Honestly - Is Vengeance Viable?
-
Artisian0001✭✭✭Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Do you not realize you have still said literally nothing? You showed 1 bar, which can represent literally 0 people. You only showed a screenshot of 1 bar. What you said means nothing.3 -
Iriidius✭✭✭✭✭Artisian0001 wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Do you not realize you have still said literally nothing? You showed 1 bar, which can represent literally 0 people. You only showed a screenshot of 1 bar. What you said means nothing.
Do you not realize the difference picture above from Vengeance shows more bars than the pictures below?
Activate Accessibility mode in Settings or play on console and all campaigns will show one bar less. Without Accessibility mode the picture would show 2 bars per faction.Edited by Iriidius on December 24, 2025 1:25AM4 -
Iriidius✭✭✭✭✭Artisian0001 wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
I, personally, don't really care about adding vengeance as a permanent option in place of Raven, BR still gets populated. The issue I have is only with what doing that would likely suggest, which is resources being allocated to it, when it is already not populated. It would be like sinking resources into current day ravenwatch even though the interest is extremely small. Just put the effort into GH, like the vast majority want.
As Vengeance was originally done as a performance test they would have to write the code to test anyway than find a way to test it secretly without players which would be even more effort. And ZOS didnt put more effort in GH before they startet developing Vengeance either.
0 -
Artisian0001✭✭✭Artisian0001 wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Do you not realize you have still said literally nothing? You showed 1 bar, which can represent literally 0 people. You only showed a screenshot of 1 bar. What you said means nothing.
Do you not realize the difference picture above from Vengeance shows more bars than the pictures below?
Activate Accessibility mode in Settings or play on console and all campaigns will show one bar less. Without Accessibility mode the picture would show 2 bars per faction.
You have still showed nothing of value. The population of vengeance was never higher than it was on GH during the test and it should not be given any priority in further development, doing so is a waste of time for the larger community.4 -
imPDA✭✭✭Well, no players = very good performance, even GH during an entire day (except ~4 prime TIME hours) is very smooth. If you look at this this way, you will realize that both GH and Vengeance will become more performant soon.1
-
Muizer✭✭✭✭✭
✭Given participation results thus far on PS (forgive my subjectivity here), it is a reasonable query.
Hard to say, because it's comparing apples and oranges.
GH: has players that apparently enjoy playing there. If they didn't they wouldn't be there still after so many years
V: has been up a few weeks in total with large gaps in between.
So, the conclusion we can draw atm is that it looks like a population that's been selected by years to enjoy old style Cyrodiil is not keen to abandon it for a product in-development that might compete or replace it. Surprise! (not really).
Edited by Muizer on December 24, 2025 2:43PMPlease stop making requests for game features. ZOS have enough bad ideas as it is!2 -
JustLovely✭✭✭✭✭
✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You just proved the person you're arguing with to be correct and yourself to be wrong in this quoted post.2 -
JustLovely✭✭✭✭✭
✭Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Known by who exactly? Please link to where ZOS has confirmed this is the case.
2 -
JustLovely✭✭✭✭✭
✭Artisian0001 wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Do you not realize you have still said literally nothing? You showed 1 bar, which can represent literally 0 people. You only showed a screenshot of 1 bar. What you said means nothing.
Do you not realize the difference picture above from Vengeance shows more bars than the pictures below?
Activate Accessibility mode in Settings or play on console and all campaigns will show one bar less. Without Accessibility mode the picture would show 2 bars per faction.
Neat. So as we've been saying, all the PvP players left are playing GH and nothing else, just like we're saying and you're trying to argue isn't happening.2 -
JustLovely✭✭✭✭✭
✭Artisian0001 wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
I, personally, don't really care about adding vengeance as a permanent option in place of Raven, BR still gets populated. The issue I have is only with what doing that would likely suggest, which is resources being allocated to it, when it is already not populated. It would be like sinking resources into current day ravenwatch even though the interest is extremely small. Just put the effort into GH, like the vast majority want.
As Vengeance was originally done as a performance test they would have to write the code to test anyway than find a way to test it secretly without players which would be even more effort. And ZOS didnt put more effort in GH before they startet developing Vengeance either.
