PTS Update 45 - Feedback Thread for Cyrodiil Champions (Vengeance Campaign)

MincMincMinc · January 26

Zeraw86 wrote: »

I also looked at all the classes on the PTS. The only classes that would be useful to me are the NB or the DK and the Templar; all the other classes aren't really my thing. Nevertheless, I won't be entering Cyrodiil during the test week because it's an absolute disgrace! I'm sure 90% of the community will agree with me!

They don't. Glad you are opposed to the only thing that can fix pvp and help the game stabilize again.

Zeraw86 · January 26

You know exactly what causes performance to collapse, namely ball groups that collide!
Then just make it so that you don't allow group formation in Cyrodiil and highlight guild members and friends in color, e.g. green.
That would also take away the healing that can be stacked, which many players have been demanding for years.

xylena_lazarow · January 26

MincMincMinc wrote: »

They don't. Glad you are opposed to the only thing that can fix pvp and help the game stabilize again.

Not a paying gig. We're not paid game testers. At least offer some serious in-game rewards?

RaidingTraiding · January 26

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Extinct_Solo_Player wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

And I think anyone who actually cares about PvP in ESO will participate in these tests even if the classes themselves are not balanced. For the purpose of the test I don't think it matters if there's 1000 nbs and 3 necros. What matters is there's 1003 people.

They're not getting 1003 people unless they put forth a product that 1003 people are excited about. Diet Cyrodiil with an unbalanced unfun NB hell meta isn't gonna be it. They're gonna need to deal with at least that. There's no performance reason to mash together a burst heal with invisibility, didn't we already go through this with Hardened Ward?

Current Cyrodiil isn't exciting enough for 1003 people. This test, with standardized templates, is the most exciting update to Cyrodiil in a long time. A lot of people hate it, but a lot of people are interested by it, too. This will bring in many players when it hits Live.

This aint it chief

I'm just excited to see this when it hits Live. I know regular ESO PvP has an audience, but this version of PvP is reminiscent of other PvP games, so it could appeal to those people.

I hope ESO really promotes this test with a free play event, because this style of PvP could genuinely attract people who would be willing to stay.

This is going to be just like when they added in the no proc campaign. A handful of people on the forums said they were excited, just like we're seeing now, possibly even more so, and look what happened. It turned a fun populated campaign into a ghost town. Where did all those people go who were all over no procs and having a "skill based" pvp campaign? In their words, wasn't that what the pvp population was asking for? why should this be any different especially when this is an even more limiting campaign than no proc was? Where are all these people going to come from if you can hardly fill one campaign and have 2 other campaigns that are dead? I doubt this will bring new players in, from what it seems, its going to be hard to get people to even do this test when it goes live.

Meredy · January 26

RaidingTraiding wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Extinct_Solo_Player wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

And I think anyone who actually cares about PvP in ESO will participate in these tests even if the classes themselves are not balanced. For the purpose of the test I don't think it matters if there's 1000 nbs and 3 necros. What matters is there's 1003 people.

They're not getting 1003 people unless they put forth a product that 1003 people are excited about. Diet Cyrodiil with an unbalanced unfun NB hell meta isn't gonna be it. They're gonna need to deal with at least that. There's no performance reason to mash together a burst heal with invisibility, didn't we already go through this with Hardened Ward?

Current Cyrodiil isn't exciting enough for 1003 people. This test, with standardized templates, is the most exciting update to Cyrodiil in a long time. A lot of people hate it, but a lot of people are interested by it, too. This will bring in many players when it hits Live.

This aint it chief

I'm just excited to see this when it hits Live. I know regular ESO PvP has an audience, but this version of PvP is reminiscent of other PvP games, so it could appeal to those people.

I hope ESO really promotes this test with a free play event, because this style of PvP could genuinely attract people who would be willing to stay.

This is going to be just like when they added in the no proc campaign. A handful of people on the forums said they were excited, just like we're seeing now, possibly even more so, and look what happened. It turned a fun populated campaign into a ghost town. Where did all those people go who were all over no procs and having a "skill based" pvp campaign? In their words, wasn't that what the pvp population was asking for? why should this be any different especially when this is an even more limiting campaign than no proc was? Where are all these people going to come from if you can hardly fill one campaign and have 2 other campaigns that are dead? I doubt this will bring new players in, from what it seems, its going to be hard to get people to even do this test when it goes live.

