Was server capacity reduced for no proc test?

CSose

Did ZOS reduce server capacity for the purposes of the no proc test?

I'm not understanding how reducing us to 18 sets and removing all those proc calculations could produce such an extremely negative impact on performance.

CSose

Does anyone know? Did they reduce server capacity and/or cyro population caps even further for the purposes of this test?

SshadowSscale

So you are telling me no one has noticed more people playing since the no proc test started?.... or? did just I notice it?.... I bet it has to do with cyrodil being near pop locked most of the time

CSose

SshadowSscale wrote: »

So you are telling me no one has noticed more people playing since the no proc test started?.... or? did just I notice it?.... I bet it has to do with cyrodil being near pop locked most of the time

I noticed the pop locked right away. All factions have been pop locked most of the time in the main campaign.

However, I did not notice that there were more people in cyrodiil. I just noticed that with what seems like an average number of players pop lock was achieved a lot quicker. Leading me to believe that the population cap for cyro was reduced yet again.

Also, back to my original question, how does it happen that removing all but 18 sets from cyro makes performance worse? (if they didn't reduce server capacity)

React

SshadowSscale wrote: »

So you are telling me no one has noticed more people playing since the no proc test started?.... or? did just I notice it?.... I bet it has to do with cyrodil being near pop locked most of the time

The theory is that the actual population indicators were reduced along with max capacity. So even if an average or below average number of players are in the campaigns, it would appear as if an above average number were active.

There is no way for us to test this, and only zenimax insight could prove it one way or the other. But I've spent like 5k hours in pvp, and my experience the last week in comparison has been that there are not nearly enough engagements, sieges, etc happening for the number of players the campaigns indicate they have. Could even be that the population indicators are just bugged, but it's odd and we have not yet gotten a comment on the matter.

paulsimonps

With double AP and lack of "toxic cancer" builds. I would say more players are in Cyrodiil than what would normally be the case. Its also worth noting that they brought back faction wide healing, which in combination with constant population locked instances, produces a lot of calculations for the servers, making us not notice really much change in performance at all, if not down right worse. I did feel like performance was better the first day of the testing but that was in the middle of the day and we were not pop locked. In giant zergs with AoE and "smart targeting" heals being thrown everywhere that quickly changed for the worse as we all know.

J18696

I've never experienced such a consistent feeling of never being able to find a fight while still being near pop locked since the game has launched

Aerenthir

I don't think there's anything they can do to fix lag, aside from moving all calculations to be client side, instead of server side like it was few years ago.

However they will hit the same problem there was then. Cheaters. Crap ton of them.

React

Aerenthir wrote: »

I don't think there's anything they can do to fix lag, aside from moving all calculations to be client side, instead of server side like it was few years ago.

However they will hit the same problem there was then. Cheaters. Crap ton of them.

There are a lot of people that believe the calculations that were moved server side are the main cause of the lag. I'd like to see them run a test where they move a ton of these back to the client to see what happens.

At the end of the day, what is worse: Cyrodiil being completley unplayable all the time for everyone because of the lag, or cheaters ruining the experience for small groups of people over short periods of time until they get banned?

I'd happily take 20 meteors in a row from some dude flying 30 meters above my head once a day if it meant I could go into cyrodiil and enjoy lag free pvp again.

CSose

Liam12548 wrote: »

Aerenthir wrote: »

I don't think there's anything they can do to fix lag, aside from moving all calculations to be client side, instead of server side like it was few years ago.

However they will hit the same problem there was then. Cheaters. Crap ton of them.

There are a lot of people that believe the calculations that were moved server side are the main cause of the lag. I'd like to see them run a test where they move a ton of these back to the client to see what happens.

At the end of the day, what is worse: Cyrodiil being completley unplayable all the time for everyone because of the lag, or cheaters ruining the experience for small groups of people over short periods of time until they get banned?

I'd happily take 20 meteors in a row from some dude flying 30 meters above my head once a day if it meant I could go into cyrodiil and enjoy lag free pvp again.

I agree. But, from ZOS perspective, that is time and money for someone to police the cheaters.

Aerenthir

I agree. But, from ZOS perspective, that is time and money for someone to police the cheaters.

Exactly this. They won't carry if we suffer from flying dudes dropping meteors ( Which if it happens to me btw i'd be amazed, not even mad ) but they need to have people dedicated to deal with those cheaters.

Anyone that has used Zos support has seen the abysmal respond times they have. Now imagine if they have to deal with cheaters ...

actosh

Just give cyro the imperial city treatment.
Slice it into 4 to 8 zones.

Won't happen and they also won't recode stuff. We can just hope 1 day the kill cyro and come up with something else to replace it.

BTW, loved cyro pvp on release (performance wise). Got worse with each patch and each "let's move all of this to the server cause we have no reliable cheat protection".

Put more stuff back on client and hand out hardware bans to cheaters which manipulate client-side stored stuff.

Servers clearly can't handle the positioning, the dumb block change and various other stuff. Put it back to client-side.

Even new servers won't fix this. If the coding asks for to many checks no server will ever handle it. Clean that mess up pls.

Oakenaxe

Papa Bill could invest on some expensive best-tech servers for ZOS now that Microsoft owns them. I'll ask him.

React

actosh wrote: »

Just give cyro the imperial city treatment.
Slice it into 4 to 8 zones.

Won't happen and they also won't recode stuff. We can just hope 1 day the kill cyro and come up with something else to replace it.

