Honestly - Is Vengeance Viable?

Artisian0001 · December 26

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

imPDA wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

Iriidius 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.

Funny you are saying it is uninformed and incorrect, while in the same statement claiming how it works......you literally dont know if it is correct or not because zos hasn't clarified what each bar means. The only clarification we got was kevin saying if it looks like the ui shows 50% than that would be 150/300 players in greyhost. Which is an exceedingly unclear explanation because what is 50%? Again below we literally don't know if these brackets are correct, but this would be the best estimate assuming linearly divided brackets.

PC
1bar = 0 to 33%
2bar = 34% to 66% <<<<50%
3bar = 67% to 99%
Lock = 100% + que

Controller UI
0 bar = 0 to 25%
1 bar = 26% to 50% <<<<50%
2 bar = 51% to 75% <<<<<50%
3 bar = 76% to 99%
lock = 100% + que
Its also funny seeing people keep claiming veng is dead at 1-2 bar when 33% of 900 is equivalent to pop locked greyhost........so the entirety of greyhost's "bars" fits inside of the 1st bar of PC vengeance population. The resolution we can see is so poor there is no point getting heated about it. Just don't argue in bad faith as if 1 bar vengeance means 0% players while 1 bar GH equals 33% because it just makes you look like a fool. (not saying you in particular)

a better use of our time would be having multiple threads saying what zos should have added to vengeance like mundus, gear, enchants, sets, morphs, etc. Im surprised they didnt want us to try all the other systems with the performative skill system in place. Engineering wise it seems like a massive very important data hole. Or how about complaining how zos spent months coming up with the loadout and perk system to give users fake item choices.........why not just make the UI LOOK like selecting item sets? Why not just spend that time enabling mundus stones or non proc gear?

You are also another person who doesn't understand but will make random statements. At least I am basing it on something sensible. PC has a higher population and that has been stated multiple times. It makes no logical sense for 1 bar on console to equal MORE on PC. This giant wall of text to say nothing is nice, thank you for that, but if you admit ZOS hasn't said 1 bar on console is 2 bars on PC, then my saying it doesn't makes more sense than someone baselessly claiming it does. Do you assume things are true, that everything is true, unless told otherwise? I say 1 bar on PC equals pop locked on console. and until you see ZOS say otherwise, I am right. Good logic.

My entire statement is that we literally dont know cuz zos doesnt clarify and its dumb to lean on hard assumptions and continue to argue. You obviously didnt read my post if you are thinking I am agreeing with either of you. What the other guy confused and you are more correct on is that console vs pc likely has no difference. However the controller UI vs the Keyboard UI is actually different in alot of aspects which is ridiculous on zos's part since it only causes confusion like the argument you have been having for the past week. For instance controller UI allows you to que up for multiple BG categories......on keyboard we have to use addons to do this. Right now as we speak the PCNA keyboard UI shows 1 bar while the controller UI shows 0 bars. So there is an actual discrepancy.

What is kinda nice from this though is if you were to assume the linear brackets that I listed in my previous post. PCNA shows 2bar on controller (51% to 75%) while the keyboard UI shows 3 bar (67% to 99%).......which we could narrow down to 67% to 75% of the 100 player faction. Again making the bracket assumption which has never been confirmed because zos could also have different end brackets. For example the controller UI could look like:

0 bar = 0 to 10%
1 bar = 11% to 37%
2 bar = 38% to 65%
3 bar = 66% to 90%
lock = 91% to 100% + que

I understand you are saying you don't know, but I am telling you that 1 bar on console does not equal 2 bars on PC. Call me crazy.

again you did not read...... what is the point of talking on the forums if you wont read a paragraph. It is a matter of controller UI vs Keyboard UI.

Controller UI on PC and controller UI on console is likely the same.
Controller UI on PC and Keyboard UI on PC is NOT the same and is easily confirmed by swapping your UI in settings as I just did and gave you the values.

You are the one not reading. Try re reading the first thing I responded to you with. I understand that you aren't following, but just because someone says that 1 bar on console equals 2 bars on PC, does not mean the chance he is right is the same as the chance I am, is that hard to understand? It makes no sense for 1 bar on SMALLER server to equal a larger amount of 2 bars on a LARGER server, and that was the claim. So please, read.

