Cross alliance healing, this needs to be discussed.

NeillMcAttack

From the announcement of the upcoming “no-proc” tests, Lead PvP Dev Brian Wheeler wrote;
“On February 15, we will also be reverting a prior test where abilities cast on allies were restricted to group targets only. This adjustment gave no appreciable gains towards performance improvements”.

I completely and considerably disagree with this statement, everyone I play with would disagree with this statement, many players here on the forums would disagree with this statement. Post U25 nothing worked well inside in Cyro, massive delays, position de-syncs, etc you remember right? I member, It was a disaster!
This ran for a couple months, then we had tests for a couple months, and in the end, the only real changes that were made were reducing from 24 man groups to 12 man, and removing cross alliance healing!
The game became much more playable, far from perfect of course, but greatly improved from the post U25 disaster. In fact the performance in Cyro currently, greatly depends more on whether or not you have ball groups present that spam AOE spells exclusively. It literally depends less on population and more on the number of AOE checks being carried out, just as Rich Lambert explained prior to the previous tests.

Don’t get me wrong, I feel cross alliance healing SHOULD be ran alongside any tests unless specifically looking for differences with it enabled and disabled. As the standard for Cyro should be cross alliance support enabled.

My concern is strictly with the ability to actually use my skills reactively, to play the game at the pace it was designed to be played. I am concerned we may be jumping the gun a little too early in re-implementing these mechanics when little else has been done to improve performance to a playable standard. I fear that re-implementing this limitation will lead to months, if not more, of an unplayable Cyro experience, similar to what we had post U25.

It’s worth noting that all my frames of reference are almost exclusively relative to no-CP Cyro, specifically RW EU, and ask that any discussions from persons on this topic mention where they play so that perhaps devs or others have a better frame of reference on this subject. So with that, thoughts?

hafgood

Umm, you might want to reword what you are saying. Cross alliance healing suggests healing will, well, go across alliances and, well, heal the enemy. I'm sure that's not what you mean?

I assume you are referring to the ability to be able to heal allies whether they are in your group or not. I know many players welcome the return of that as they play healers and hate watching allies health decrease while they are spamming heals because they are not grouped with them.

FantasticFreddie

PC/NA Grayhost and Blackreach, PC/EU Ravenwatch

Lag, skill delays, rubber banding, potions not firing, bars not swapping, break free not working even with full stamina, random ass load screens have been my universal experience, no appreciatable difference before the test, or since November.

I think it is largely placebo effect.... after the stream where they announced they were enabling cross healing again, many many people were howling about how much worse there game was with the healing back on, apparently missing the memo it had NOT been reverted yet.

NeillMcAttack

hafgood wrote: »

Umm, you might want to reword what you are saying. Cross alliance healing suggests healing will, well, go across alliances and, well, heal the enemy. I'm sure that's not what you mean?

I assume you are referring to the ability to be able to heal allies whether they are in your group or not. I know many players welcome the return of that as they play healers and hate watching allies health decrease while they are spamming heals because they are not grouped with them.

Totally understandable, I still react to this day with spells in an attempt to help an ally to no avail. But my spell still casts, 9 times out of 10, it actually goes off. Genuinely dependant on the number of ball groups present in the campaign using as many AOE spells per second as possible.

NeillMcAttack

FantasticFreddie wrote: »

PC/NA Grayhost and Blackreach, PC/EU Ravenwatch

Lag, skill delays, rubber banding, potions not firing, bars not swapping, break free not working even with full stamina, random ass load screens have been my universal experience, no appreciatable difference before the test, or since November.

I think it is largely placebo effect.... after the stream where they announced they were enabling cross healing again, many many people were howling about how much worse there game was with the healing back on, apparently missing the memo it had NOT been reverted yet.