Vengeance was never a performance test.
ZOS sold it as a test to get information to improve normal live Cyrodiil. Now they've revealed that was never the case.
We now know that vengeance isn't a viable format in any capacity going forward. Mandating vengeance will be the equivalent of removing PvP from ESO and all the PvP players will go with it along with their financial support of the game.
Edited by JustLovely on December 24, 2025 4:00PM2 -
Artisian0001✭✭✭For Christmas let's all hope they decide to give Greyhost more attention because Vengeance was a letdown, not only in population but also in its gameplay.2
-
aetherix8✭✭✭✭JustLovely wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Do you not realize you have still said literally nothing? You showed 1 bar, which can represent literally 0 people. You only showed a screenshot of 1 bar. What you said means nothing.
Do you not realize the difference picture above from Vengeance shows more bars than the pictures below?
Activate Accessibility mode in Settings or play on console and all campaigns will show one bar less. Without Accessibility mode the picture would show 2 bars per faction.
Neat. So as we've been saying, all the PvP players left are playing GH and nothing else, just like we're saying and you're trying to argue isn't happening.
What else is there to play? All campaigns are "consistent" now; it's the same thing on all servers. If GH-style PvP were as popular as some loud voices claim, RW and BR would be full too, but instead they have now joined U50 fate.
Meanwhile, everybody is on GH because it is the last functional campaign (for now) - functional in terms of prime-time population. There are still enough players, and there are still actual fights, not just PvD. But that doesn't really prove that GH PvP, as is rn, is the Holy Grail of ESO PvP. For that to be the case, GH would need to be pop-locked every evening (with a much longer queue than 1-15 minutes), with spillover queuers populating temporarily other campaigns and making them alive.
ZOS has stated that pop caps are 300/faction Vengeance, 120/faction GH. They are also considering replacing bars with numerical values, and I hope that will actually happen. That's it. People can pollute discussions with their convenient paranoia all they want; these numbers remain the same. Therefore, 2 bars GH (~31 to 60 players) can be less than 1 bar Vengeance (~1 to 75 players). Suffice to say, whoever participated knows that there are enough players for both campaigns (PC EU for sure), and no amount of bad faith arguments will convince us to the contrary.PC EU - V4hn13 -
Lucasl402✭✭✭✭Artisian0001 wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Do you not realize you have still said literally nothing? You showed 1 bar, which can represent literally 0 people. You only showed a screenshot of 1 bar. What you said means nothing.
Do you not realize the difference picture above from Vengeance shows more bars than the pictures below?
Activate Accessibility mode in Settings or play on console and all campaigns will show one bar less. Without Accessibility mode the picture would show 2 bars per faction.
What are you even talking about here? You appear to be suggesting that "accessibility mode" is changing how ESO displays population numbers in Cyrodii. If you read about what accessibility mode is and what it does this is not one of those things.0 -
Lucasl402✭✭✭✭JustLovely wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Do you not realize you have still said literally nothing? You showed 1 bar, which can represent literally 0 people. You only showed a screenshot of 1 bar. What you said means nothing.
Do you not realize the difference picture above from Vengeance shows more bars than the pictures below?
Activate Accessibility mode in Settings or play on console and all campaigns will show one bar less. Without Accessibility mode the picture would show 2 bars per faction.
Neat. So as we've been saying, all the PvP players left are playing GH and nothing else, just like we're saying and you're trying to argue isn't happening.
What else is there to play? All campaigns are "consistent" now; it's the same thing on all servers. If GH-style PvP were as popular as some loud voices claim, RW and BR would be full too, but instead they have now joined U50 fate.
Meanwhile, everybody is on GH because it is the last functional campaign (for now) - functional in terms of prime-time population. There are still enough players, and there are still actual fights, not just PvD. But that doesn't really prove that GH PvP, as is rn, is the Holy Grail of ESO PvP. For that to be the case, GH would need to be pop-locked every evening (with a much longer queue than 1-15 minutes), with spillover queuers populating temporarily other campaigns and making them alive.