No one wants to make an entire ass new build for no-proc cyro. People don't need to commit to making a build for Vengance Cyrodiil, making the bar to get into it much lower.

TechMaybeHic · January 26

I don't think it's productive to debate who likes how ZOS is doing this test vs those who don't and why. I personally do not care for it. But if they want the test to do what they say on numbers, there should be rewards to entice.

Did we have the end of year Whitestrake yet? Seems to fill a few campaigns. Maybe add making tier 3 grant some motifs or maybe a mount.

Reginald_leBlem · January 26

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

I don't think it's productive to debate who likes how ZOS is doing this test vs those who don't and why. I personally do not care for it. But if they want the test to do what they say on numbers, there should be rewards to entice.

Did we have the end of year Whitestrake yet? Seems to fill a few campaigns. Maybe add making tier 3 grant some motifs or maybe a mount.

Hear me out:

Vengeance Medic Steed

A multi rider horse mount with tack that changes color based on your alliance, awarded for reaching tier 3 in Vengeance campaign

It's perfect. It's perfectly on theme, zos already has all the assets to do it, there aren't a ton of multi rider mounts out yet so it's a little more unique and might tempt some players in that might not go for a more regular horse.

blktauna · January 26

XIIICaesar wrote: »

Do you have any general feedback?
The sky in the Vengeance campaign is cool af. Could they make that sky a permanent addition to live but only during certain situations? My thought was whenever Volendrung has spawned/appeared or maybe once it's found/revealed, have the atmosphere change to the Vengeance sky & then back to normal once Volendrung disappears. Not performance related but yeah.

I loved the sky in there. Fantastic looking

blktauna · January 26

UrQuan wrote: »

People saying they need to balance this skill or that skill are focusing on a forest ecosystem while zos is only trying to measure the square footage of the forest. The trees haven't even been planted yet.

This ^^^^

MincMincMinc · January 27

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

They don't. Glad you are opposed to the only thing that can fix pvp and help the game stabilize again.

Not a paying gig. We're not paid game testers. At least offer some serious in-game rewards?

AGREED, @ZOS_Kevin There needs to be better incentives AP and XP are near worthless for 95% of your playerbase. Most pvpers I know are close to 100m+ AP stored in the bank.

Consider adding
- Mounts
- crates
- Race/appearance/respec tokens
- Alliance change tokens
- Transmutes
- Gold mats
- Potion mats
- Crowns
- 1month ESO plus
- New recipe
- Perfected Arena weapons
- Mythic leads
- Unique Title

Just_Attivi · January 27

Honestly, If tier 3 rewards in normal campaigns granted an alliance change or race change token (and specifically those ones, the two that impact PVP) Id tier out every dang character, population balances would probably even out more each campaign too since it no longer costs ~$20 to swap alliances for one character. This should be a thing regularly. But 100% add it to Vengeance to help get more participation. You'd squeak ~12 hours of testing from me if each toon could earn an alliance change.

React · January 27

Just_Attivi wrote: »

Honestly, If tier 3 rewards in normal campaigns granted an alliance change or race change token (and specifically those ones, the two that impact PVP) Id tier out every dang character, population balances would probably even out more each campaign too since it no longer costs ~$20 to swap alliances for one character. This should be a thing regularly. But 100% add it to Vengeance to help get more participation. You'd squeak ~12 hours of testing from me if each toon could earn an alliance change.

+1 for alliance & race change tokens being some of the best possible incentives to get PVP players into these campaigns during the test.

RaidingTraiding · January 27

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

I don't think it's productive to debate who likes how ZOS is doing this test vs those who don't and why. I personally do not care for it. But if they want the test to do what they say on numbers, there should be rewards to entice.

Did we have the end of year Whitestrake yet? Seems to fill a few campaigns. Maybe add making tier 3 grant some motifs or maybe a mount.

Yeah definitely needs more than the standard double ap. The last few midyears felt a lot more dead than usual. If you can't fill campaigns during midyear then its not likely you're going to fill this test campaign giving out the same rewards.

silky_soft · January 27

I see with the latest patch notes characters and mounts skins are still not set alliance templates to minimise load even further.

sarahthes · January 27

silky_soft wrote: »

I see with the latest patch notes characters and mounts skins are still not set alliance templates to minimise load even further.