While prime time RW EU can be very poor, though I haven’t had a random load screen for a long time. It works very well, while pop-locked, when the ball groups aren’t present.
This is my unbiased opinion, because I do want to be able to heal and get healed by allies also, but I want my abilities to work first. Re-allowing this mechanic empowers players to sit around allies and pushing spells with AOE checks leading to worse performance, not to mention they are basically turning back on spells players use for solo play to carry out AOE checks again. I don’t blame players for this, this became much worse post U25, that’s on ZOS.

As for grey host, I am aware that there are many more groups present at almost all times in that campaign, and have heard from others that they also seen little performance improvement through the periods described. Which stands to reason, if most players are already grouped, their spells are already carrying out AOE checks, so why would grouping or not matter? Totally understandable, but what about those on RW EU, solo and small group players. We will be forced to suffer worse performance because other players prefer ‘play styles’ over ‘game play’!

Sandman929

I don't think it's a strong position to put anecdotal evidence against whatever data the developer gathers during these tests. Granted, I don't know what data they gathered but I have to assume it's more than the experiences of a few players to determine if a change had a positive or negative impact on performance.
During the time that healing/buffs were limited to group, I also felt like there was some improvement on Xbox NA...some nights, and other nights I lagged out just as I've done a million times before when this change wasn't in effect. I don't put too much faith into my night to night experience as a measure of server performance.

NeillMcAttack

Sandman929 wrote: »

I don't think it's a strong position to put anecdotal evidence against whatever data the developer gathers during these tests. Granted, I don't know what data they gathered but I have to assume it's more than the experiences of a few players to determine if a change had a positive or negative impact on performance.
During the time that healing/buffs were limited to group, I also felt like there was some improvement on Xbox NA...some nights, and other nights I lagged out just as I've done a million times before when this change wasn't in effect. I don't put too much faith into my night to night experience as a measure of server performance.

Sure, but it would also be silly to assume ZOS know the cause, considering every test thus far has brought us next to zero results except a suggestion that less spells being cast leads to better performance over all (ya don’t say).
In fact, the last 3 tests, including the one we are about to carry out, were actually suggested by the community.

Tommy_The_Gun

If this will be still a problem to people running groups that their heal will ocaisonally heal some random solo dude, why not just give an option in a game / group settings ?

Forcing every other solo player out there to only relay on self heals and making healers (who can not heal others) useless is definitely worse solution... so no wonder they are reverting it back as a lot of players felt excluded, as they were playing with different rule set.

FantasticFreddie

I think that there have also been fewer people in Cyrodil since November. I dropped my playtime significantly, and there is almost never a queue anymore, and previously was 100+ to get into Gray Host primetime Friday nights

Ringod123

Disabling cross healing and limiting group sizes to 12 has literally done nothing what-so-ever to improve performance. Even when the server is almost empty there are still skill delays galore letting you fire off 1 skill every 3 seconds if you're lucky, damage still comes in as clumps of 2-3 GCD's, skills that uncover invis enemies barely work, if they work at all, and the list goes on, and things get progressively worse the further away from a maintenance we get.

Sandman929

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

I don't think it's a strong position to put anecdotal evidence against whatever data the developer gathers during these tests. Granted, I don't know what data they gathered but I have to assume it's more than the experiences of a few players to determine if a change had a positive or negative impact on performance.
During the time that healing/buffs were limited to group, I also felt like there was some improvement on Xbox NA...some nights, and other nights I lagged out just as I've done a million times before when this change wasn't in effect. I don't put too much faith into my night to night experience as a measure of server performance.

Sure, but it would also be silly to assume ZOS know the cause, considering every test thus far has brought us next to zero results except a suggestion that less spells being cast leads to better performance over all (ya don’t say).
In fact, the last 3 tests, including the one we are about to carry out, were actually suggested by the community.

