Cyrodiil AOE Test Number One (global cool-down) should be run again or the results tossed

Flangdoodle · September 2020

The first test was run in an empty server. Gray Host didn't have a queue for the entire week. Neither yellow nor blue were pop-locked for 95% of the time in prime time and red though it showed as pop-locked never had queues longer than a minute, if at all. Whether it was because of the IC event, or whatever excuse, any results from that test should be tossed because it wasn't even close to normal conditions in that campaign.

I didn't really like having to wait three seconds to run another ability any more than anyone else - and I would hate for that to become the new standard because that test showed the least amount of server lag. *Of course* it did - there was nobody there.

Reverb · September 2020

I assume you’re talking about NA, where the pop was low all week for everyone but EP, but you should specify. I’ve heard that EU had full pops and lots of valid testing last week.

Thunda · September 2020

Correct. PC NA Gray Host was at a fraction of the population during Test 1 that it normally is. It is not an accurate representation of what would be considered normal for that Campaign over the course of a week.

Ghostbane · September 2020

Can confirm that the locked CP campaign and non-CP campaign on EU was well represented.

Qbiken · September 2020

Ghostbane wrote: »

Can confirm that the locked CP campaign and non-CP campaign on EU was well represented.

Kinda disagree on EU. First week had much lower population for several reasons:

* 2x AP buff not working
* Quite a few ballgroups didn't bother to play
* IC event was still going

Saw DC multiple times at non pop locked during primetime in Ravenwatch, which didn't happen before the tests started.
Test week 1 is filled with multiple "false positives" and I'm not sure how good data zos can pull out of that week.

LarsS · September 2020

Qbiken wrote: »

Ghostbane wrote: »

Can confirm that the locked CP campaign and non-CP campaign on EU was well represented.

Kinda disagree on EU. First week had much lower population for several reasons:

* 2x AP buff not working
* Quite a few ballgroups didn't bother to play
* IC event was still going

Saw DC multiple times at non pop locked during primetime in Ravenwatch, which didn't happen before the tests started.
Test week 1 is filled with multiple "false positives" and I'm not sure how good data zos can pull out of that week.

I can confirm the same for Gray Host EU.

Firstmep · September 2020

Id rather they just forget about the first test, and the second, and the third and fourth.

I think the last 2 are the only ones that can be implemented without them having to spend the next year or so fixing classes.

NeillMcAttack · September 2020

Qbiken wrote: »

Ghostbane wrote: »

Can confirm that the locked CP campaign and non-CP campaign on EU was well represented.

Kinda disagree on EU. First week had much lower population for several reasons:

* 2x AP buff not working
* Quite a few ballgroups didn't bother to play
* IC event was still going

Saw DC multiple times at non pop locked during primetime in Ravenwatch, which didn't happen before the tests started.
Test week 1 is filled with multiple "false positives" and I'm not sure how good data zos can pull out of that week.

There was a queue for Ravenwatch all week. You can’t get more full than full!

Crispen_Longbow · September 2020

Flangdoodle wrote: »

The first test was run in an empty server. Gray Host didn't have a queue for the entire week. Neither yellow nor blue were pop-locked for 95% of the time in prime time and red though it showed as pop-locked never had queues longer than a minute, if at all. Whether it was because of the IC event, or whatever excuse, any results from that test should be tossed because it wasn't even close to normal conditions in that campaign.

I didn't really like having to wait three seconds to run another ability any more than anyone else - and I would hate for that to become the new standard because that test showed the least amount of server lag. *Of course* it did - there was nobody there.

Yep, if you wanted to PVP you were in IC if you wanted to pvdoor you were in Cyro.

Tammany · September 2020

NA servur is a dead material

They have to focus on EU PC, servers were full there.

Starshadw · September 2020

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Yep, if you wanted to PVP you were in IC if you wanted to pvdoor you were in Cyro.

Eh, this isn't accurate. The big issue for PC NA was that the EP numbers were so overwhelming, it was often a losing battle for AD (and DC, when they decided to show up before leaving again to keep their low-pop bonus in order to stay in 2nd place). So there were still people PvPing in Gray Host, it was just an uphill battle unless you were EP, who had the numbers to continually swarm all over the map.

All three populations were certainly lower - I never saw DC go over two bars, and rarely saw AD at three. EP was consistently at 2-3 bars, with the occasional pop-lock - but it would not be correct to say there was no PvP happening.

FangOfTheTwoMoons · September 2020

It's amazing how the IC event and the AP bug happened during the first phase, such horrible timing. The event was already a lure away from Cyrodiil and the bug removed the only incentive there was for a lot of people. I wonder how the first test would have held up with these numbers.

Grey Host NA is unplayable at the moment. So Test 2 is a fail.

marlonbrando · September 2020

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Yep, if you wanted to PVP you were in IC if you wanted to pvdoor you were in Cyro.

i.e., If you wanted to avoid testing the changes that we were asked to test, you heavily avoided going into Cyrodiil and stayed in Imperial City.

The only reason that EP was "pvdooring" was because the other factions decided not to help with the testing.

Flangdoodle · September 2020

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Yep, if you wanted to PVP you were in IC if you wanted to pvdoor you were in Cyro.

Strange that all those IC PVP-ers just happened to miss-out on the AOE cooldown testing? Ah well, I'm sure it's just coincidence.

