So Cyrodiil "performance" was worse during the test and you keep it ?

DjinnAeternam

It seems clear that ZoS was not testing performance at all, rather the viability of the PvP scene after kicking a part of the community out of the game.

As the performance of Cyrodiil got incredibly worse during the test, why would anyone consider keeping it like this?

While trying to address the unbalance ZoS created by changing damage proc sets and adding malacath to it, they ended deleting a big chunk of game sets that had nothing to do with damage or the previous meta we all know.

Procs or no-Procs, the reality is that even sets like Seducer, Magnus, Hircine, Worms, Sanctuary, Ebon, Powerfull Assault, Transmutation (list goes on, you get the point) got deleted, sets that groups or coordinated players used to play.

Having a so short list of sets to use for PvP doesn't stop a coordinated group from running at all, groups and good players can adapt and still have advantages of being coordinated, but this does create another issue, theorycrafting is non-existent, everyone plays the same or similar build regarding classes/roles (similar to proc meta), and the creativity of being able to use whole sets of the game is denied.

Just to be clear, i'm not advocating for previous meta, i also believe game needs balance (not just sets btw, classes also, as we still can see now) just that one more time it seems that instead of changing and fixing the game, ZoS is just changing it's player base and moving on from that, showing a lack of consideration and respect for a large part of its player base, and catering only to the casual player, not listening to the elite/vet/end-game players.

We all want balance and fair PvP, but performance is way more important. Making a decision of removing outside group heals and proc-sets because of performance, seeing the result of really bad performance and lag issues that we all verified and then implementing it for months with the excuse that you heard players is not true at all.

The same "Players" warned you about the meta if you add malacath and proc-sets like you did, still you did it anyway, they made the effort of adapting (one more time) to the test and kept playing even under really bad performance, so you could have numbers to justify your actions, hoping to help and be constructive about it.

Instead you act like you don't even read player feedback at all, nor you read the data properly, just used it for another objective.

This seems just another of those bad decisions we all see this company making, over and over and over...

AuraNebula

I agree this was a lazy fix to pacify a select group of people who come to the forums to whine every time they die. I rarely come here and did not during the tests because I assumed that this would never go through. With the amount of people on here now it is apparent that the majority of the playerbase does not want this change.

Only the people who have been crying the loudest of the forums are getting what they want. A pvp area with no build diversity. Instead of waiting to fix the sets that are overperforming they remove basically every single set from the game, and no not everyone is wearing the same 3 sets, so you can go away with that argument.

We might as well run around naked with only our fists and skills because people can't accept the fact that someone is better than them. They can't accept the fact that as a solo player you are not going to kill a zerg or a ballgroup on your own. If you want to X then go fight other x'ers. If you want to duel only then go duel in the capitals like everyone else.

Or better yet make them their own cyrodiil with those 19 sets and they can go in there and pvp to their hearts content.

CSose

DjinnAeternam wrote: »

It seems clear that ZoS was not testing performance at all, rather the viability of the PvP scene after kicking a part of the community out of the game.

As the performance of Cyrodiil got incredibly worse during the test, why would anyone consider keeping it like this?

While trying to address the unbalance ZoS created by changing damage proc sets and adding malacath to it, they ended deleting a big chunk of game sets that had nothing to do with damage or the previous meta we all know.

Procs or no-Procs, the reality is that even sets like Seducer, Magnus, Hircine, Worms, Sanctuary, Ebon, Powerfull Assault, Transmutation (list goes on, you get the point) got deleted, sets that groups or coordinated players used to play.

Having a so short list of sets to use for PvP doesn't stop a coordinated group from running at all, groups and good players can adapt and still have advantages of being coordinated, but this does create another issue, theorycrafting is non-existent, everyone plays the same or similar build regarding classes/roles (similar to proc meta), and the creativity of being able to use whole sets of the game is denied.