I think these are client side, not server side.

n333rs · January 28

vengeance as a whole is the single worst idea not only are you removing any fun that's left in pvp but you are doing in the false notion that it will help the game. The game isn't difficult to balance, it is difficult for you the developer due to how disconnected you are from the game. There is an issue with ball groups and rather than working out a way to deal with those instead you create a campaign to just outright strip both fun and ball groups from the game. Who in their right minds thought that it would be a good idea to even do this? I'd much rather you had done nothing than this.

BlakMarket · January 28

n333rs wrote: »

vengeance as a whole is the single worst idea not only are you removing any fun that's left in pvp but you are doing in the false notion that it will help the game. The game isn't difficult to balance, it is difficult for you the developer due to how disconnected you are from the game. There is an issue with ball groups and rather than working out a way to deal with those instead you create a campaign to just outright strip both fun and ball groups from the game. Who in their right minds thought that it would be a good idea to even do this? I'd much rather you had done nothing than this.

This would be a time for a combat developer to shine if they knew the mechanics and nuances of PVP to be able to balance Vengeance combat to be at least fun to play during testing.

olsborg · January 28

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

i11ionward wrote: »

Is the team going to look at feedback about how balanced the skills and classes are?

I really liked the overall idea of the campaign, but I wish there were more build options. Adding weapon skills would definitely help with that.

So the goal here in PTS is to test performance. We understand everyone is looking at skill/class balance. While that is important, it's jumping several steps ahead of what we are trying to accomplish with the test. Before we can realistically look at balance, we need to make sure things are working as intended for performance. It is why we are stressing the importance of answering the questions in the first post. If we can't get in info needed to make things work properly, then balancing means nothing anyway. This isn't to ignore thoughts on balance, but rather to make sure we are clear about the objective of this test on PTS.

While this test of performance is most important to you(zos), actually having fun and not playing a gamemode without balance is most important to us, the players. Why would we even invest any time into such a test if it wasnt remotely fun for us?

Soraka · January 28

I may be making things up, but wasn't there something awhile back about how the original coders/whatever are mostly gone and attempts at fixing code etc. became messy because the current couldn't work out how to deal with the original people's work? I vaguely remember something like that, but I may be explaining it very wrong. I'm not conspiracy theorizing, just a question, maybe that's relevant to this issue and why they're starting ground up.

MincMincMinc · January 28

n333rs wrote: »

vengeance as a whole is the single worst idea not only are you removing any fun that's left in pvp but you are doing in the false notion that it will help the game. The game isn't difficult to balance, it is difficult for you the developer due to how disconnected you are from the game. There is an issue with ball groups and rather than working out a way to deal with those instead you create a campaign to just outright strip both fun and ball groups from the game. Who in their right minds thought that it would be a good idea to even do this? I'd much rather you had done nothing than this.

The vengeance concept fulfills exactly what its purpose is. It gets them data, it will prove whether this is a hardware or software issue, meaning the right team will get funding, and it also tests the pve and pvp skill split system. I personally dont understand how removing random power crept buffs on skills removes the fun. 90% of the combat plays the same. If you added back in the sets, mundus, cp, etc. the game would be practically unchanged. I think it mainly comes down to nobody liking power creep being addressed because everyone feels like they are being nerfed 10x.....even though the end product is more balanced and thought out in a clearer way.

BlakMarket wrote: »

n333rs wrote: »

vengeance as a whole is the single worst idea not only are you removing any fun that's left in pvp but you are doing in the false notion that it will help the game. The game isn't difficult to balance, it is difficult for you the developer due to how disconnected you are from the game. There is an issue with ball groups and rather than working out a way to deal with those instead you create a campaign to just outright strip both fun and ball groups from the game. Who in their right minds thought that it would be a good idea to even do this? I'd much rather you had done nothing than this.

This would be a time for a combat developer to shine if they knew the mechanics and nuances of PVP to be able to balance Vengeance combat to be at least fun to play during testing.

olsborg wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

i11ionward wrote: »

Is the team going to look at feedback about how balanced the skills and classes are?

I really liked the overall idea of the campaign, but I wish there were more build options. Adding weapon skills would definitely help with that.

So the goal here in PTS is to test performance. We understand everyone is looking at skill/class balance. While that is important, it's jumping several steps ahead of what we are trying to accomplish with the test. Before we can realistically look at balance, we need to make sure things are working as intended for performance. It is why we are stressing the importance of answering the questions in the first post. If we can't get in info needed to make things work properly, then balancing means nothing anyway. This isn't to ignore thoughts on balance, but rather to make sure we are clear about the objective of this test on PTS.