ZOS has stated that pop caps are 300/faction Vengeance, 120/faction GH. They are also considering replacing bars with numerical values, and I hope that will actually happen. That's it. People can pollute discussions with their convenient paranoia all they want; these numbers remain the same. Therefore, 2 bars GH (~31 to 60 players) can be less than 1 bar Vengeance (~1 to 75 players). Suffice to say, whoever participated knows that there are enough players for both campaigns (PC EU for sure), and no amount of bad faith arguments will convince us to the contrary.
At this point, with all the data we have access to now regarding vengeance, the bad faith arguments are coming from those trying to claim vengeance is viable in some way when it's proven now the game mode will not be populated even if it's the only option.1 -
Iriidius✭✭✭✭✭JustLovely wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You just proved the person you're arguing with to be correct and yourself to be wrong in this quoted post.
I proved that Vengeance reached (1 console bar which is) 2 pc bars while GreyHost was up as even a player who hates Vengeance confirmed it with the picture he posted when he couldnt find pictures of Vengeance being empty at that time.
That doesnt prove the conclusions he draws from it to be true. Vengeance is viable with 2 bars and
I have screenshot from last day of Vengeance after primetime showing Vengeance still reached 2 bars on 2 factions.
JustLovely wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Known by who exactly? Please link to where ZOS has confirmed this is the case.
It was confirmed by many players in other Vengeance Threads. https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8399908#Comment_8399908
Even Vengeance haters on console indirectly confirmed it when claiming Vengeance had 0 bars which is impossible on PC.
I postet pictures showing that Blackreach and Ravenwatch reach 0 bars on AccessibilityMode/Console UI while PC UI has always minumum 1 bar so 1 bar console is 1 bar more than that.
Every player can test by activating accessibility mode in settings>accessibility and it will show all campaigns having one bar less and locket campaigns as having 3 bars.
You wouldnt accept comfirmation by ZOS anyway as you ignore&dismiss ZOS confirmation that Vengeance has higher(2,5x) capacity thinking you know better.JustLovely wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Do you not realize you have still said literally nothing? You showed 1 bar, which can represent literally 0 people. You only showed a screenshot of 1 bar. What you said means nothing.
Do you not realize the difference picture above from Vengeance shows more bars than the pictures below?
Activate Accessibility mode in Settings or play on console and all campaigns will show one bar less. Without Accessibility mode the picture would show 2 bars per faction.
Neat. So as we've been saying, all the PvP players left are playing GH and nothing else, just like we're saying and you're trying to argue isn't happening.
So you already read my explanation why the claims in your first 2 comments are false but decided to ignore every word of it and posted the already falsified claims.
It is not all PvP players when Vengeance reached more than minimum bars (even when capacity would be same) and with capacity of Vengeance being 300 players per alliance not more than half of PvP players played GreyHost that evening and population was like:
GH DC 60-90 players
GH EP 120 players
GH AD 60-90 players
Vengeance DC 75-150 players
Vengeance EP 75-150 players
Vengeance AD 75-150 playersJustLovely wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
I, personally, don't really care about adding vengeance as a permanent option in place of Raven, BR still gets populated. The issue I have is only with what doing that would likely suggest, which is resources being allocated to it, when it is already not populated. It would be like sinking resources into current day ravenwatch even though the interest is extremely small. Just put the effort into GH, like the vast majority want.
As Vengeance was originally done as a performance test they would have to write the code to test anyway than find a way to test it secretly without players which would be even more effort. And ZOS didnt put more effort in GH before they startet developing Vengeance either.
Vengeance was never a performance test.
ZOS sold it as a test to get information to improve normal live Cyrodiil. Now they've revealed that was never the case.
We now know that vengeance isn't a viable format in any capacity going forward. Mandating vengeance will be the equivalent of removing PvP from ESO and all the PvP players will go with it along with their financial support of the game.
I dont want mandate Vengeance but Scenario1 and you want prevent it and keep mandating GreyHost.
If you would support Scenario 1 we wouldnt even have this discussion.
Mandated Vengeance had Queue the first 2 tests and still 3 bars the last 2 so PvP was far from removed.
Vengeance is viable even with 1 bar.
2 -
Artisian0001✭✭✭JustLovely wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You just proved the person you're arguing with to be correct and yourself to be wrong in this quoted post.