Just to be clear, i'm not advocating for previous meta, i also believe game needs balance (not just sets btw, classes also, as we still can see now) just that one more time it seems that instead of changing and fixing the game, ZoS is just changing it's player base and moving on from that, showing a lack of consideration and respect for a large part of its player base, and catering only to the casual player, not listening to the elite/vet/end-game players.

We all want balance and fair PvP, but performance is way more important. Making a decision of removing outside group heals and proc-sets because of performance, seeing the result of really bad performance and lag issues that we all verified and then implementing it for months with the excuse that you heard players is not true at all.

The same "Players" warned you about the meta if you add malacath and proc-sets like you did, still you did it anyway, they made the effort of adapting (one more time) to the test and kept playing even under really bad performance, so you could have numbers to justify your actions, hoping to help and be constructive about it.

Instead you act like you don't even read player feedback at all, nor you read the data properly, just used it for another objective.

This seems just another of those bad decisions we all see this company making, over and over and over...

I'm convinced they reduced server capacity and costs. That is why they sticking with set restrictions. The game still runs with a reduced investment this way.

gatekeeper13

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

to pacify a select group of people who come to the forums to whine every time they die.....Only the people who have been crying the loudest of the forums are getting what they want....We might as well run around naked with only our fists and skills because people can't accept the fact that someone is better than them.

The only people I see whining day and night are those who die after proc-sets were removed.

LightYagami

Not sure which server you're playing. I play PCNA Gray Host almost everyday and I honestly found the performance slightly improved, but only slightly.

AuraNebula

gatekeeper13 wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

to pacify a select group of people who come to the forums to whine every time they die.....Only the people who have been crying the loudest of the forums are getting what they want....We might as well run around naked with only our fists and skills because people can't accept the fact that someone is better than them.

The only people I see whining day and night are those who die after proc-sets were removed.

No the no proc posts have been around for months. Biased.

danno8

They said performance was slightly worse due to it being busier.

I believe the OP is misrepresenting what they said by calling it "incredibly worse" due to proc sets.

DjinnAeternam

danno8 wrote: »

They said performance was slightly worse due to it being busier.

I believe the OP is misrepresenting what they said by calling it "incredibly worse" due to proc sets.

I was there and played, and also got feedback from various guilds, from PvErs to PVPers (Soloers/smalscale) and PVPers (coordinated group orientated players).

I am not misrepresenting it, it was/is really worse, and i do refer to the test with no-proc sets. I also suspect ZoS toned back server capacity.

Anyway if it's worse, why continue doing the same?

DjinnAeternam

gatekeeper13 wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

to pacify a select group of people who come to the forums to whine every time they die.....Only the people who have been crying the loudest of the forums are getting what they want....We might as well run around naked with only our fists and skills because people can't accept the fact that someone is better than them.

The only people I see whining day and night are those who die after proc-sets were removed.

Played years Solo/1vX with no proc-set fiesta, even before the 1st procset fest, am still able to pvp fairly good and don't need proc+mala to have fun, just miss the support sets and some other "general" sets that have nothing to do with damage, doesn't make sense at all deleting all the "server loading sets" as a shortcut for not having to deal with game issues.

YandereGirlfriend

gatekeeper13 wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

to pacify a select group of people who come to the forums to whine every time they die.....Only the people who have been crying the loudest of the forums are getting what they want....We might as well run around naked with only our fists and skills because people can't accept the fact that someone is better than them.

The only people I see whining day and night are those who die after proc-sets were removed.

Or anyone who enjoys theorycrafting or build diversity. Nice try with the straw-man argument though.

DjinnAeternam

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

gatekeeper13 wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

to pacify a select group of people who come to the forums to whine every time they die.....Only the people who have been crying the loudest of the forums are getting what they want....We might as well run around naked with only our fists and skills because people can't accept the fact that someone is better than them.

The only people I see whining day and night are those who die after proc-sets were removed.

Or anyone who enjoys theorycrafting or build diversity. Nice try with the straw-man argument though.

