How's the lagg now?

ErMurazor

Did EU Servers performance got any better after hardware upgrade?

React

ErMurazor wrote: »

Did EU Servers performance got any better after hardware upgrade?

You've got to give it some time. It'll undoubtedly be better at first, but it didn't take long at all for NA's performance to deteriorate.

MikeSkyrim333

Don't see any difference

Meurto

Looks like I will need to wait until tomorrow to try out Cyrodiil as I am 149 in the queue at the moment. That is at least an hour maybe more. Hopefully things have improved, but I also heard that NA performance is about what it was prior to the upgrade so I am not holding my breath.

colossalvoids

Can't tell anything not being in Cyro, Vivec and Stonefalls had exact same ping as always this event at this time but that's not the places you would measure it I'd guess. Would be measurable on an actually big siege on mym, pceu were always unable to handle those even moderately okay.

Wolfkeks

No lag in greyhost EU ATM
Really hope it stays that way lol

Lumsdenml

React wrote: »

ErMurazor wrote: »

Did EU Servers performance got any better after hardware upgrade?

You've got to give it some time. It'll undoubtedly be better at first, but it didn't take long at all for NA's performance to deteriorate.

It has fallen off, but it it still better then before the new servers...

SgtWinnie

So far It's worse for me.

React

Lumsdenml wrote: »

React wrote: »

ErMurazor wrote: »

Did EU Servers performance got any better after hardware upgrade?

You've got to give it some time. It'll undoubtedly be better at first, but it didn't take long at all for NA's performance to deteriorate.

It has fallen off, but it it still better then before the new servers...

Sure, but it isn't comparable to how it was the week after they replaced them, and that is the problem.

We saw during that week that it is possible for ESO to run flawlessly in the absolute most strenuous circumstances possible - over 100 people in the same place, multiple ball groups, 30+ siege on the keep, etc.

Then out of nowhere, it significantly deteriorated, and has continually gotten worse since. They never once acknowledged this.

It just makes me (and many others) think that they had more server resources dedicated to cyrodiil at first, and decided to dial them back over time for whatever reason.

mocap

Gray Host kinda playable, and this at a time when all three alliances were queue-locked. Other campaigns were generally fine even before update.

Lumsdenml

React wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

React wrote: »

ErMurazor wrote: »

Did EU Servers performance got any better after hardware upgrade?

You've got to give it some time. It'll undoubtedly be better at first, but it didn't take long at all for NA's performance to deteriorate.

It has fallen off, but it it still better then before the new servers...

Sure, but it isn't comparable to how it was the week after they replaced them, and that is the problem.

We saw during that week that it is possible for ESO to run flawlessly in the absolute most strenuous circumstances possible - over 100 people in the same place, multiple ball groups, 30+ siege on the keep, etc.

Then out of nowhere, it significantly deteriorated, and has continually gotten worse since. They never once acknowledged this.

It just makes me (and many others) think that they had more server resources dedicated to cyrodiil at first, and decided to dial them back over time for whatever reason.

There are other explanations for this. One of which is a memory leak in the server code. This would explain 1) why they initially said there would be no performance changes for the new hardware and 2) why they are rewriting the entire base code.

Not saying that is what the issue is, or that you are wrong, I'm just saying there are other possible answers...

ErMurazor

Lumsdenml wrote: »

React wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

React wrote: »

ErMurazor wrote: »

Did EU Servers performance got any better after hardware upgrade?

You've got to give it some time. It'll undoubtedly be better at first, but it didn't take long at all for NA's performance to deteriorate.

It has fallen off, but it it still better then before the new servers...

Sure, but it isn't comparable to how it was the week after they replaced them, and that is the problem.

We saw during that week that it is possible for ESO to run flawlessly in the absolute most strenuous circumstances possible - over 100 people in the same place, multiple ball groups, 30+ siege on the keep, etc.

Then out of nowhere, it significantly deteriorated, and has continually gotten worse since. They never once acknowledged this.

It just makes me (and many others) think that they had more server resources dedicated to cyrodiil at first, and decided to dial them back over time for whatever reason.

There are other explanations for this. One of which is a memory leak in the server code. This would explain 1) why they initially said there would be no performance changes for the new hardware and 2) why they are rewriting the entire base code.

Not saying that is what the issue is, or that you are wrong, I'm just saying there are other possible answers...

Yeah, i think it's the old code clogging up the servers over time. Are they rewriting the base code? When did they announce that?

Beilin_Balreis_Colcan

ErMurazor wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

React wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

React wrote: »

ErMurazor wrote: »

Did EU Servers performance got any better after hardware upgrade?