I proved that Vengeance reached (1 console bar which is) 2 pc bars while GreyHost was up as even a player who hates Vengeance confirmed it with the picture he posted when he couldnt find pictures of Vengeance being empty at that time.
That doesnt prove the conclusions he draws from it to be true. Vengeance is viable with 2 bars and
I have screenshot from last day of Vengeance after primetime showing Vengeance still reached 2 bars on 2 factions.JustLovely wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Known by who exactly? Please link to where ZOS has confirmed this is the case.
It was confirmed by many players in other Vengeance Threads. https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8399908#Comment_8399908
Even Vengeance haters on console indirectly confirmed it when claiming Vengeance had 0 bars which is impossible on PC.
I postet pictures showing that Blackreach and Ravenwatch reach 0 bars on AccessibilityMode/Console UI while PC UI has always minumum 1 bar so 1 bar console is 1 bar more than that.
Every player can test by activating accessibility mode in settings>accessibility and it will show all campaigns having one bar less and locket campaigns as having 3 bars.
You wouldnt accept comfirmation by ZOS anyway as you ignore&dismiss ZOS confirmation that Vengeance has higher(2,5x) capacity thinking you know better.JustLovely wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Do you not realize you have still said literally nothing? You showed 1 bar, which can represent literally 0 people. You only showed a screenshot of 1 bar. What you said means nothing.
Do you not realize the difference picture above from Vengeance shows more bars than the pictures below?
Activate Accessibility mode in Settings or play on console and all campaigns will show one bar less. Without Accessibility mode the picture would show 2 bars per faction.
Neat. So as we've been saying, all the PvP players left are playing GH and nothing else, just like we're saying and you're trying to argue isn't happening.
So you already read my explanation why the claims in your first 2 comments are false but decided to ignore every word of it and posted the already falsified claims.
It is not all PvP players when Vengeance reached more than minimum bars (even when capacity would be same) and with capacity of Vengeance being 300 players per alliance not more than half of PvP players played GreyHost that evening and population was like:
GH DC 60-90 players
GH EP 120 players
GH AD 60-90 players
Vengeance DC 75-150 players
Vengeance EP 75-150 players
Vengeance AD 75-150 playersJustLovely wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
I, personally, don't really care about adding vengeance as a permanent option in place of Raven, BR still gets populated. The issue I have is only with what doing that would likely suggest, which is resources being allocated to it, when it is already not populated. It would be like sinking resources into current day ravenwatch even though the interest is extremely small. Just put the effort into GH, like the vast majority want.
As Vengeance was originally done as a performance test they would have to write the code to test anyway than find a way to test it secretly without players which would be even more effort. And ZOS didnt put more effort in GH before they startet developing Vengeance either.
Vengeance was never a performance test.
ZOS sold it as a test to get information to improve normal live Cyrodiil. Now they've revealed that was never the case.
We now know that vengeance isn't a viable format in any capacity going forward. Mandating vengeance will be the equivalent of removing PvP from ESO and all the PvP players will go with it along with their financial support of the game.
I dont want mandate Vengeance but Scenario1 and you want prevent it and keep mandating GreyHost.
If you would support Scenario 1 we wouldnt even have this discussion.
Mandated Vengeance had Queue the first 2 tests and still 3 bars the last 2 so PvP was far from removed.
Vengeance is viable even with 1 bar.
Your post never proved anything you are talking about. The confidence when you have done nothing but illustrate how dead vengeance has been is funny. "I proved" btw, while zero proof is posted.2 -
Lucasl402✭✭✭✭JustLovely wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You just proved the person you're arguing with to be correct and yourself to be wrong in this quoted post.
I proved that Vengeance reached (1 console bar which is) 2 pc bars while GreyHost was up as even a player who hates Vengeance confirmed it with the picture he posted when he couldnt find pictures of Vengeance being empty at that time.
That doesnt prove the conclusions he draws from it to be true. Vengeance is viable with 2 bars and
I have screenshot from last day of Vengeance after primetime showing Vengeance still reached 2 bars on 2 factions.JustLovely wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Known by who exactly? Please link to where ZOS has confirmed this is the case.
