Next week performance test : turn off cross healing again

Jaraal

Aerenthir wrote: »

sunandstars77 wrote: »

I'm no tech expert. But i have played other MMO's. Where factions in key battles on the PvP map were using some software to locally cause lag to change the outcome of a fight in their favor. I don't know if this was true or even possible. Maybe someone can say if something like that is even possible.

That has happened in WoW but it was in order to prevent another guild from their raid progress. Won't work if you also want to raid. Aka in this case if they lag the battle, they will lag themselves.

Not happening.

Thinking that organized groups in Cyrodiil don't use lag manipulation as part of their strategy would be quite naive.

erio

VaranisArano wrote: »

erio wrote: »

Sanctum74 wrote: »

erio wrote: »

The no healing test should of been the control. We see performance before and right after. Now youve switched another variable

All of the other tests were done with healing except for the no cross healing test so no they did not switch another variable, they returned it to default so they can test procs separately. Pretty straight forward way of testing.

Unless you want to go through all of the aoe and skill cool down tests all over again with no healing?

They should of kept it off. now im trying to remember weeks back to when there was healing and I cant. How am I supposed to really tell the difference?

You aren't going to remember. Do you really remember the details of your own performance back to Greymoor before the testing started? How about before Harrowstorm when stuff got moved server-side for Stadia? Did you keep notes about your performance during all past tests to compare? I don't have a perfect memory of it myself! Just a general perception that "Things sure haven't gotten better."

Look, I get it. It's really tempting to think that we are tester and evaluator both. That our experience is what matters most during these tests. So if we can't test a specific variable right now, it doesn't feel right.

Thing is, we as individuals are not tester and evaluator, both. For one thing, the varying experiences people have had with performance from this test and indeed every other test should make that clear. Also, you know, I'm not getting paid to keep detailed notes on my performance issues over the testing, just getting double AP to play. Instead, ZOS is looking at their data, aggregated from the whole playerbase that participates in the tests - and they don't need to "remember". They still have their old data they can directly compare.

In that sense, whether or not you and I "remember" really doesn't matter. Even if we took detailed notes, individual experiences don't mean that much in the grand scheme of things. ZOS should be making their decisions based on their current and saved data from the whole of the playerbase during testing.

And if we want to be really sticklers about "variables", then ZOS should have exempted Cyrodiil from all base game updates since the testing started. That didn't happen because ZOS isn't running a clinical experiment. They are trying to test stuff on a Live server while still keeping the game moving and balancing their need to test certain variables against the knowledge that their playerbase doesn't necessarily have unlimited patience for testing. It's messier than, say, lab testing, but not necessarily inaccurate for ZOS' purposes.


Side note: I don't remember all this hand-wringing about variables when ZOS announced they were changing two things, reducing group size and eliminating cross-heals for "behavioral reasons" rather than performance, but now that they've brought back cross heals, suddenly it's all "You can't change two things, ZOS, how will we know what made the difference in performance?!"

My experience is what matters most. Im paying 15$ a month for a broken game. I want to see the results, and I want to judge my decision of if the game is going to get better or not/worth paying money for on that. I am the tester and I am going to be the evaluator when I make my decision. A forum post here and a forum post there dont count as reliable experiences. If zos just left healing off, thered be an ez comparison. How was it a week ago/how was it now. No potential changes to the game inbetween, no notes required . Im sure ZOS knows what theyre doing, theyve proven that time and time again clearly. But of course, who are we, the players, to have a say in what goes on in the game?

I literally just said like 2 sentence about how they should of left it off, and youre being quite snarky

Yasha

The removal of cross healing was a terrible move and should never be done again.

Jaraal

I get the feeling that the proc haters are dismayed by the fact that their removal didn't improve anything performance wise, and are looking for another scapegoat (cross healing) to blame. And ZOS has painted themselves into a corner now, because unless they un-revert the heals change procs will continue to take the blame because of the double variable.