While this test of performance is most important to you(zos), actually having fun and not playing a gamemode without balance is most important to us, the players. Why would we even invest any time into such a test if it wasnt remotely fun for us?

If you went and dueled in vengeance it is all balanced fairly well. The 4 core classes have their own playstyles, while not overpower each other in any way. 99% of players wont be able to tell any difference. The dlc classes do seem to have additional tacked on buffs, but otherwise for the purpose of the test vengeance will work perfectly. Again just to reiterate, the only thing zos is likely to role over from vengeance is the ability to get rid of battlespirit and have pvp copies of skills which can be balanced separately.

Soraka wrote: »

I may be making things up, but wasn't there something awhile back about how the original coders/whatever are mostly gone and attempts at fixing code etc. became messy because the current couldn't work out how to deal with the original people's work? I vaguely remember something like that, but I may be explaining it very wrong. I'm not conspiracy theorizing, just a question, maybe that's relevant to this issue and why they're starting ground up.

Haven't heard that in a while. That was youtuber banter back in like 2015-2016 as zos failed to address the "lighting patch" drama. It probably stems from skills moving serverside instead of clientside, which really complicates things game dev wise. Its like doing triple the code. With vengeance allowing for pvp specific skills, atleast they would be forced to do a hard pass before release of the skills. Which would probably clean up alot of current bugs that have plagued the game.

Estin · January 28

Just_Attivi wrote: »

Honestly, If tier 3 rewards in normal campaigns granted an alliance change or race change token (and specifically those ones, the two that impact PVP) Id tier out every dang character, population balances would probably even out more each campaign too since it no longer costs ~$20 to swap alliances for one character. This should be a thing regularly. But 100% add it to Vengeance to help get more participation. You'd squeak ~12 hours of testing from me if each toon could earn an alliance change.

They should tie it to a golden pursuit themed around vengeance. It'll be easier for them to hand out rewards like that plus others mentioned in the thread. It'll also incentivize players to use the other classes if they made tasks centered around each class.

VidmaVirtual · January 28

Hello!
I appreciate that you are trying to change, but......
Just because of such a landscape, you don't want to try it!

And the change in the combat system, completely thoughtless ❌ They could have left the environment and the combat system as it is, you just need to take it and really think about it, try to find a balance between classes, races and groups of balls, maybe reduce visual effects ?! ⚖ It seemed that he did everything in a hurry and didn't think at all what he was doing! I probably don't have a real person who understands Cyrodiil, maybe ZoS is more interested in PVE ? !

I wish you the best of luck!

katorga · January 28

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Zeraw86 wrote: »

I also looked at all the classes on the PTS. The only classes that would be useful to me are the NB or the DK and the Templar; all the other classes aren't really my thing. Nevertheless, I won't be entering Cyrodiil during the test week because it's an absolute disgrace! I'm sure 90% of the community will agree with me!

They don't. Glad you are opposed to the only thing that can fix pvp and help the game stabilize again.

There is really only one thing to test during the vengeance campaign - does removing "everything" fix performance yes/no.

That test provides zero benefit other than a baseline, because now you have to add back, piece by piece, until you see where the performance drop returns. Those are the important tests.

Now if the first version of the vengeance campaign does NOT fix performance. ZOS has a major problem.

MincMincMinc · January 28

katorga wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Zeraw86 wrote: »

I also looked at all the classes on the PTS. The only classes that would be useful to me are the NB or the DK and the Templar; all the other classes aren't really my thing. Nevertheless, I won't be entering Cyrodiil during the test week because it's an absolute disgrace! I'm sure 90% of the community will agree with me!

They don't. Glad you are opposed to the only thing that can fix pvp and help the game stabilize again.

There is really only one thing to test during the vengeance campaign - does removing "everything" fix performance yes/no.

That test provides zero benefit other than a baseline, because now you have to add back, piece by piece, until you see where the performance drop returns. Those are the important tests.

Now if the first version of the vengeance campaign does NOT fix performance. ZOS has a major problem.

Yes, If the test fails to fix performance that means its a hardware, game engine, or cheat(client/serverside) issue. Considering zos already upgraded the servers i doubt we will see that again. The game engine isnt going to be replaced (although unreal engine is so easy to remake ESO combat). I doubt we will see zos push things clientside again.