It was confirmed by many players in other Vengeance Threads. https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8399908#Comment_8399908
Even Vengeance haters on console indirectly confirmed it when claiming Vengeance had 0 bars which is impossible on PC.
I postet pictures showing that Blackreach and Ravenwatch reach 0 bars on AccessibilityMode/Console UI while PC UI has always minumum 1 bar so 1 bar console is 1 bar more than that.
Every player can test by activating accessibility mode in settings>accessibility and it will show all campaigns having one bar less and locket campaigns as having 3 bars.
You wouldnt accept comfirmation by ZOS anyway as you ignore&dismiss ZOS confirmation that Vengeance has higher(2,5x) capacity thinking you know better.JustLovely wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
Now you're just pointing out why ZOS should prioritize GH. It's the only camp most PvP players put any time into. Blackreach is good for PvP while waiting in queue for GH. Vengeance doesn't even work as a warm up or intro to GH, and people proved they won't play it even when it's the only option.
You, ZOS and everyone else already knows that vengeance is a fail and essentially nobody will play it. We saw the results of the side by side camps first hand. So people should stop pretending that they didn't see the evidence they saw.
Vengeance on PC regularly reached 3 bars when it was only campaign and 2 bars after GreyHost was up. But as you insist pretending it is only 1 bar and completely empty like that is an reason to keep Vengeance down in favor of a dead campaign I pointed out that isnt.
Having 70 players per faction is not enaugh for 2 bars but still an increase of overall Cyrodiil population by over 50%.
ZOS didnt do very much to improve regular Cyrodiil since long before Vengeance was released.
As Vengeance had its own system independent of PvE and is not affected by updates to the rest of the game ZOS doesnt have to update it after finishing it and can invest their full time for PvP content into GreyHost again.
No.
This is not a factual accounting of the relative populations in GH and vengeance during the side by side "test". Many others have posted actual pictures of the populations. You have seen this proof and are still trying to claim reality is otherwise.
Other players have postet pictures showing 2 bar Vengeance side by side with 3 bar GreyHost. Even some of your fellow Vengeance haters have posted side by side pictures showing Vengeance reached 2 bars while GreyHost was up.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.
You posting nothing but evidence so far that vengeance only has 1 bar which could literally be 0 people across all 3 factions.
It is known that 1 bar in console view is 2 bars in PC view. Assuming every bar represents a quarter of population that is 75 to 150 players.
Do you not realize you have still said literally nothing? You showed 1 bar, which can represent literally 0 people. You only showed a screenshot of 1 bar. What you said means nothing.
Do you not realize the difference picture above from Vengeance shows more bars than the pictures below?
Activate Accessibility mode in Settings or play on console and all campaigns will show one bar less. Without Accessibility mode the picture would show 2 bars per faction.
Neat. So as we've been saying, all the PvP players left are playing GH and nothing else, just like we're saying and you're trying to argue isn't happening.
So you already read my explanation why the claims in your first 2 comments are false but decided to ignore every word of it and posted the already falsified claims.
It is not all PvP players when Vengeance reached more than minimum bars (even when capacity would be same) and with capacity of Vengeance being 300 players per alliance not more than half of PvP players played GreyHost that evening and population was like:
GH DC 60-90 players
GH EP 120 players
GH AD 60-90 players
Vengeance DC 75-150 players
Vengeance EP 75-150 players
Vengeance AD 75-150 playersJustLovely wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »CatoUnchained wrote: »Vengeance is viable and can easily replace the No-CP server.
Anyone fighting against Vengeance having a seat at the table gets mopped in 1v1 or can't 1vX like they used to with their cheesewiz setup, and hates it.
[snip]
The side by side instance of GH and vengeance proved vengeance isn't viable. Almost nobody played vengeance when it was the only option, and even fewer played it once GH came back. Vengeance is DOA.
Plus, it's ZOS' job to fix GH. That's what they've said they're working on all along, so that's what they should be focusing on.
[edited to remove quote]
Ravenwatch and U50 are empty and not viable either, why does Vengeance need more than 1bar of about 75 players to be viable and be viable to replace a nonviable empty campaign?