It seems like they definitely don't know the cause. Ever test so far hasn't been called out by ZOS as a big contributor, so I think they're being honest about not finding the performance problem yet by continuing to do more tests like the one starting next week on PC.
I was firmly in the "ungrouped healing causes lag" camp, but apparently I was wrong. I think they might be on to something with the conditional checks test coming next week. I guess we'll have to see. I'm just not sure how they're going to change the game if the test indicates that these checks are a big contributor to performance problems. Condition checking sets are such a huge majority of the game.

Xandreia_

uhm cross alliance? you have never been able to cross alliance heal.... imagine running up to a ep and an ad having a 1v1 and you could heal them both.... big trolls....

NeillMcAttack

Ringod123 wrote: »

Disabling cross healing and limiting group sizes to 12 has literally done nothing what-so-ever to improve performance. Even when the server is almost empty there are still skill delays galore letting you fire off 1 skill every 3 seconds if you're lucky, damage still comes in as clumps of 2-3 GCD's, skills that uncover invis enemies barely work, if they work at all, and the list goes on, and things get progressively worse the further away from a maintenance we get.

What campaign do you play in? Because the restrictions made a significant difference in NO-CP EU!

alterfenixeb17_ESO

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Ringod123 wrote: »

Disabling cross healing and limiting group sizes to 12 has literally done nothing what-so-ever to improve performance. Even when the server is almost empty there are still skill delays galore letting you fire off 1 skill every 3 seconds if you're lucky, damage still comes in as clumps of 2-3 GCD's, skills that uncover invis enemies barely work, if they work at all, and the list goes on, and things get progressively worse the further away from a maintenance we get.

What campaign do you play in? Because the restrictions made a significant difference in NO-CP EU!

Specifically it did for you and some players. Tbh you said that you had no random loading screens ever since November, right? Well I had none since Elsweyr. That I suppose would mean that whatever they did in patch 5.0 resolved all problems and you must be imagining any issues with Greymoor? Something tells me not.

Please, do not assume that if something worked for you (or also just some friends you are playing with) that it also worked for everyone. Especially that, as someone stated, November caused probably the biggest playerbase drain last year.

And one more thing:

The game became much more playable, far from perfect of course, but greatly improved from the post U25 disaster.

Let's not forget that before update 25 cross group healing also worked.

NeillMcAttack

alterfenixeb17_ESO wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Ringod123 wrote: »

Disabling cross healing and limiting group sizes to 12 has literally done nothing what-so-ever to improve performance. Even when the server is almost empty there are still skill delays galore letting you fire off 1 skill every 3 seconds if you're lucky, damage still comes in as clumps of 2-3 GCD's, skills that uncover invis enemies barely work, if they work at all, and the list goes on, and things get progressively worse the further away from a maintenance we get.

What campaign do you play in? Because the restrictions made a significant difference in NO-CP EU!

Specifically it did for you and some players. Tbh you said that you had no random loading screens ever since November, right? Well I had none since Elsweyr. That I suppose would mean that whatever they did in patch 5.0 resolved all problems and you must be imagining any issues with Greymoor? Something tells me not.

Please, do not assume that if something worked for you (or also just some friends you are playing with) that it also worked for everyone. Especially that, as someone stated, November caused probably the biggest playerbase drain last year.

And one more thing:

The game became much more playable, far from perfect of course, but greatly improved from the post U25 disaster.

Let's not forget that before update 25 cross group healing also worked.

That is why as a community I was hoping we could come together and discuss this, that is why I request what campaign people play in. The difference in the performance across campaigns is staggering. But people here are more concerned with preserving their particular play style, while we all suffer a completely broken game.

Let me ask you a question? What do we do if the upcoming test does nothing for performance? What if performance gets even worse now that we have re-enabled healing of allies? Where do we go from there? Will people still insist on preserving that, even if it clearly makes the game unplayable for the vast majority of people?