Completely agree.

Wolfpaw

The removal of proc sets didn't increase performance, but it sure isn't the reason performance got worse. We have no idea what ZOS is running in the background during these tests.

A few perks for a no "proc" sets in Cyrodiil,

1. Better/manageable long-term class combat balance with a limited choice of sets to use in PvP.
2. Increased Skill>Proc/gear combat.
3. ZOS could grow the "PvP" set list by releasing balanced no-proc/PvP sets with content updates.
4. Less time "farming" in PvE land fluff, & more time for PvP.

I hope this stays, & ZOS finally begins to slowly find additional ways to distance PvP from PvE.

DjinnAeternam

LightYagami wrote: »

Not sure which server you're playing. I play PCNA Gray Host almost everyday and I honestly found the performance slightly improved, but only slightly.

PC EU (No-CP).

J18696

The reason it was worse is because they removed the counters to large groups of people VD and gave groups a reward for stacking aka Cross healing creating massive balls that never spread out creating more lag the "increase" in population they are talking about is just people sucking dry double ap

YandereGirlfriend

J18696 wrote: »

The reason it was worse is because they removed the counters to large groups of people VD and gave groups a reward for stacking aka Cross healing creating massive balls that never spread out creating more lag the "increase" in population they are talking about is just people sucking dry double ap

Indeed, faction-stacking will be the way of the future. Everyone healing everyone again and may the largest stack win.

Ratzkifal

I get that a lot of people don't like missing out on their conditional stat based sets, like Eternal Vigor or New Moon Acolyte, but I don't know anyone who is seriously missing all the actual proc crutch sets people were running unless they were using them themselves and were relying on them.

Also the performance got worse because the PvP population actually increased meaning that this was actually a popular change that made PvP more fun. So there goes the argument of it being just to please a minority.

Pepegrillos

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Also the performance got worse because the PvP population actually increased meaning that this was actually a popular change that made PvP more fun. So there goes the argument of it being just to please a minority.

The fact that the population increased doesn't entail it was a popular change.

First, we don't know how big of an increase it was (2%? 5%? Considering how bars have looked, I would be surprised if the increase was above that).

Second, even if there was a population increase, we don't know what lured people in.

How many of those playing were there because (a) they loved the change, (b) had no opinion about the change but wanted to try it out, or just were (c) interested in double ap? I'm pretty sure we can add more variables to explain why people were in cyro during the test (people that are pissed about the shoddy performance and want to colaborate with the test maybe?) Some people were in there only because of (a) and (c), others for (b) only, and so on, multiple possibilities. And we can't know that because Zos never asked.

Finally, even if we assume that the population increased, and that it increased because a substantial number of people loved the changes, that doesn't entail that the appropriate move is to extend the current test ruleset for 7 months!

Ratzkifal

Pepegrillos wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Also the performance got worse because the PvP population actually increased meaning that this was actually a popular change that made PvP more fun. So there goes the argument of it being just to please a minority.

The fact that the population increased doesn't entail it was a popular change.

First, we don't know how big of an increase it was (2%? 5%? Considering how bars have looked, I would be surprised if the increase was above that).

Second, even if there was a population increase, we don't know what lured people in.

How many of those playing were there because (a) they loved the change, (b) had no opinion about the change but wanted to try it out, or just were interested in (c) double ap? I'm pretty sure we can add more variables to explain why people were in cyro during the test (people that are pissed about the shoddy performance and want to colaborate with the test maybe?) Some people were in there only because of (a) and (b), others for (c) only, and so on, multiple possibilities. And we can't know that because Zos never asked.

Finally, even if we assume that the population increased, and that it increased because a substantial number of people loved the changes, that doesn't entail that the appropriate move is to extend the current test ruleset for 7 months!

From a developer standpoint "being interested in" and "liking" is the same. Generating interest is literally all a company cares about. It doesn't matter if the player retention is low as long as enough interest is generated to attract new players.
As for the double AP, that is what we will find out soon when the double AP goes away but the change stays.