I, personally, don't really care about adding vengeance as a permanent option in place of Raven, BR still gets populated. The issue I have is only with what doing that would likely suggest, which is resources being allocated to it, when it is already not populated. It would be like sinking resources into current day ravenwatch even though the interest is extremely small. Just put the effort into GH, like the vast majority want.
As Vengeance was originally done as a performance test they would have to write the code to test anyway than find a way to test it secretly without players which would be even more effort. And ZOS didnt put more effort in GH before they startet developing Vengeance either.
Vengeance was never a performance test.
ZOS sold it as a test to get information to improve normal live Cyrodiil. Now they've revealed that was never the case.
We now know that vengeance isn't a viable format in any capacity going forward. Mandating vengeance will be the equivalent of removing PvP from ESO and all the PvP players will go with it along with their financial support of the game.
I dont want mandate Vengeance but Scenario1 and you want prevent it and keep mandating GreyHost.
If you would support Scenario 1 we wouldnt even have this discussion.
Mandated Vengeance had Queue the first 2 tests and still 3 bars the last 2 so PvP was far from removed.
Vengeance is viable even with 1 bar.
Except two bar vengeance only ever happened the first two days of MANDATED vengeance this last test. After that it never went above one bar population at any time. And vengeance never got higher than one par population after GH came back. Essentially nobody played vengeance when they had a choice, and they only played mandated vengeance for a couple hours before logging off and waiting for GH to return.
Nobody, not even ZOS, can make a case for a viable vengeance campaign at this point. I'm sure you, and probably ZOS too, will keep trying though.2 -
Iriidius✭✭✭✭✭ZOS has correct player numbers for Vengeance anyway so I just stop here before it escalatesEdited by Iriidius on December 25, 2025 6:00PM1
-
Artisian0001✭✭✭ZOS has correct player numbers for Vengeance anyway so I just stop here before it escalates
Your "proof" is just stating something multiple times. That isn't what proof is. And it doesn't even make logical sense that 1 bar on console would equal 2 on PC when PC has a higher population than console, it would be the other way around. Vengeance has a low pop, it is dead. You have no proof otherwise. It was 1 bar the entire time the test with GH was going on.1 -
imPDA✭✭✭Artisian0001 wrote: »ZOS has correct player numbers for Vengeance anyway so I just stop here before it escalates
Your "proof" is just stating something multiple times. That isn't what proof is. And it doesn't even make logical sense that 1 bar on console would equal 2 on PC when PC has a higher population than console, it would be the other way around. Vengeance has a low pop, it is dead. You have no proof otherwise. It was 1 bar the entire time the test with GH was going on.
He means "on console UI", it is different from PC.
PC icons - 1 bar, 2 bars, 3 bars, lock
console icons - 0 bars, 1 bar, 2 bar, 3 bars + lock
So, 1 "PC" bar represents the same number of players as 0 "console" bars.
2 "PC" bars = 1 "console" bar.
So, if you see console UI screenshot, you should keep in mind, that if you switch to PC UI, it will be different number of bars, and vice versa.1 -
Artisian0001✭✭✭Artisian0001 wrote: »ZOS has correct player numbers for Vengeance anyway so I just stop here before it escalates
Your "proof" is just stating something multiple times. That isn't what proof is. And it doesn't even make logical sense that 1 bar on console would equal 2 on PC when PC has a higher population than console, it would be the other way around. Vengeance has a low pop, it is dead. You have no proof otherwise. It was 1 bar the entire time the test with GH was going on.
He means "on console UI", it is different from PC.
PC icons - 1 bar, 2 bars, 3 bars, lock
console icons - 0 bars, 1 bar, 2 bar, 3 bars + lock
So, 1 "PC" bar represents the same number of players as 0 "console" bars.
2 "PC" bars = 1 "console" bar.
So, if you see console UI screenshot, you should keep in mind, that if you switch to PC UI, it will be different number of bars, and vice versa.
This isn't correct. 1 bar on console UI does not equal 2 on PC lol. Just bc the UI is different on console doesn't mean it equates to 2 on console, this is a very uninformed and incorrect assumption.0