Although what is cheaper banning people every now and then or basically rebuilding the entire combat system?

Estin · January 28

MincMincMinc wrote: »

katorga wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Zeraw86 wrote: »

I also looked at all the classes on the PTS. The only classes that would be useful to me are the NB or the DK and the Templar; all the other classes aren't really my thing. Nevertheless, I won't be entering Cyrodiil during the test week because it's an absolute disgrace! I'm sure 90% of the community will agree with me!

They don't. Glad you are opposed to the only thing that can fix pvp and help the game stabilize again.

There is really only one thing to test during the vengeance campaign - does removing "everything" fix performance yes/no.

That test provides zero benefit other than a baseline, because now you have to add back, piece by piece, until you see where the performance drop returns. Those are the important tests.

Now if the first version of the vengeance campaign does NOT fix performance. ZOS has a major problem.

Yes, If the test fails to fix performance that means its a hardware, game engine, or cheat(client/serverside) issue. Considering zos already upgraded the servers i doubt we will see that again. The game engine isnt going to be replaced (although unreal engine is so easy to remake ESO combat). I doubt we will see zos push things clientside again.

Although what is cheaper banning people every now and then or basically rebuilding the entire combat system?

I can see calculations moving back to client side being a nightmare. Not due to cheaters, but because of so many false bans. Just look at how many false positives the AI chat monitoring threw.

MincMincMinc · January 28

Estin wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

katorga wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Zeraw86 wrote: »

I also looked at all the classes on the PTS. The only classes that would be useful to me are the NB or the DK and the Templar; all the other classes aren't really my thing. Nevertheless, I won't be entering Cyrodiil during the test week because it's an absolute disgrace! I'm sure 90% of the community will agree with me!

They don't. Glad you are opposed to the only thing that can fix pvp and help the game stabilize again.

There is really only one thing to test during the vengeance campaign - does removing "everything" fix performance yes/no.

That test provides zero benefit other than a baseline, because now you have to add back, piece by piece, until you see where the performance drop returns. Those are the important tests.

Now if the first version of the vengeance campaign does NOT fix performance. ZOS has a major problem.

Yes, If the test fails to fix performance that means its a hardware, game engine, or cheat(client/serverside) issue. Considering zos already upgraded the servers i doubt we will see that again. The game engine isnt going to be replaced (although unreal engine is so easy to remake ESO combat). I doubt we will see zos push things clientside again.

Although what is cheaper banning people every now and then or basically rebuilding the entire combat system?

I can see calculations moving back to client side being a nightmare. Not due to cheaters, but because of so many false bans. Just look at how many false positives the AI chat monitoring threw.

Exactly, so if it has to stay serverside and servers are already up to date...... the only next choice is to lower the ticks or lower the people causing ticks. Lower pop cyrodil vs streamlined skills.

Cyrodil simply isnt setup to work low pop. Buffs, campaign, keep layouts, resources, etc. Also the whole point was big battles and such. If we boil it down to 12v12 combat..... why not just make 12v12 bg matches.

Streamlining combat is the real only answer you can arrive to. Whether it is no cross healing or buffing. No stacking dots, hots, procs. Skills with less tacked on passives, effects, timers, stacks, mechanics, cc. Less entity spawning like ground aoes, pets, procs. AOE limits. smart healing removal. cost increases/ramps.

Whether people accept it or not is an issue. It comes down to power creep which is the death of all mmos. Players would rather agree with everyone getting a buff compared to everyone getting debuffs. Nobody wants to be weaker even if it can drastically improve the game. Its something that Zos or any dev has to force and make people bite the bullet of a new standard.

Estin · January 28

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Estin wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

katorga wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Zeraw86 wrote: »

I also looked at all the classes on the PTS. The only classes that would be useful to me are the NB or the DK and the Templar; all the other classes aren't really my thing. Nevertheless, I won't be entering Cyrodiil during the test week because it's an absolute disgrace! I'm sure 90% of the community will agree with me!

They don't. Glad you are opposed to the only thing that can fix pvp and help the game stabilize again.

There is really only one thing to test during the vengeance campaign - does removing "everything" fix performance yes/no.

That test provides zero benefit other than a baseline, because now you have to add back, piece by piece, until you see where the performance drop returns. Those are the important tests.