ZOS is in a much better position to judge how this change was received though as they can compare it directly to the numbers during the other tests. Due to the nature of Cyrodiil and its cap, I'd say they measured popularity by maximum queue length during prime time and the duration the factions spent at maximum capacity. If both of these went up consistently for more than a week, then ZOS can safely say that the change (or double AP) was well-received. In addition to the positive feedback from players (which there was), it's unlikely that the cause was the double AP.

I also think 7 months is a bit drastic, especially since a lot of sets are included which aren't overtuned. But to me it sounded like they will be opening a no-proc campaign (or rather a proc-enabled campaign) soon. Let's hope "soon" TM doesn't mean in 7 months.

J18696

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Pepegrillos wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Also the performance got worse because the PvP population actually increased meaning that this was actually a popular change that made PvP more fun. So there goes the argument of it being just to please a minority.

The fact that the population increased doesn't entail it was a popular change.

First, we don't know how big of an increase it was (2%? 5%? Considering how bars have looked, I would be surprised if the increase was above that).

Second, even if there was a population increase, we don't know what lured people in.

How many of those playing were there because (a) they loved the change, (b) had no opinion about the change but wanted to try it out, or just were interested in (c) double ap? I'm pretty sure we can add more variables to explain why people were in cyro during the test (people that are pissed about the shoddy performance and want to colaborate with the test maybe?) Some people were in there only because of (a) and (b), others for (c) only, and so on, multiple possibilities. And we can't know that because Zos never asked.

Finally, even if we assume that the population increased, and that it increased because a substantial number of people loved the changes, that doesn't entail that the appropriate move is to extend the current test ruleset for 7 months!

From a developer standpoint "being interested in" and "liking" is the same. Generating interest is literally all a company cares about. It doesn't matter if the player retention is low as long as enough interest is generated to attract new players.
As for the double AP, that is what we will find out soon when the double AP goes away but the change stays.

ZOS is in a much better position to judge how this change was received though as they can compare it directly to the numbers during the other tests. Due to the nature of Cyrodiil and its cap, I'd say they measured popularity by maximum queue length during prime time and the duration the factions spent at maximum capacity. If both of these went up consistently for more than a week, then ZOS can safely say that the change (or double AP) was well-received. In addition to the positive feedback from players (which there was), it's unlikely that the cause was the double AP.

I also think 7 months is a bit drastic, especially since a lot of sets are included which aren't overtuned. But to me it sounded like they will be opening a no-proc campaign (or rather a proc-enabled campaign) soon. Let's hope "soon" TM doesn't mean in 7 months.

i think its more reasonable to open a no proc camp rather than a proc camp considering we have been playing in that environment for years already not to bash no proc to much but its incredibly boring to play in after the first week and honestly for me made performance noticeably worse in large fights

Redguards_Revenge

Well, yes, with the procs out of the way, we can narrow down the problem. Now they have 6 Mo of data to gaather and find the true problem. Procs did bog down gameplay but there is something fundamentally wrong. What that is is somewhat unknown still.

YandereGirlfriend

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Pepegrillos wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Also the performance got worse because the PvP population actually increased meaning that this was actually a popular change that made PvP more fun. So there goes the argument of it being just to please a minority.

The fact that the population increased doesn't entail it was a popular change.

First, we don't know how big of an increase it was (2%? 5%? Considering how bars have looked, I would be surprised if the increase was above that).

Second, even if there was a population increase, we don't know what lured people in.

How many of those playing were there because (a) they loved the change, (b) had no opinion about the change but wanted to try it out, or just were interested in (c) double ap? I'm pretty sure we can add more variables to explain why people were in cyro during the test (people that are pissed about the shoddy performance and want to colaborate with the test maybe?) Some people were in there only because of (a) and (b), others for (c) only, and so on, multiple possibilities. And we can't know that because Zos never asked.