NeillMcAttack

Sandman929 wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

I don't think it's a strong position to put anecdotal evidence against whatever data the developer gathers during these tests. Granted, I don't know what data they gathered but I have to assume it's more than the experiences of a few players to determine if a change had a positive or negative impact on performance.
During the time that healing/buffs were limited to group, I also felt like there was some improvement on Xbox NA...some nights, and other nights I lagged out just as I've done a million times before when this change wasn't in effect. I don't put too much faith into my night to night experience as a measure of server performance.

Sure, but it would also be silly to assume ZOS know the cause, considering every test thus far has brought us next to zero results except a suggestion that less spells being cast leads to better performance over all (ya don’t say).
In fact, the last 3 tests, including the one we are about to carry out, were actually suggested by the community.

It seems like they definitely don't know the cause. Ever test so far hasn't been called out by ZOS as a big contributor, so I think they're being honest about not finding the performance problem yet by continuing to do more tests like the one starting next week on PC.
I was firmly in the "ungrouped healing causes lag" camp, but apparently I was wrong. I think they might be on to something with the conditional checks test coming next week. I guess we'll have to see. I'm just not sure how they're going to change the game if the test indicates that these checks are a big contributor to performance problems. Condition checking sets are such a huge majority of the game.

You weren't wrong though, they even know the cause, at least one of the larger contributors. Rich knows that when everyone prefers to slot nothing but AOE skills that performance goes down. Do you agree with that statement? That if everyone had AOE on their bar that performance would get worse?
They know this, but they look to be trying to get a complete picture before making grand sweeping changes. I don't disagree with this. If testing needs to be done, I support that. As is my affinity for the game and Cyro in particular. Which is why I do not want to be left in a situation again, where for months Cyro is completely broken, because little Sammy, Becky, and Josh want to sit at the front of the zerg and spam radiating regen every second.

How can anyone's logic determine that a spell that targets every single person in a radius around a player, and a single target ability, not have vastly different protocols, and as such, require much greater amounts of processing? It's banana's to think it doesn't!!

NeillMcAttack

alterfenixeb17_ESO wrote: »

Let's not forget that before update 25 cross group healing also worked.

That’s completely irrelevant, unless you believe ZOS are likely to revert the changes made for U25.

Lordtalon90

While I agree the benefits from limiting healers to only healing their group has improved game performance and reduced the efficiency of some of the more coordinated ball groups it has also had an effect on healers. Solo healers are now limited to only healing their group and this seriously cuts into their performance and their AP earned. While this may not seem like much of a problem initially, you have to take into account how little insensitive there is for healers. On IC only the top damage dealers get to loot bosses so healers are out, and in Cyrodiil healers AP gained is based on how many people they heal that then go on to kill players. It's the same with BGs, healers get low medal scores because there are so few medals for them to get. Getting kills and assists counts for much higher than healing. I'm just saying our healers need some love

alterfenixeb17_ESO

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

alterfenixeb17_ESO wrote: »

Let's not forget that before update 25 cross group healing also worked.

That’s completely irrelevant, unless you believe ZOS are likely to revert the changes made for U25.

Sorry but this is completely relevant. If something indeed broke things in update 25 then this change should be checked in the first place before doing anything else. That's how healthy software industry works.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

alterfenixeb17_ESO wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Ringod123 wrote: »

Disabling cross healing and limiting group sizes to 12 has literally done nothing what-so-ever to improve performance. Even when the server is almost empty there are still skill delays galore letting you fire off 1 skill every 3 seconds if you're lucky, damage still comes in as clumps of 2-3 GCD's, skills that uncover invis enemies barely work, if they work at all, and the list goes on, and things get progressively worse the further away from a maintenance we get.

What campaign do you play in? Because the restrictions made a significant difference in NO-CP EU!

Specifically it did for you and some players. Tbh you said that you had no random loading screens ever since November, right? Well I had none since Elsweyr. That I suppose would mean that whatever they did in patch 5.0 resolved all problems and you must be imagining any issues with Greymoor? Something tells me not.