Dunning_Kruger

Jaraal wrote: »

I get the feeling that the proc haters are dismayed by the fact that their removal didn't improve anything performance wise, and are looking for another scapegoat (cross healing) to blame. And ZOS has painted themselves into a corner now, because unless they un-revert the heals change procs will continue to take the blame because of the double variable.

It’s not a scape goat. It’s kind of an easy conclusion to arrive at. Lag is somehow worse then prior to the test when proc calculations were all removed. But one calculation was re introduced.

VaranisArano

erio wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

erio wrote: »

Sanctum74 wrote: »

erio wrote: »

The no healing test should of been the control. We see performance before and right after. Now youve switched another variable

All of the other tests were done with healing except for the no cross healing test so no they did not switch another variable, they returned it to default so they can test procs separately. Pretty straight forward way of testing.

Unless you want to go through all of the aoe and skill cool down tests all over again with no healing?

They should of kept it off. now im trying to remember weeks back to when there was healing and I cant. How am I supposed to really tell the difference?

You aren't going to remember. Do you really remember the details of your own performance back to Greymoor before the testing started? How about before Harrowstorm when stuff got moved server-side for Stadia? Did you keep notes about your performance during all past tests to compare? I don't have a perfect memory of it myself! Just a general perception that "Things sure haven't gotten better."

Look, I get it. It's really tempting to think that we are tester and evaluator both. That our experience is what matters most during these tests. So if we can't test a specific variable right now, it doesn't feel right.

Thing is, we as individuals are not tester and evaluator, both. For one thing, the varying experiences people have had with performance from this test and indeed every other test should make that clear. Also, you know, I'm not getting paid to keep detailed notes on my performance issues over the testing, just getting double AP to play. Instead, ZOS is looking at their data, aggregated from the whole playerbase that participates in the tests - and they don't need to "remember". They still have their old data they can directly compare.

In that sense, whether or not you and I "remember" really doesn't matter. Even if we took detailed notes, individual experiences don't mean that much in the grand scheme of things. ZOS should be making their decisions based on their current and saved data from the whole of the playerbase during testing.

And if we want to be really sticklers about "variables", then ZOS should have exempted Cyrodiil from all base game updates since the testing started. That didn't happen because ZOS isn't running a clinical experiment. They are trying to test stuff on a Live server while still keeping the game moving and balancing their need to test certain variables against the knowledge that their playerbase doesn't necessarily have unlimited patience for testing. It's messier than, say, lab testing, but not necessarily inaccurate for ZOS' purposes.


Side note: I don't remember all this hand-wringing about variables when ZOS announced they were changing two things, reducing group size and eliminating cross-heals for "behavioral reasons" rather than performance, but now that they've brought back cross heals, suddenly it's all "You can't change two things, ZOS, how will we know what made the difference in performance?!"

My experience is what matters most. Im paying 15$ a month for a broken game. I want to see the results, and I want to judge my decision of if the game is going to get better or not/worth paying money for on that. I am the tester and I am going to be the evaluator when I make my decision. A forum post here and a forum post there dont count as reliable experiences. If zos just left healing off, thered be an ez comparison. How was it a week ago/how was it now. No potential changes to the game inbetween, no notes required . Im sure ZOS knows what theyre doing, theyve proven that time and time again clearly. But of course, who are we, the players, to have a say in what goes on in the game?

I literally just said like 2 sentence about how they should of left it off, and youre being quite snarky

My broader point was that while testing the single variable of cross-heals might be beneficial for players who don't remember in detail what performance was like prior to the cross heals/group size change, ZOS' data sets for comparison go back a lot farther, encompass a lot more variables than just cross-heals, and are a lot more accurate that your or my recollection.

In short, while players might like it, these tests really aren't set up for single-variable tests. That doesn't mean they aren't useful and accurate data seta from ZOS' perspective, but it does make it harder for players who only have our own limited perspective to pinpoint something that made a difference.