Ok we can disregard all of my clarifications and circle back to square one while you claim i am the one not understanding somehow.

Back to my first point......both of you literally cant know if you are right or not..........zos doesnt post the values of the brackets. I am not going to concede that either of you are right when it is meaningless

My clarification is that the Keyboard UI and Controller UI on PC is ACTUALLY different and you can go open your game to see this yourself. As you can see greyhost shows 2 bars controller and shows 3 bars for keyboard. Chances are the guy you were arguing with was talking about this fact and was not being clear about it by saying console(controller) vs PC(keyboard). In his mind he is correct because the controller and keyboard UI ARE DIFFERENT. In your mind you are correct because it makes no sense that console GH and PC GH are any different because zos has never stated that the pop cap numbers are any different for console.....GH on pc is 300 but they have not confirmed if GH on console is 300 aswell.

There is no circling back needed, you are not understanding a basic concept in logic. The chance that his claim is right is much less than the chance that my claim is right, that is the difference, try to follow that, it's not very hard. There is no logical reason to believe that 1 bar on console would equal more on PC. You got this man, read it carefully.

The reason is that the UI is different like I said. With the same population one UI says 2 bar while the other says 3 bar. Seems like a VERY logical and provable reason to me considering I just logged in and confirmed it in game. I appreciate the overly condescending inflammatory comments though.

You cant compare console and PC regardless because we dont know if console is using the same server cap. So even if we compare the console controller UI vs the PC controller UI which should have the same brackets.....we dont know the max pop cap anyways so the %bars mean nothing.

The problem is you are comparing the UI doing this on PC, to the UI doing this.... on PC. It is just a PC thing, it has no relative relation to console, you can just change to the console UI which is the thing you aren't understanding. 1 bar console would not equate to a higher on PC, just because the PC UI says it when you do it.... on the PC UI.

imPDA · December 26

Artisian0001 wrote: »

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.

WTF dude that you can't even understand thing I am saying, try again. I will explain it once again on this forum, I did it twice previously and I am tired of explaining it over and over.

Both PC and console UI has equal amount of population steps, 4 to be more precise - CAMPAIGN_POP_LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, FULL. UI code is open; you can find it on GitHub.

But they are displayed differently.
CAMPAIGN_POP_LOW: PC - 1 bar, gamepad - 0 bars (screenshot).
CAMPAIGN_POP_MEDIUM: PC - 2 bars, gamepad - 1 bar.
CAMPAIGN_POP_HIGH: PC - 3 bars, gamepad - 2 bar.
CAMPAIGN_POP_FULL: PC - lock icon, gamepad - 3 bars + lock icon.

1 console bar = 2 PC bars. Period.

imPDA · December 26

MincMincMinc wrote: »

0 bar = 0 to 10%
1 bar = 11% to 37%
2 bar = 38% to 65%
3 bar = 66% to 90%
lock = 91% to 100% + que

No, console has 4 steps as well as PC UI, it is 3 bars+lock combined instead of 3 bars and lock as separate steps.

Artisian0001 · December 26

imPDA wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

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.

WTF dude that you can't even understand thing I am saying, try again. I will explain it once again on this forum, I did it twice previously and I am tired of explaining it over and over.

Both PC and console UI has equal amount of population steps, 4 to be more precise - CAMPAIGN_POP_LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, FULL. UI code is open; you can find it on GitHub.

But they are displayed differently.
CAMPAIGN_POP_LOW: PC - 1 bar, gamepad - 0 bars (screenshot).
CAMPAIGN_POP_MEDIUM: PC - 2 bars, gamepad - 1 bar.
CAMPAIGN_POP_HIGH: PC - 3 bars, gamepad - 2 bar.
CAMPAIGN_POP_FULL: PC - lock icon, gamepad - 3 bars + lock icon.

1 console bar = 2 PC bars. Period.