Please, do not assume that if something worked for you (or also just some friends you are playing with) that it also worked for everyone. Especially that, as someone stated, November caused probably the biggest playerbase drain last year.

And one more thing:

The game became much more playable, far from perfect of course, but greatly improved from the post U25 disaster.

Let's not forget that before update 25 cross group healing also worked.

That is why as a community I was hoping we could come together and discuss this, that is why I request what campaign people play in. The difference in the performance across campaigns is staggering. But people here are more concerned with preserving their particular play style, while we all suffer a completely broken game.

Let me ask you a question? What do we do if the upcoming test does nothing for performance? What if performance gets even worse now that we have re-enabled healing of allies? Where do we go from there? Will people still insist on preserving that, even if it clearly makes the game unplayable for the vast majority of people?

First of all over last few years I was playing both cp and no cp campaigns Europe so my experience is coming from that specifically when I say I personally had no bigger issues that I encountered myself over that time.

As for preserving playstyle. People signed up for this game partly because of it's mechanics and sad truth about MMORPG industry is that in it's whole history (over 20 years now) there was so far just one game in which some core mechanics were changed or altered and it had no actual impact on playerbase. In other cases it was always the easiest way to disaster so yes, while I can agree that performance and stability perhaps should and could be improved (even if I do not suffer problem there is always something that can be done better here) I also completely understand while such change caused back in November cause such outburst.

As for your questions sorry, I cannot speak for the whole community. I can only say for myself that I probably will get back to my healer or perhaps it is time to create new one. Also in your question you have quoted Brian Wheeler however you have possibly missed one other part of his post:

Our previous rounds of testing in Cyrodiil last year concluded with some interesting data that pointed us towards various avenues to explore for both future tests and long term solutions. However, those tests did not provide a definitive “This will fix all the things” solutions

Sounds like whatever was introduced in November is closer rather to workaround instead to a solution. And more importantly workaround that, based on what ZOS can apparently get from their data, workaround that just is just nevertheless not good enough for supposedly now playable Ravenwatch EU btw. No need to criticize their decision at this point since, as you know, we do not know if it's going to work or not. For sure I am against proc sets in Cyro, even despite I have 3 full sets on each of myc characters and that test will hit me by a lot.

Jaraal

Came in to see how I could steal heals from other alliances....... leaving disappointed.

kapachia

A way to counter enemy ball group. Steal enemy healing! Like a big black hole sucking up everyone’s healing.

NeillMcAttack

alterfenixeb17_ESO wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

alterfenixeb17_ESO wrote: »

Let's not forget that before update 25 cross group healing also worked.

That’s completely irrelevant, unless you believe ZOS are likely to revert the changes made for U25.

Sorry but this is completely relevant. If something indeed broke things in update 25 then this change should be checked in the first place before doing anything else. That's how healthy software industry works.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

alterfenixeb17_ESO wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Ringod123 wrote: »

Disabling cross healing and limiting group sizes to 12 has literally done nothing what-so-ever to improve performance. Even when the server is almost empty there are still skill delays galore letting you fire off 1 skill every 3 seconds if you're lucky, damage still comes in as clumps of 2-3 GCD's, skills that uncover invis enemies barely work, if they work at all, and the list goes on, and things get progressively worse the further away from a maintenance we get.

What campaign do you play in? Because the restrictions made a significant difference in NO-CP EU!

Specifically it did for you and some players. Tbh you said that you had no random loading screens ever since November, right? Well I had none since Elsweyr. That I suppose would mean that whatever they did in patch 5.0 resolved all problems and you must be imagining any issues with Greymoor? Something tells me not.

Please, do not assume that if something worked for you (or also just some friends you are playing with) that it also worked for everyone. Especially that, as someone stated, November caused probably the biggest playerbase drain last year.

And one more thing:

The game became much more playable, far from perfect of course, but greatly improved from the post U25 disaster.