You've got to give it some time. It'll undoubtedly be better at first, but it didn't take long at all for NA's performance to deteriorate.

It has fallen off, but it it still better then before the new servers...

Sure, but it isn't comparable to how it was the week after they replaced them, and that is the problem.

We saw during that week that it is possible for ESO to run flawlessly in the absolute most strenuous circumstances possible - over 100 people in the same place, multiple ball groups, 30+ siege on the keep, etc.

Then out of nowhere, it significantly deteriorated, and has continually gotten worse since. They never once acknowledged this.

It just makes me (and many others) think that they had more server resources dedicated to cyrodiil at first, and decided to dial them back over time for whatever reason.

There are other explanations for this. One of which is a memory leak in the server code. This would explain 1) why they initially said there would be no performance changes for the new hardware and 2) why they are rewriting the entire base code.

Not saying that is what the issue is, or that you are wrong, I'm just saying there are other possible answers...

Yeah, i think it's the old code clogging up the servers over time. Are they rewriting the base code? When did they announce that?

About January last year: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/595442/eso-pvp-update-updated-june-2022/p1

notyuu

Lumsdenml wrote: »

It just makes me (and many others) think that they had more server resources dedicated to cyrodiil at first, and decided to dial them back over time for whatever reason.

Simple, the dialed back the about of resources being used in cyro so they could allocate more where there's a larger number of players and thus it is needed

The "proof" of this is that during the MYM events of the previous years proformance of trials and dungeons went to complete crap, all the while PvP proformance was just fine despite having three times as many campaigns running, as soon as the event ended, like a lightswitch was flicked, trial and dungeon preformance went back up and PvP choked

axi

For me it's worse than yesterday. Lot of skill desyncs and unresponsivness from the game.

ErMurazor

axi wrote: »

For me it's worse than yesterday. Lot of skill desyncs and unresponsivness from the game.

In cyrodiil?

WaywardArgonian

PC/EU Gray Host felt greater than I ever remembered it. Skills fired, there was no ability lag, no having to mash the potion button for it to go off.

I did experience FPS drops and some audio cracking issue twice, first being when the entire EP alliance sieged Faregyl and after that when the 3 alliances fought at Blue Road Keep with the hammer present. But still if the game stays somewhat close to this performance, there is hope yet.

Adernath

Lag is literally gone. I still had some minor problems here and there with skills not going off, but overall it feels very satisfying now.

hrothbern

notyuu wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

It just makes me (and many others) think that they had more server resources dedicated to cyrodiil at first, and decided to dial them back over time for whatever reason.

Simple, the dialed back the about of resources being used in cyro so they could allocate more where there's a larger number of players and thus it is needed

The "proof" of this is that during the MYM events of the previous years proformance of trials and dungeons went to complete crap, all the while PvP proformance was just fine despite having three times as many campaigns running, as soon as the event ended, like a lightswitch was flicked, trial and dungeon preformance went back up and PvP choked

That sounds plausible enough to me.

When it is a matter of operational cost of running more server capacity... of cost per logged in player in Cyro vs PVE,...

Why does ZOS then not offer an additional campaign with a higher level of server capacity and performance for an additional and separate Cyro+ subscription fee ?

Would there be no market for that ?

Would there be no players who would rather have a Cyro+ than a crafting bag ?

Janni

Lumsdenml wrote: »

There are other explanations for this. One of which is a memory leak in the server code. This would explain 1) why they initially said there would be no performance changes for the new hardware and 2) why they are rewriting the entire base code.

Not saying that is what the issue is, or that you are wrong, I'm just saying there are other possible answers...

Well a memory leak would not explain this at all. A leak only persists while the servers are active so every time they do maintenance it would be reset. I haven't noticed any jarring performance boosts after maintenance and this has been a continual decline a little at a time for over the last year now so I'm gonna have to agree with React and say it is way way more likely they have dialed in where they want the servers to be in terms of processing power vs electricity consumption.

rpa

I lag in my end which is no fault of ESO but I did not get stuck in combat every second kill like usual while doing few S. Elsweyr dragons after maintenance. We'll see how it works after weeks without server reset and months of database fragmentation.

OnnuK

Until they optimize game code to the new hardware it should be slightly better.
NA and EU servers are now running the same new hardware. So it is time to check the code and update it to increase the performance. It is like running Office 2003 on intel i7-12XXX, we need 2023 version of the software. It will take time. This is my theory why we haven't got a boost in the performance. But I am glad they did it. Thank you ZOS.

notyuu

hrothbern wrote: »

notyuu wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

It just makes me (and many others) think that they had more server resources dedicated to cyrodiil at first, and decided to dial them back over time for whatever reason.