Now if the first version of the vengeance campaign does NOT fix performance. ZOS has a major problem.

Yes, If the test fails to fix performance that means its a hardware, game engine, or cheat(client/serverside) issue. Considering zos already upgraded the servers i doubt we will see that again. The game engine isnt going to be replaced (although unreal engine is so easy to remake ESO combat). I doubt we will see zos push things clientside again.

Although what is cheaper banning people every now and then or basically rebuilding the entire combat system?

I can see calculations moving back to client side being a nightmare. Not due to cheaters, but because of so many false bans. Just look at how many false positives the AI chat monitoring threw.

Exactly, so if it has to stay serverside and servers are already up to date...... the only next choice is to lower the ticks or lower the people causing ticks. Lower pop cyrodil vs streamlined skills.

Cyrodil simply isnt setup to work low pop. Buffs, campaign, keep layouts, resources, etc. Also the whole point was big battles and such. If we boil it down to 12v12 combat..... why not just make 12v12 bg matches.

Streamlining combat is the real only answer you can arrive to. Whether it is no cross healing or buffing. No stacking dots, hots, procs. Skills with less tacked on passives, effects, timers, stacks, mechanics, cc. Less entity spawning like ground aoes, pets, procs. AOE limits. smart healing removal. cost increases/ramps.
Whether people accept it or not is an issue. It comes down to power creep which is the death of all mmos. Players would rather agree with everyone getting a buff compared to everyone getting debuffs. Nobody wants to be weaker even if it can drastically improve the game. Its something that Zos or any dev has to force and make people bite the bullet of a new standard.

Population is already too low. It's what, 120 players when all alliances are pop locked? Depending on the time of day and campaign, it's mostly sitting around waiting for something to happen. I don't think lowering the population would do much of anything anymore, and I'd hate for cyrodiil to get downsized so it's bearable for low population. Streamlined skills is really the only route, and it can work, but only if there's variety. It's fine that there's none right at the moment, I just hope this test works out well enough that they can easily add back in the variety we have now without arriving at the same poor performance and low population.

silky_soft · January 28

sarahthes wrote: »

silky_soft wrote: »

I see with the latest patch notes characters and mounts skins are still not set alliance templates to minimise load even further.

I think these are client side, not server side.

You have to get the data for what people are wearing and what mounts from somewhere. If they had an option for turning off this effects in client then you'd still be calling the server for their outfit, appearance and mount data every single time a new person came in. It needs to be forced off server side, not client side.

katorga · January 29

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

React wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Comparing vengeance balance or numbers to live to persuade players to hate it before trying is not constructive or helpful in anyway.

Yeah this is flat out wrong. Players are allowed to voice their opinion on the "test" whether you like it or not. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not constructive and helpful. In fact it's extremely important that ZOS understands how players feel about the test. So get out of the way and stop pressuring players and putting them down.

The takeaway should be "don't test anything, just fix it without testing?"

I suppose that is feedback, but I strongly hope it's the minority.

That shouldn't be the takeaway.

It seems odd that ZOS can't reproduce the performance issue(s) on a private dev server with bots. It's generally bad practice to do tests like this on a Live production system. Yes I understand they are trying to reproduce the exact controlled environment but that doesn't change the fact that they should be able to do a controlled test internally. Or maybe they have already and didn't find anything 🤔

I wrote an MMO server back in 2010 and the very first thing I did was create 50k bots for testing performance. We also had bots on our Ultima Online servers back in 2004-2006 for testing performance. So I don't know why ZOS can't do that.

They addressed why their bot testing isn't adequate in the livestream today. They do extensive bot testing of all of their content. It provides certain types of data, but it boils down to bots don't act like people, and are supplemental to real people testing (in numbers) but not a replacement.

Oh, I didn't know there was a stream. Ok that's funny 🤣 I'm watching it now.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2362374320

Some takeaways.
It's just a test for performance and there no plans to make Vengeance a permanent thing. It's not a test to measure player engagement but they do want as many players as possible to join the test to get more data.

The intention for Cyrodiil is to still be designed for progression and customization. So they want players to have gear, skill choice, CP, etc.

It sounds like they're focusing on the server frame metrics. The server frame was described as a window of time where abilities, movement, etc are processed. At a high level this is the same concept as a server tick/pulse where all the incoming packet messages are dequeued and the combat calculations are done. Usually this is a very small window of time like 16.67 milliseconds (60 tick rate/hz). Then once the calculations are done, outgoing packets are sent back to the clients.