BTW, loved cyro pvp on release (performance wise). Got worse with each patch and each "let's move all of this to the server cause we have no reliable cheat protection".

Put more stuff back on client and hand out hardware bans to cheaters which manipulate client-side stored stuff.

Servers clearly can't handle the positioning, the dumb block change and various other stuff. Put it back to client-side.

Even new servers won't fix this. If the coding asks for to many checks no server will ever handle it. Clean that mess up pls.

Yeah, at this point I think the most realistic solution would be for them to just turn cyrodiil into a pvm zone and introduce a new format for pvp. I've loved cyrodiil since launch too, but it's been way too long since pvp was actually playable and enjoyable in there. If they won't do what is necessary to fix the issues, they should pursue an alternate solution.

virtus753

Oakenaxe wrote: »

Papa Bill could invest on some expensive best-tech servers for ZOS now that Microsoft owns them. I'll ask him.

The deal was only approved by EU regulators today (March 5). Just because two companies agree on a buyout doesn’t mean one owns the other just yet.

Then there’s the fact that MS has said everything will be run the same as before, and ZOS has said they’re replacing the servers this year but expect no performance increases as a result.

Not looking good for the hardware angle.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

They re-enabled cross healing and took away a lot of faction stack counterplay so thats why the game lags more now.
@CSose

CSose

virtus753 wrote: »

Oakenaxe wrote: »

Papa Bill could invest on some expensive best-tech servers for ZOS now that Microsoft owns them. I'll ask him.

The deal was only approved by EU regulators today (March 5). Just because two companies agree on a buyout doesn’t mean one owns the other just yet.

Then there’s the fact that MS has said everything will be run the same as before, and ZOS has said they’re replacing the servers this year but expect no performance increases as a result.

Not looking good for the hardware angle.

I think we just figured out what they meant by "replacing the servers this year but expect no performance increases as a result."

Now they sticking us with a mere 18 sets for the duration rather than fixing their own mistakes.

QuebraRegra

CSose wrote: »

Liam12548 wrote: »

Aerenthir wrote: »

I don't think there's anything they can do to fix lag, aside from moving all calculations to be client side, instead of server side like it was few years ago.

However they will hit the same problem there was then. Cheaters. Crap ton of them.

There are a lot of people that believe the calculations that were moved server side are the main cause of the lag. I'd like to see them run a test where they move a ton of these back to the client to see what happens.

At the end of the day, what is worse: Cyrodiil being completley unplayable all the time for everyone because of the lag, or cheaters ruining the experience for small groups of people over short periods of time until they get banned?

I'd happily take 20 meteors in a row from some dude flying 30 meters above my head once a day if it meant I could go into cyrodiil and enjoy lag free pvp again.

I agree. But, from ZOS perspective, that is time and money for someone to police the cheaters.

aint even gonna lie, I think it would be a lot of effort to forge packets and try and cheat if the changes to client server were reverted. I don't think they would have to employ anyone to catch cheaters, ultimately metrics over time would be telling.

i think a total re-work of the code from TCP to UDP (suing RTP and application layer confirm where needed) would be the greatest improvement in performance.

QuebraRegra

actosh wrote: »

Just give cyro the imperial city treatment.
Slice it into 4 to 8 zones.

Won't happen and they also won't recode stuff. We can just hope 1 day the kill cyro and come up with something else to replace it.

BTW, loved cyro pvp on release (performance wise). Got worse with each patch and each "let's move all of this to the server cause we have no reliable cheat protection".

Put more stuff back on client and hand out hardware bans to cheaters which manipulate client-side stored stuff.

Servers clearly can't handle the positioning, the dumb block change and various other stuff. Put it back to client-side.

Even new servers won't fix this. If the coding asks for to many checks no server will ever handle it. Clean that mess up pls.

I'm applauding you right now.

QuebraRegra

virtus753 wrote: »

Oakenaxe wrote: »

Papa Bill could invest on some expensive best-tech servers for ZOS now that Microsoft owns them. I'll ask him.

The deal was only approved by EU regulators today (March 5). Just because two companies agree on a buyout doesn’t mean one owns the other just yet.

Then there’s the fact that MS has said everything will be run the same as before, and ZOS has said they’re replacing the servers this year but expect no performance increases as a result.

Not looking good for the hardware angle.

that bloody, "were replacing the server hardware... No improvement expected"... WTF ZOS? They get a deal on some TSR-80's?

Seriously, shouldn't we expect some perf improvements on newer hardware 9particualrly as the server side seems to be the issue)? perhaps it's time to improve on the hacked up HERO engine, no?

inB4 '"ESO doesn't run on the HERO engine"

CSose

QuebraRegra wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

Oakenaxe wrote: »

Papa Bill could invest on some expensive best-tech servers for ZOS now that Microsoft owns them. I'll ask him.

The deal was only approved by EU regulators today (March 5). Just because two companies agree on a buyout doesn’t mean one owns the other just yet.

Then there’s the fact that MS has said everything will be run the same as before, and ZOS has said they’re replacing the servers this year but expect no performance increases as a result.

Not looking good for the hardware angle.

that bloody, "were replacing the server hardware... No improvement expected"... WTF ZOS? They get a deal on some TSR-80's?

Seriously, shouldn't we expect some perf improvements on newer hardware 9particualrly as the server side seems to be the issue)? perhaps it's time to improve on the hacked up HERO engine, no?

inB4 '"ESO doesn't run on the HERO engine"

Exactly.