Simple, the dialed back the about of resources being used in cyro so they could allocate more where there's a larger number of players and thus it is needed

The "proof" of this is that during the MYM events of the previous years proformance of trials and dungeons went to complete crap, all the while PvP proformance was just fine despite having three times as many campaigns running, as soon as the event ended, like a lightswitch was flicked, trial and dungeon preformance went back up and PvP choked

That sounds plausible enough to me.

When it is a matter of operational cost of running more server capacity... of cost per logged in player in Cyro vs PVE,...

Why does ZOS then not offer an additional campaign with a higher level of server capacity and performance for an additional and separate Cyro+ subscription fee ?

Would there be no market for that ?

Would there be no players who would rather have a Cyro+ than a crafting bag ?

the question isn't would there be a market for such a thing?

the question is would such a market be large enough to cover the cost of the addational hardware needed to do this without deducting from other areas of the game in a timely manner?
and the answer is mostly likely a resounding no, and that is before you even consider the implications of fragmenting the already rather small PvP playerbase into seprate parts

Amphithoe

Cant even access the EU server right now, (Failed to obtain server information)

Bucky_13

hrothbern wrote: »

notyuu wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

It just makes me (and many others) think that they had more server resources dedicated to cyrodiil at first, and decided to dial them back over time for whatever reason.

Simple, the dialed back the about of resources being used in cyro so they could allocate more where there's a larger number of players and thus it is needed

The "proof" of this is that during the MYM events of the previous years proformance of trials and dungeons went to complete crap, all the while PvP proformance was just fine despite having three times as many campaigns running, as soon as the event ended, like a lightswitch was flicked, trial and dungeon preformance went back up and PvP choked

That sounds plausible enough to me.

When it is a matter of operational cost of running more server capacity... of cost per logged in player in Cyro vs PVE,...

Why does ZOS then not offer an additional campaign with a higher level of server capacity and performance for an additional and separate Cyro+ subscription fee ?

Would there be no market for that ?

Would there be no players who would rather have a Cyro+ than a crafting bag ?

This would be a bad idea, when I played PvP in KOTOR they pretty much excluded ftp players from PvP, which caused players there to dwindle which in turn made subscribers like me quit the game since I couldn't play with my friends who couldn't afford a sub.

Likewise in ESO, when I was subbing I played with a bunch on non-subs, and still do. If there was a campaign for subs only I wouldn't have touched it since I want to be able to play with my friends. And if cyro became subs only I would outright quit the game.

redlink1979

My latency remains as it was, around 100ms.

Pepegrillos

It will feel like a night and day difference. Some people will say it's perfect, although it isn't. In the long run people will recognize there still some lag here and there, but nothing like before. And yet, some people will claim the lag is as bad as it ever was and that nothing has changed.

axi

ErMurazor wrote: »

axi wrote: »

For me it's worse than yesterday. Lot of skill desyncs and unresponsivness from the game.

In cyrodiil?

Cyro and BGs.

Aces-High-82

Far from perfect but felt like a huge improvement. First thing noticed was clear LA registration and way less (positional) desync instances. Had some large fights and encounters against ball groups (open field & keeps) without any issues. Some group members reported problems with streak however while I experienced some delays with haunting curse.

Marcus684

Janni wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

There are other explanations for this. One of which is a memory leak in the server code. This would explain 1) why they initially said there would be no performance changes for the new hardware and 2) why they are rewriting the entire base code.

Not saying that is what the issue is, or that you are wrong, I'm just saying there are other possible answers...

Well a memory leak would not explain this at all. A leak only persists while the servers are active so every time they do maintenance it would be reset. I haven't noticed any jarring performance boosts after maintenance and this has been a continual decline a little at a time for over the last year now so I'm gonna have to agree with React and say it is way way more likely they have dialed in where they want the servers to be in terms of processing power vs electricity consumption.

Actually, this aligns with what I’ve seen on NA/PC. Performance is best right after a maintenance and slowly degrades over the next few weeks before the next restart, then suddenly improves again with the reboot.

Note that I’m referring to baseline performance. Obviously, it’ll be much worse in a huge fight over the hammer or an emp dethrone, and things on my end can also tank performance. I once had a huge drop in FPS along with horrible stuttering, only to discover that it was because Windows decided it needed to install an update in the background while I was pvping.

Quackery

Performance is fantastic. Nothing to complain about. I assume it'll last 3 weeks...