrative.

At least three people have linked you to or posted direct quotes to the info you are demanding and you're acting like you still haven't seen it.

Can you please go to those quotes and explain the logical process through which you determined the quotes are talking about improving performance in Greyhost Cyrodiil?

I know that sounds stupid and pedantic. But I have already explained my logical process. And just to recap I'm going to write it down again.

• The title of the announcement, forum thread, or post included "Vengeance".
• The topic of conversation was the Vengeance Campaign.
• There were many sentences that explicitly said the objectives relate to the Vengeance campaign.
• There were zero sentences that explicitly said the objectives relate to the Greyhost campaign.
• There were many sentences that didn't specify. FFor example, whenever they said something like "We'll collect feedback and plan improvements" without specifying improvements on what. However, because the title of the thread and the topic of conversation was Vengeance, I believe these sentences are also talking about Vengeance.

If I can write it down, so can you.

.

CoronHR wrote: »

i'm not sure if they lied. i mean i think it's impossible to know right?

Of course it's not impossible to know. You can look at what they said, and compare it to what they did. If they match, that means they didn't lie.

And they didn't. They said Vengeance was a test for a new ruleset and gamemode, and that's what we got.

CoronHR wrote: »

i feel like one possible scenario in the beginning is they developed vengeance for testing, but also thought in the back of their minds that if players liked it, it could become a campaign. and if players really liked it, it could become the one and only campaign. that would definitely be dishonest.

This was not in the "back of their mind". It was explicitly stated from the very beginning in the Vengeance Q&A that if the tests were successful in accomplishing their goals (performance and population caps), they'd continue development of Vengeance, acknowledging that it's still unfinished.

And in the livestreams, Rich Lambert says pretty explicitly that the purpose of releasing such an unfinished feature as Vengeance is so ZOS can be more flexible. They want to allow themselves that flexibility so that if the new feature sucks or is greatly disliked, they can cancel it. And that way they don't waste development resources or feel compelled to release it anyway because of sunk-cost-fallacy.

Vengeance released the way it did so it could be cancelled if it was unsuccessful.

But it was successful. It undoubtedly has better performance and player caps.

Is that enough to make it good? Probably not, which is why they're now testing the loadout system and continue to ask for feedback.