Let's not forget that before update 25 cross group healing also worked.

That is why as a community I was hoping we could come together and discuss this, that is why I request what campaign people play in. The difference in the performance across campaigns is staggering. But people here are more concerned with preserving their particular play style, while we all suffer a completely broken game.

Let me ask you a question? What do we do if the upcoming test does nothing for performance? What if performance gets even worse now that we have re-enabled healing of allies? Where do we go from there? Will people still insist on preserving that, even if it clearly makes the game unplayable for the vast majority of people?

First of all over last few years I was playing both cp and no cp campaigns Europe so my experience is coming from that specifically when I say I personally had no bigger issues that I encountered myself over that time.

As for preserving playstyle. People signed up for this game partly because of it's mechanics and sad truth about MMORPG industry is that in it's whole history (over 20 years now) there was so far just one game in which some core mechanics were changed or altered and it had no actual impact on playerbase. In other cases it was always the easiest way to disaster so yes, while I can agree that performance and stability perhaps should and could be improved (even if I do not suffer problem there is always something that can be done better here) I also completely understand while such change caused back in November cause such outburst.

As for your questions sorry, I cannot speak for the whole community. I can only say for myself that I probably will get back to my healer or perhaps it is time to create new one. Also in your question you have quoted Brian Wheeler however you have possibly missed one other part of his post:

Our previous rounds of testing in Cyrodiil last year concluded with some interesting data that pointed us towards various avenues to explore for both future tests and long term solutions. However, those tests did not provide a definitive “This will fix all the things” solutions

Sounds like whatever was introduced in November is closer rather to workaround instead to a solution. And more importantly workaround that, based on what ZOS can apparently get from their data, workaround that just is just nevertheless not good enough for supposedly now playable Ravenwatch EU btw. No need to criticize their decision at this point since, as you know, we do not know if it's going to work or not. For sure I am against proc sets in Cyro, even despite I have 3 full sets on each of myc characters and that test will hit me by a lot.

Where have you been? Yes U25 was when they moved all processes server side, during the "year of performance" improvements. It was the same patch where they reduced the game size and everyone had to download it again. So yes, unless you believe they may revert it, though looking at the current test, they may have no choice, then it is irrelevant.

So we then need to move from there, to a functioning Cyro okay! Regardless of playstyle, performance should be the top priority! Do you agree? Should players wishes to spam radiating regen be more important than an actual game that works?There is no point in saying that healers want to play solo, or people expect certain mechanics yada yada, because right now. Nobody has any of that. The game doesn't work. It is completely unplayable!

Anyway, as I predicted, performance is even worse here on Ravenwatch EU. There are no procs, no champion points, only around a dozen sets that do nothing but alter a few base stats. But as long as the majority of spells are doing checks on a dozen or more players. The game is unplayable...

Are we still happy community that you can heal anyone?

VaranisArano

CP PC/NA, reading the disparity of people saying this latest test is great for performance and people saying its terrible for performance. I'd like to strongly encourage the Devs to make the decisions off their data, not anecdotes from players.

NeillMcAttack

VaranisArano wrote: »

CP PC/NA, reading the disparity of people saying this latest test is great for performance and people saying its terrible for performance. I'd like to strongly encourage the Devs to make the decisions off their data, not anecdotes from players.

Even if it means no healing outside your group?

Jaraal

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CP PC/NA, reading the disparity of people saying this latest test is great for performance and people saying its terrible for performance. I'd like to strongly encourage the Devs to make the decisions off their data, not anecdotes from players.

Even if it means no healing outside your group?

ZOS stated that the group only healing change had minimal effect on performance. False dichotomy.

NeillMcAttack

Jaraal wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CP PC/NA, reading the disparity of people saying this latest test is great for performance and people saying its terrible for performance. I'd like to strongly encourage the Devs to make the decisions off their data, not anecdotes from players.

Even if it means no healing outside your group?