No, this isn't how it works. 1 bar on console does not equal 2 bars on a bigger server, sorry man.

imPDA · December 26

Artisian0001 wrote: »

No, this isn't how it works. 1 bar on console does not equal 2 bars on a bigger server, sorry man.

OK, on "gamepad UI". Or do you think everybody plays with PC UI on PC? Like I know plenty of people playing with gamepad UI and screenshots from this thread also talks about it. So, to compare these two screenshots, you need to know that I am explained above. I literally don't know that to say more to make him understand easy truth.

spartaxoxo · December 26

Artisian0001 wrote: »

No, this isn't how it works. 1 bar on console does not equal 2 bars on a bigger server, sorry man.

It looks to me like you're comparing population sizes and they're comparing UI design.

Artisian0001 · December 26

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

No, this isn't how it works. 1 bar on console does not equal 2 bars on a bigger server, sorry man.

It looks to me like you're comparing population sizes and they're comparing UI design.

Yes, I am talking about actual population in the campaign and they don't understand that UI design doesn't equate to more population, I agree.

spartaxoxo · December 26

Artisian0001 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

No, this isn't how it works. 1 bar on console does not equal 2 bars on a bigger server, sorry man.

It looks to me like you're comparing population sizes and they're comparing UI design.

Yes, I am talking about actual population in the campaign and they don't understand that UI design doesn't equate to more population, I agree.

They are not making the claim that it does, as least as far I can tell on the most recent posts. It appears they are saying that the physical representation of "Medium Population," on the graph is 2 bars on PC and 1 bar on console. This is because they decided to make "Low Population," 1 bar on PC and 0 bars on console.

This statement has nothing to do with population size. I'm simply explaining how I understood what they are reporting about ZOS's coding decisions. They appear to have two "different" bar graph designs for the two different input methods.

Artisian0001 · December 26

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

No, this isn't how it works. 1 bar on console does not equal 2 bars on a bigger server, sorry man.

It looks to me like you're comparing population sizes and they're comparing UI design.

Yes, I am talking about actual population in the campaign and they don't understand that UI design doesn't equate to more population, I agree.

They are not making the claim that it does, as least as far I can tell on the most recent posts. It appears they are saying that the physical representation of "Medium Population," on the graph is 2 bars on PC and 1 bar on console. This is because they decided to make "Low Population," 1 bar on PC and 0 bars on console.

This statement has nothing to do with population size. I'm simply explaining how I understood what they are reporting about ZOS's coding decisions. They appear to have two "different" bar graph designs for the two different input methods.

They are saying the chance it does is equal to the chance it doesn't. Please learn context or how to read because you are missing the point. Why are you trying to explain something I have already addressed? It does not function the way you or they think it does.

Lucasl402 · December 27

Can the people debating how many bars on one platform equals how many bars on another platform or UI please start a new thread?

This thread is about whether or not vengeance is viable.

Vengeance has proven not to be viable during the last instance of forced vengeance.

This pop bar discussion is a valid discussion, but it's a distraction from the topic of this thread, and having the discussion here risks having this important thread closed for derailing off topic.

spartaxoxo · December 27

Lucasl402 wrote: »

Vengeance has proven not to be viable during the last instance of forced vengeance.

Edit NVM

I don't think that's the case at all. Personally I think Vengeance is viable. It seemed more active than Ravenwatch often is. I have used that campaign to avoid PvP when I want to do Cyrodiil stuff before. I think Vengeance would be a good replacement for that campaign, which actually seems dead. Although I admit I don't PvP often enough to say definitively one way or another. I just know when I need to do something in Cyrodiil and I don't want to bother with PvP, that's a go-to campaign for me.

Artisian0001 · 2:02AM

I did some reviewing with friends for every day where greyhost and vengeance were both playable on PC/NA and we compared every screenshot we had, and at some point every single day greyhost was triple pop locked and vengeance was 1 bar across all factions.

spartaxoxo · 3:52AM

Artisian0001 wrote: »

I did some reviewing with friends for every day where greyhost and vengeance were both playable on PC/NA and we compared every screenshot we had, and at some point every single day greyhost was triple pop locked and vengeance was 1 bar across all factions.