The server frame metrics elevate and/or jitter during large fights and they're trying to get those metrics down with the very distilled Vengeance combat. From there, they will decide what to do next.

They can't get the performance data they need with bots since there are many ways players can engage in PvP and it's not feasible to program all those PvP scenarios. So they need to have real players.

They need players to help test on PTS.

There should no longer be a conspiracy that Cyrodiil combat is changing permanently. They intend for this to be temporary to help address Cyrodiil performance which has been a very longstanding issue and complaint.

One thing that's probably obvious is if players do end up really liking the Vengeance campaign then ZOS might pivot and make it a full feature. They never said that on stream but it's a safe assumption to have. That's my take at least.

One other interesting thing that was mentioned by Brian was that the "bogging down" we see server wide is the result of the global actions being limited by what can fit within the server frames. Brian said that the same thing happens on an individual basis client side when you're performing high APM actions, i.e animation cancelling/weaving/block cancelling/bash weaving, etc.

So that phenomena high APM players have been describing for years where they feel like they need to stop performing actions to let the game "catch up", or where things become unresponsive when they're operating at high APM, is actually the reality of how things work now.

Hopefully they're able to solve that problem with whatever results they get from this testing. It's extremely frustrating to be punished for playing well.

Very, very, interesting indeed, all but confirms what the majority of players have thought about the impact of ball groups on the servers over the years.

Pretty sure that describes the impact of any large concentration of players.

The difference being the number of players required to reach that concentration of commands/inputs being sent to the servers.

With ball groups it's just the 12 members of the ball group, with unorganized zergs/PuGs it requires the entire faction (and usually all 3 factions stacked like this in 1 area) to have that sort of impact on server performance.

Pro ball groups are purposely spamming skills/sets to specifically to trigger client/server desyncs.

MincMincMinc · January 29

katorga wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

React wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Comparing vengeance balance or numbers to live to persuade players to hate it before trying is not constructive or helpful in anyway.

Yeah this is flat out wrong. Players are allowed to voice their opinion on the "test" whether you like it or not. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not constructive and helpful. In fact it's extremely important that ZOS understands how players feel about the test. So get out of the way and stop pressuring players and putting them down.

The takeaway should be "don't test anything, just fix it without testing?"

I suppose that is feedback, but I strongly hope it's the minority.

That shouldn't be the takeaway.

It seems odd that ZOS can't reproduce the performance issue(s) on a private dev server with bots. It's generally bad practice to do tests like this on a Live production system. Yes I understand they are trying to reproduce the exact controlled environment but that doesn't change the fact that they should be able to do a controlled test internally. Or maybe they have already and didn't find anything 🤔

I wrote an MMO server back in 2010 and the very first thing I did was create 50k bots for testing performance. We also had bots on our Ultima Online servers back in 2004-2006 for testing performance. So I don't know why ZOS can't do that.

They addressed why their bot testing isn't adequate in the livestream today. They do extensive bot testing of all of their content. It provides certain types of data, but it boils down to bots don't act like people, and are supplemental to real people testing (in numbers) but not a replacement.

Oh, I didn't know there was a stream. Ok that's funny 🤣 I'm watching it now.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2362374320

Some takeaways.
It's just a test for performance and there no plans to make Vengeance a permanent thing. It's not a test to measure player engagement but they do want as many players as possible to join the test to get more data.

The intention for Cyrodiil is to still be designed for progression and customization. So they want players to have gear, skill choice, CP, etc.

It sounds like they're focusing on the server frame metrics. The server frame was described as a window of time where abilities, movement, etc are processed. At a high level this is the same concept as a server tick/pulse where all the incoming packet messages are dequeued and the combat calculations are done. Usually this is a very small window of time like 16.67 milliseconds (60 tick rate/hz). Then once the calculations are done, outgoing packets are sent back to the clients.

The server frame metrics elevate and/or jitter during large fights and they're trying to get those metrics down with the very distilled Vengeance combat. From there, they will decide what to do next.

They can't get the performance data they need with bots since there are many ways players can engage in PvP and it's not feasible to program all those PvP scenarios. So they need to have real players.

They need players to help test on PTS.