ZOS stated that the group only healing change had minimal effect on performance. False dichotomy.

If it means these are the only sets that can be used from now on then?

VaranisArano

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CP PC/NA, reading the disparity of people saying this latest test is great for performance and people saying its terrible for performance. I'd like to strongly encourage the Devs to make the decisions off their data, not anecdotes from players.

Even if it means no healing outside your group?

Sure. But since the Devs who have the data have now said that group only heals had no appreciable impact on performance at least three times, I'm not overly concerned about that possibility.

Go peddle your "clearly the Devs are lying about it for marketing purposes" excuses to someone else. I've already heard it and no longer give it any credence.

Edit: to be clear, I will happily sacrifice a great deal from my playstyle if the data supports it. I am not going to happily sacrifice anything because of the anecdotes of "Me and everyone I play with" when its contrary to the stated results of the data. And I'm definitely not going to happily sacrifice one iota of anything over speculations that the data actually supports your anecdotes but the Devs are lying for marketing purposes. If your idea was actually true, the Devs wouldn't have to lie about it.

NeillMcAttack

VaranisArano wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CP PC/NA, reading the disparity of people saying this latest test is great for performance and people saying its terrible for performance. I'd like to strongly encourage the Devs to make the decisions off their data, not anecdotes from players.

Even if it means no healing outside your group?

Sure. But since the Devs who have the data have now said that group only heals had no appreciable impact on performance at least three times, I'm not overly concerned about that possibility.

Go peddle your "clearly the Devs are lying about it for marketing purposes" excuses to someone else. I've already heard it and no longer give it any credence.

Edit: to be clear, I will happily sacrifice a great deal from my playstyle if the data supports it. I am not going to happily sacrifice anything because of the anecdotes of "Me and everyone I play with" when its contrary to the stated results of the data. And I'm definitely not going to happily sacrifice one iota of anything over speculations that the data actually supports your anecdotes but the Devs are lying for marketing purposes. If your idea was actually true, the Devs wouldn't have to lie about it.

Did you ever figure out what behavioural changes they were aiming for? Did they ever mention them again?

Remember the block changes? They were just gonna introduce bracing and change how block functions server side to reduce de syncs! Do you believe that is all that was changed with U25 like they told us? That it would help performance? Forgive me for growing weary of the official statements. How you can believe every statement coming from a company that just wants your money even though they have a long history of bending the truth is bananas!

Have they ever shown us any actual data? Any graphs? Any evidence of traffic over certain time periods? Anything tangible?

VaranisArano

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CP PC/NA, reading the disparity of people saying this latest test is great for performance and people saying its terrible for performance. I'd like to strongly encourage the Devs to make the decisions off their data, not anecdotes from players.

Even if it means no healing outside your group?

Sure. But since the Devs who have the data have now said that group only heals had no appreciable impact on performance at least three times, I'm not overly concerned about that possibility.

Go peddle your "clearly the Devs are lying about it for marketing purposes" excuses to someone else. I've already heard it and no longer give it any credence.

Edit: to be clear, I will happily sacrifice a great deal from my playstyle if the data supports it. I am not going to happily sacrifice anything because of the anecdotes of "Me and everyone I play with" when its contrary to the stated results of the data. And I'm definitely not going to happily sacrifice one iota of anything over speculations that the data actually supports your anecdotes but the Devs are lying for marketing purposes. If your idea was actually true, the Devs wouldn't have to lie about it.

Did you ever figure out what behavioural changes they were aiming for? Did they ever mention them again?

Remember the block changes? They were just gonna introduce bracing and change how block functions server side to reduce de syncs! Do you believe that is all that was changed with U25 like they told us? That it would help performance? Forgive me for growing weary of the official statements. How you can believe every statement coming from a company that just wants your money even though they have a long history of bending the truth is bananas!

Have they ever shown us any actual data? Any graphs? Any evidence of traffic over certain time periods? Anything tangible?