1 bar of Vengeance isn't the same as 1 bar in Grey Host because Vengeance has a much larger population. 30% of 900 is 270. 270 is 75% of 360.

At 1 bar, Vengeance could have more than 75% or Grey Host players. At 2 bars, it could potentially have more players than Vengeance.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi all, thanks for the continued discussion here. We want to share a point of consideration as we are seeing some comments around population when talking about the in-game graphs. The in-game population bar is representative of the current participants in a campaign, relative to the max cap of that campaign. So for example, if Gray Host is at 360/360, but Vengeance is 450/900, the graph will show Gray Host as 100% capacity while Vengeance is at 50%, even though Vengeance has more players. We wanted to provide that as you continue your conversations about population overall.

ETA

If it had like 270 people then I would think it was viable. If that number is closer to like 10 people, then it's not. We can't know without the numbers.

Artisian0001 · 3:56AM

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

I did some reviewing with friends for every day where greyhost and vengeance were both playable on PC/NA and we compared every screenshot we had, and at some point every single day greyhost was triple pop locked and vengeance was 1 bar across all factions.

1 bar of Vengeance isn't the same as 1 bar in Grey Host because Vengeance has a much larger population. 30% of 900 is 270. 270 is 75% of 360.

At 1 bar, Vengeance could have more than 75% or Grey Host players. At 2 bars, it could potentially have more players than Vengeance.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi all, thanks for the continued discussion here. We want to share a point of consideration as we are seeing some comments around population when talking about the in-game graphs. The in-game population bar is representative of the current participants in a campaign, relative to the max cap of that campaign. So for example, if Gray Host is at 360/360, but Vengeance is 450/900, the graph will show Gray Host as 100% capacity while Vengeance is at 50%, even though Vengeance has more players. We wanted to provide that as you continue your conversations about population overall.

Literally nobody is arguing this, what are you even saying?

spartaxoxo · 4:02AM

Artisian0001 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

I did some reviewing with friends for every day where greyhost and vengeance were both playable on PC/NA and we compared every screenshot we had, and at some point every single day greyhost was triple pop locked and vengeance was 1 bar across all factions.

1 bar of Vengeance isn't the same as 1 bar in Grey Host because Vengeance has a much larger population. 30% of 900 is 270. 270 is 75% of 360.

At 1 bar, Vengeance could have more than 75% or Grey Host players. At 2 bars, it could potentially have more players than Vengeance.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi all, thanks for the continued discussion here. We want to share a point of consideration as we are seeing some comments around population when talking about the in-game graphs. The in-game population bar is representative of the current participants in a campaign, relative to the max cap of that campaign. So for example, if Gray Host is at 360/360, but Vengeance is 450/900, the graph will show Gray Host as 100% capacity while Vengeance is at 50%, even though Vengeance has more players. We wanted to provide that as you continue your conversations about population overall.

Literally nobody is arguing this, what are you even saying?

I'm saying that it's not proven to be not viable just because it was 1 bar. I think that it likely is viable and that it should replace Ravenwatch.

Artisian0001 · 4:03AM

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

I did some reviewing with friends for every day where greyhost and vengeance were both playable on PC/NA and we compared every screenshot we had, and at some point every single day greyhost was triple pop locked and vengeance was 1 bar across all factions.

1 bar of Vengeance isn't the same as 1 bar in Grey Host because Vengeance has a much larger population. 30% of 900 is 270. 270 is 75% of 360.

At 1 bar, Vengeance could have more than 75% or Grey Host players. At 2 bars, it could potentially have more players than Vengeance.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi all, thanks for the continued discussion here. We want to share a point of consideration as we are seeing some comments around population when talking about the in-game graphs. The in-game population bar is representative of the current participants in a campaign, relative to the max cap of that campaign. So for example, if Gray Host is at 360/360, but Vengeance is 450/900, the graph will show Gray Host as 100% capacity while Vengeance is at 50%, even though Vengeance has more players. We wanted to provide that as you continue your conversations about population overall.

Literally nobody is arguing this, what are you even saying?

I'm saying that it's not proven to be not viable just because it was 1 bar. I think that it likely is viable and that it should replace Ravenwatch.