And if I'm too snarky on the handwringing over multiple variables, I'm sorry. I teach middle school science, and so if I were grading ZOS on purely experimental parameters, we'd have had a discussion about the many, many variables at work in these tests a long time ago! On the other hand, ZOS isn't one of my students, and they aren't running a classic science experiment. They are running tests in a manner much closer to observational studies, which fits with the whole fact that they've got to keep the game moving forward - they can't just hit "pause" on base game updates in Cyrodiil. However, as with most observational studies, it runs the risk of conflating correlation with causation. Since there's so much going on in Cyrodiil, it's much harder for players and even for the Devs to work out the impact of individual elements in their experiences/the data.

It's not an ideal testing method, perhaps, but not everything can be tested in a series of single-variable trials.

You aren't the only player to point out the multiple variable problem with cross-heals coming back alongside proc sets. I just find it funny that no one seemed to care about the multitude of variables prior to this test. Maybe this isn't true for you, but it's certainly enough to make me suspicious that some folks don't really care about single-variable experimental design so much as they really don't want to accept ZOS' assurance that cross-heals didn't make an appreciable difference in performance.

Sarousse

Dunning_Kruger wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

I get the feeling that the proc haters are dismayed by the fact that their removal didn't improve anything performance wise, and are looking for another scapegoat (cross healing) to blame. And ZOS has painted themselves into a corner now, because unless they un-revert the heals change procs will continue to take the blame because of the double variable.

It’s not a scape goat. It’s kind of an easy conclusion to arrive at. Lag is somehow worse then prior to the test when proc calculations were all removed. But one calculation was re introduced.

Thanks sir, it's simple as that. Nothing to do with the fact that I like cross healing or not.

Araneae6537

If my skills were to again not heal allies like they’re supposed to, but only my little group, there should be a large boost in their efficacy or something to compensate.

But crippling healing did NOT help lag, and it just sucks.

Disabling procs may not help lag; some prefer the gameplay style without them. Personally, my preference would be to just rework the ridiculous ones that were introduced this year, if their complete removal doesn’t improve performance overall.

Leslik

Slightly off topic. Now that we have the collections feature and have started to try to complete the sets we find most useful I'm now aware of just how many sets are in the game.

Between weapons, armor, and jewelry there are nearly 7000 items, and new ones are added to every patch. Is that sustainable? I know they won't all be in use but who can say just how diverse all our builds are? We don't all run the same cheesy meta after each release

dcam86b14_ESO

Leslik wrote: »

Slightly off topic. Now that we have the collections feature and have started to try to complete the sets we find most useful I'm now aware of just how many sets are in the game.

Between weapons, armor, and jewelry there are nearly 7000 items, and new ones are added to every patch. Is that sustainable? I know they won't all be in use but who can say just how diverse all our builds are? We don't all run the same cheesy meta after each release

The thing is though 90% of the sets in-game are garbage. Most have a counterpart that outperforms. So a quick fix would be for ZOS to buff older sets or just take them out of the game completely.

So while newer players will run around wearing what they want, the PvE veterans / PVP base takes their pointers from top players and streamers. Not running meta is fine if you're a solo player or have no need for guilds. However if you want to have a foot up on someone, you will in some way lean to the meta.

Araneae6537

Another thing, stop calling it “cross-healing” — what does that even mean??? The skill description says that I’m healing my allies so I guess cross-healing would be healing across faction, healing my non-allies.

You’re wanting to see a particular ability severely nerfed and should call it such instead of using terms that imply the skill is not working as intended.

Jaraal

Araneae6537 wrote: »

Another thing, stop calling it “cross-healing” — what does that even mean???

"Out of group healing" might be more concise.

Kartalin

The fundamental problem with turning off cross healing is that this is what allowed multiple people to be able to synergize the same synergy. (consider 3 opponents hitting the same gravity crush at the same time) Also it broke orbs in pvp. At this point I think I'd rather have a synergy hit only once, have working orbs, and have cross healing rather than the alternative.

If they can actually fix one thing without breaking the other, then I'd be fine with turning cross healing off again.