Couldn't resist rehashing that old argument, could you? I shouldn't have bothered. You firmly believe the Devs are lying about their data in official statements. We disagree on that point. Deal with it.


My original point should be easy for you to agree with, I would think.

Whatever the data supports is what ZOS should be doing to improve performance. NOT the anecdotes of players, even when its "me and everyone I play with."

As I said, I'm looking at the players I see saying "performance this test is terrible" and the players I see saying "performance this test is better". Therefore, I strongly urge the Devs to act on their data rather than anecdotes. Whatever that data is. (Yes, even if it hurts my preferred playstyle.)

Because clearly, players have varying experiences. Duh. That much shouldn't be in question!


Do you agree that the Devs should act on their data to improve performance, not anecdotes?

alterfenixeb17_ESO

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Have they ever shown us any actual data? Any graphs? Any evidence of traffic over certain time periods? Anything tangible?

Why would they do that? Are you some product manager / product owner working for ZOS? If yes, then sure, it sucks you have no such data. Go and discuss topic with correct team during some retro (I am certain ZOS internally has some space for such discussions).
However if you are not any PM/PO working for ZOS then they have no actual reason to show it. You are not any decision making person, nobody on this forum is. Also what would be the point of showing it here if:

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

How you can believe every statement coming from a company that just wants your money even though they have a long history of bending the truth is bananas!

What if this data shows you are wrong? Obviously it would have to be false, right?:-)

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Did you ever figure out what behavioural changes they were aiming for? Did they ever mention them again?

Remember the block changes? They were just gonna introduce bracing and change how block functions server side to reduce de syncs! Do you believe that is all that was changed with U25 like they told us? That it would help performance? Forgive me for growing weary of the official statements.

In other post regarding Update 25 you seemed to be claiming whole patch was just 1 or 2 changes and in order to restore previous state it would surely take reverting whole patch. Here you seem to acknowledge that patches consist of multiple changes that are sometimes related to each other, some times not. Of some developer even does not indeed inform users (standard across whole software industry btw). Something tells me that you either have indeed no knowledge how it works or you just do not like the idea of those changes they are introducing.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Do you agree that the Devs should act on their data to improve performance, not anecdotes?

Anecdotes that btw from devs pov are coming from anonymous people. So no verification if those are true or not, no verification what where the circumstances and so on. Just subjective opinion on the matter which, while important, cannot be treated on pair with statistics coming from databases ZOS has surely access to. Players for sure have and should have big say if they like changes in gameplay (like is it more fun with or whiteout proc sets) but that would be it, sorry.

NeillMcAttack

Anecdotes!?! Rich Lambert himself describes precisely the scenarios that lead to massive instability, describing players running in groups with infinite resources, spamming AOE spells exclusively, leading to awful gameplay, precisely the kind of "gameplay" you have been trying to defend all this time Varanis.
You see, I believe that, because I am witness to it every week, playing on and off peak. Like I was witness to the improvements when cross healing was turned off. I'm not one to believe the PR department when they throw illogical statements like "behavioral changes", call me crazy!

VaranisArano wrote: »

Do you agree that the Devs should act on their data to improve performance, not anecdotes?

I've been asking you that for months now! The data from the previous tests showed that Limiting AOE spells led to huge performance improvements. 25% right, I was witness to that.
And obviously, if they are to act on the data, how can I not agree with that. All I want is for buttons to work in large fights... If they actually have the balls to make the big changes required. I will applaud them!! But I don't think you realize, that you will be a lot sadder than me if that ever happens. I just want a functioning game. You want a release version of ESO Cyro, that is not physically possible, with large groups and all the trimmings. Which I would love too, I'm just forced to think logically, and I'm mature enough to understand that it isn't going to happen.... ever! Either pick constant AOE spamming groups, or a functioning game, we can not have it both ways anymore. Or put lots of processes back on the clients....