Finally, even if we assume that the population increased, and that it increased because a substantial number of people loved the changes, that doesn't entail that the appropriate move is to extend the current test ruleset for 7 months!

From a developer standpoint "being interested in" and "liking" is the same. Generating interest is literally all a company cares about. It doesn't matter if the player retention is low as long as enough interest is generated to attract new players.
As for the double AP, that is what we will find out soon when the double AP goes away but the change stays.

ZOS is in a much better position to judge how this change was received though as they can compare it directly to the numbers during the other tests. Due to the nature of Cyrodiil and its cap, I'd say they measured popularity by maximum queue length during prime time and the duration the factions spent at maximum capacity. If both of these went up consistently for more than a week, then ZOS can safely say that the change (or double AP) was well-received. In addition to the positive feedback from players (which there was), it's unlikely that the cause was the double AP.

I also think 7 months is a bit drastic, especially since a lot of sets are included which aren't overtuned. But to me it sounded like they will be opening a no-proc campaign (or rather a proc-enabled campaign) soon. Let's hope "soon" TM doesn't mean in 7 months.

The far simpler solution would have been to open a Non-Proc campaign (with the current overly restrictive definition of "proc") while allowing the previously existing campaigns to revert back to normal. Then they could have worked on re-coding the various benign "proc" sets and gradually bring them back online in the new Non-Proc campaign.

Nobody would have lost anything in that situation and it's not like creating or removing campaigns is particularly difficult for ZOS given that they do it every Midyear Mayhem and it was only some months ago that they decided to liquidat the Alliance-locked Non-CP campaign.

If they are still investigating performance then... they are now free to look elsewhere, as the Non-Proc test proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that procs have little-to-nothing to do with actual Cyrodiil performance. They should perhaps get their own house in order engine-wise and begin cleaning up some of their other spaghetti code.

Lastly, I don't play in the CP campaigns but I can at least report that Ravenwatch was not pop-locked tonight (...a Saturday night in prime time) when I checked. I didn't look during the week but I haven't heard any tales of dreadful pop-locked queue times either. So again, I'm not truly sure where this narrative of sky-high population is coming from, unless it's from CP or some other variable was changed such as max server population.

Zurbis

Imagine your automatic car gearbox broken. You go to dealership and they give you an option drive only on low speed low gear only. And you say thank you, you fixed my car, it's driving again 😀.That's how part of community feels now. They happy they can show "skill" now. But they can use "skill" all the time, even more "skill" against proc. Problem that they don't have enough "skill" against proc😁

Norith_Gilheart_Flail

A not even remotely relevant analogy.

Outside of a direct ability used, CP, and your balance between defense and offense there is zero justification for procs in PvP as legitimate gameplay.

People are just upset their cheap tricks builds have been sidelined. No one likes being told to get good, so instead i'll say 'Adapt'.

DjinnAeternam

Ratzkifal wrote: »

I get that a lot of people don't like missing out on their conditional stat based sets, like Eternal Vigor or New Moon Acolyte, but I don't know anyone who is seriously missing all the actual proc crutch sets people were running unless they were using them themselves and were relying on them.

Also the performance got worse because the PvP population actually increased meaning that this was actually a popular change that made PvP more fun. So there goes the argument of it being just to please a minority.

Well the only popular thing was double AP and it's not staying for next months, also the population on Cyrodiil was almost capped all the time (before and during the tests), we don't know if ZoS reduced max pop size during test, which could explain the bigger queues also, so your assumption that pop increased is just that, an assumption.

As most casual players/groups were stacking more, that could mislead people to think pop cap increased, and be mistaken.

For most my experience there was indeed faction-stacking on one particular place and nothing happening on the rest of the map, having 40 or 60 players around a keep doesn't tell me population cap increased, same goes for the queues, bigger queues can show that more people are interested, or that max pop size decreased, so no one can say for sure what it was.

As for the "popular change" , let's find out next months when double AP is off..