There should no longer be a conspiracy that Cyrodiil combat is changing permanently. They intend for this to be temporary to help address Cyrodiil performance which has been a very longstanding issue and complaint.

One thing that's probably obvious is if players do end up really liking the Vengeance campaign then ZOS might pivot and make it a full feature. They never said that on stream but it's a safe assumption to have. That's my take at least.

One other interesting thing that was mentioned by Brian was that the "bogging down" we see server wide is the result of the global actions being limited by what can fit within the server frames. Brian said that the same thing happens on an individual basis client side when you're performing high APM actions, i.e animation cancelling/weaving/block cancelling/bash weaving, etc.

So that phenomena high APM players have been describing for years where they feel like they need to stop performing actions to let the game "catch up", or where things become unresponsive when they're operating at high APM, is actually the reality of how things work now.

Hopefully they're able to solve that problem with whatever results they get from this testing. It's extremely frustrating to be punished for playing well.

Very, very, interesting indeed, all but confirms what the majority of players have thought about the impact of ball groups on the servers over the years.

Pretty sure that describes the impact of any large concentration of players.

The difference being the number of players required to reach that concentration of commands/inputs being sent to the servers.

With ball groups it's just the 12 members of the ball group, with unorganized zergs/PuGs it requires the entire faction (and usually all 3 factions stacked like this in 1 area) to have that sort of impact on server performance.

Pro ball groups are purposely spamming skills/sets to specifically to trigger client/server desyncs.

Anyone who heavy attacks triggeres a desyncs. Its a no brainer that with over complicated skills and sets we will have more bugs and issues.

Estin wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Estin wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

katorga wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Zeraw86 wrote: »

I also looked at all the classes on the PTS. The only classes that would be useful to me are the NB or the DK and the Templar; all the other classes aren't really my thing. Nevertheless, I won't be entering Cyrodiil during the test week because it's an absolute disgrace! I'm sure 90% of the community will agree with me!

They don't. Glad you are opposed to the only thing that can fix pvp and help the game stabilize again.

There is really only one thing to test during the vengeance campaign - does removing "everything" fix performance yes/no.

That test provides zero benefit other than a baseline, because now you have to add back, piece by piece, until you see where the performance drop returns. Those are the important tests.

Now if the first version of the vengeance campaign does NOT fix performance. ZOS has a major problem.

Yes, If the test fails to fix performance that means its a hardware, game engine, or cheat(client/serverside) issue. Considering zos already upgraded the servers i doubt we will see that again. The game engine isnt going to be replaced (although unreal engine is so easy to remake ESO combat). I doubt we will see zos push things clientside again.

Although what is cheaper banning people every now and then or basically rebuilding the entire combat system?

I can see calculations moving back to client side being a nightmare. Not due to cheaters, but because of so many false bans. Just look at how many false positives the AI chat monitoring threw.

Exactly, so if it has to stay serverside and servers are already up to date...... the only next choice is to lower the ticks or lower the people causing ticks. Lower pop cyrodil vs streamlined skills.

Cyrodil simply isnt setup to work low pop. Buffs, campaign, keep layouts, resources, etc. Also the whole point was big battles and such. If we boil it down to 12v12 combat..... why not just make 12v12 bg matches.

Streamlining combat is the real only answer you can arrive to. Whether it is no cross healing or buffing. No stacking dots, hots, procs. Skills with less tacked on passives, effects, timers, stacks, mechanics, cc. Less entity spawning like ground aoes, pets, procs. AOE limits. smart healing removal. cost increases/ramps.
Whether people accept it or not is an issue. It comes down to power creep which is the death of all mmos. Players would rather agree with everyone getting a buff compared to everyone getting debuffs. Nobody wants to be weaker even if it can drastically improve the game. Its something that Zos or any dev has to force and make people bite the bullet of a new standard.

Streamlined skills is really the only route, and it can work, but only if there's variety. It's fine that there's none right at the moment, I just hope this test works out well enough that they can easily add back in the variety we have now without arriving at the same poor performance and low population.

I'd like to see variety come back with more interesting scaling skills. Some skills could specifically be used to counter high tick environments. Think of negate for instance, where it deletes MANY ticks or effects from happening. We could bring back old class identity skills like wings that could deflect projectiles and effectively delete them. Old ball of lightning that ate projectiles. Etc. Maybe templar could have a ground purge skill. Its possible to actually create counterplay and help performance at the same time.