Every single person knows that the population of vengeance was vastly lower than GH during the test. It isn't a good option.

spartaxoxo · 4:12AM

Artisian0001 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Artisian0001 wrote: »

I did some reviewing with friends for every day where greyhost and vengeance were both playable on PC/NA and we compared every screenshot we had, and at some point every single day greyhost was triple pop locked and vengeance was 1 bar across all factions.

1 bar of Vengeance isn't the same as 1 bar in Grey Host because Vengeance has a much larger population. 30% of 900 is 270. 270 is 75% of 360.

At 1 bar, Vengeance could have more than 75% or Grey Host players. At 2 bars, it could potentially have more players than Vengeance.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi all, thanks for the continued discussion here. We want to share a point of consideration as we are seeing some comments around population when talking about the in-game graphs. The in-game population bar is representative of the current participants in a campaign, relative to the max cap of that campaign. So for example, if Gray Host is at 360/360, but Vengeance is 450/900, the graph will show Gray Host as 100% capacity while Vengeance is at 50%, even though Vengeance has more players. We wanted to provide that as you continue your conversations about population overall.

Literally nobody is arguing this, what are you even saying?

I'm saying that it's not proven to be not viable just because it was 1 bar. I think that it likely is viable and that it should replace Ravenwatch.

Every single person knows that the population of vengeance was vastly lower than GH during the test. It isn't a good option.

Most of the claims I have seen of that have been based on the bar graph but I haven't read every post in this thread. What I do know is when I physically went inside and played, Vengeance was pretty active. And 33% of Vengeance players, or the upper limit of 1 bar, is 297 people. 297 people is 82.5% of Grey Host's population. I would not call that vastly lower and a poor option. Especially when I compare it to Ravenwatch, which was actually dead most of the times I've been in. But again, that would assume that Vengeance was at the upper limit of 1 bar.

I actually think replacing below 50 Cyrodiil and Ravenwatch with Vengeance would be a great idea, personally. I almost never saw much activity in those campaigns. And having both Vengeance and Gray Host gives players the option to pick which mode they like the most. And if it did die, well it couldn't be much deader than Ravenwatch is now anyway from my admittedly limited observations.

imPDA · 11:10AM

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I actually think replacing below 50 Cyrodiil and Ravenwatch with Vengeance would be a great idea, personally. I almost never saw much activity in those campaigns.

PC EU RW was more popular than GH b4 no proc, while on PC NA GH was more popular. It was kinda active b4 proc return, you could see 2-3 full yellow groups + ball group, or even more, and same for EP, but probably a little bit less, and 1-2 DC groups, 1 ball group + smallscalers.

Tigor stopped posting in RW thread after procs returned and that was the point RW died completely.

LPapirius · 6:54PM

Vengeance is not viable.

The side by side tests proved this, and the empty vengeance campaigns when they were the only option proved it as well.

Artisian0001 · 7:06PM

LPapirius wrote: »

Vengeance is not viable.

The side by side tests proved this, and the empty vengeance campaigns when they were the only option proved it as well.

100%, people keep trying to obfuscate and give random reasons as to why vengeance actually had more people in it than other people think, but nobody provides any actual video proof during the time period where both were out where vengeance had any substantial population.

edward_frigidhands · 8:35PM

LPapirius wrote: »

Vengeance is not viable.

20 pages that you don't need to read to arrive to the obvious conclusion that its neither viable nor wanted if you have actually played the game in it's entirety.

The fact that "scenario 2" was even a conversation shows that the people in leadership making these decisions have not and do not play the game they are making these important decisions for.

Radiate77 · 9:13PM

Vengeance could be fun if Perks were interesting, and if unlocking them was progression based…

But this begs the question, wouldn’t Vengeance fit better in new content? Rather than replacing the same content we’ve been playing for 10 years?

What kind of incentive would someone like me who’s been playing the game for over a decade, have to jump into Vengeance to then create these large battles? They won’t happen just because they can, we need to want to participate and I’m sorry. Vengeance just isn’t it right now, not to say it couldn’t ever be, but it needs serious work.