Starshadw · September 2020

FangOfTheTwoMoons wrote: »

It's amazing how the IC event and the AP bug happened during the first phase, such horrible timing. The event was already a lure away from Cyrodiil and the bug removed the only incentive there was for a lot of people. I wonder how the first test would have held up with these numbers.

Grey Host NA is unplayable at the moment. So Test 2 is a fail.

I suspect that, had Gray Host had its usual numbers during Test 1, with the usual massive ball groups running, we would have seen the same lag we're seeing now in Test 2.

I'm not even sure it's all down to the problem of AOE spamming calculations, though I have no doubt that's certainly a big part of the issue. I wonder if they've looked at the drag caused by all the skill graphics effects going off (all the different colors and lights and whizzbangs and circles on the ground, plus all of the sound effects), and all of the potential issues with costumes and whatnot? I'm just remembering a long time ago, in LotRO, they turned off costumes and whatnot in their PvMP area because they noticed it was creating lag issues.

Crispen_Longbow · September 2020

Starshadw wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Yep, if you wanted to PVP you were in IC if you wanted to pvdoor you were in Cyro.

Eh, this isn't accurate. The big issue for PC NA was that the EP numbers were so overwhelming, it was often a losing battle for AD (and DC, when they decided to show up before leaving again to keep their low-pop bonus in order to stay in 2nd place). So there were still people PvPing in Gray Host, it was just an uphill battle unless you were EP, who had the numbers to continually swarm all over the map.

All three populations were certainly lower - I never saw DC go over two bars, and rarely saw AD at three. EP was consistently at 2-3 bars, with the occasional pop-lock - but it would not be correct to say there was no PvP happening.

EP greyhoust had the highest population during the IC Event because they have the most pug guilds that can only pvdoor. Guilds like GAO and Army of the Pact its perfect for them. All the real pvp guilds were in IC fighting it out for the event. PVdoor is not Pvp.

Crispen_Longbow · September 2020

marlonbrando wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Yep, if you wanted to PVP you were in IC if you wanted to pvdoor you were in Cyro.

i.e., If you wanted to avoid testing the changes that we were asked to test, you heavily avoided going into Cyrodiil and stayed in Imperial City.

The only reason that EP was "pvdooring" was because the other factions decided not to help with the testing.

EP has the most pug guilds [snip]. All the top tier guilds, as well as most mid level guilds were in IC. Great fights for the week in IC virtually night and day difference from Cyro lag. If you wanted to PVP last week you were in IC.

[edited for baiting]

Crispen_Longbow · September 2020

Flangdoodle wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Yep, if you wanted to PVP you were in IC if you wanted to pvdoor you were in Cyro.

Strange that all those IC PVP-ers just happened to miss-out on the AOE cooldown testing? Ah well, I'm sure it's just coincidence.

Stupid of Zos to plan an IC PVP event for the first round of AOE global cooldown testing. The top tier and mid level pvp guilds were all in IC fighting it out. Fights were fun in IC with no lag. The pvdoor guilds just hid in Cyro.

Flangdoodle · September 2020

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

AP missed out on the fights. You guys should have come play, but that would have required you to actually pvp. On a side note, there were several instances of IC with a lot of pvers in them. AP could have competed against them.

...and not a single one of those fights would have had anything to do with the TESTING (y'know, the original point of this thread?) or given any indication of what a disaster primetime in Gray Host PC/NA can be with all the crashes, lag, random load screens, and abilities, light/heavy attacks, and seige not working, etc.

I can't believe I'm actually saying this - but for once I was actually *looking forward* to crashing, being stuck in combat for hours, not being able to light or heavy attack when arriving at the outer-walls of a crowded keep, etc. because it might actually be shown in the testing and just maybe they could figure out what causes it so they can finally FIX IT.

Yeah, it was unfortunate that they planned the first round of testing to coincide with an event outside of Cyrodiil, but I had hoped that maybe the folks in *all* factions who complain about it the most might actually have shown up for the one thing that has a chance to fix it. I guess it was too much to expect any of the "top tier" guilds to give a ___.

When they finish the testing, they're going to look at the results of all the tests, and they'll see that the global AOE cooldown in the first week resulted in the smoothest server performance. So guess what remedy they'll choose? [snip] but do you really want that?

[Edited for Baiting]

Crispen_Longbow · September 2020

Flangdoodle wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

AP missed out on the fights. You guys should have come play, but that would have required you to actually pvp. On a side note, there were several instances of IC with a lot of pvers in them. AP could have competed against them.

...and not a single one of those fights would have had anything to do with the TESTING (y'know, the original point of this thread?) or given any indication of what a disaster primetime in Gray Host PC/NA can be with all the crashes, lag, random load screens, and abilities, light/heavy attacks, and seige not working, etc.

[snip] ZOS has had 6 years of server data to fix this. IC runs just fine with all the guild groups fighting each other in IC without having to change any skills, cooldowns, proc sets etc and it's lag free. The sad truth is that their mega server setup can't handle all the server calculations. They also can't run more calculations client side because they have no anti-cheat software. The global mega server doesn't work. They should break up Cyro into sections like IC is.

I can't believe I'm actually saying this - but for once I was actually *looking forward* to crashing, being stuck in combat for hours, not being able to light or heavy attack when arriving at the outer-walls of a crowded keep, etc. because it might actually be shown in the testing and just maybe they could figure out what causes it so they can finally FIX IT.

Yeah, it was unfortunate that they planned the first round of testing to coincide with an event outside of Cyrodiil, but I had hoped that maybe the folks in *all* factions who complain about it the most might actually have shown up for the one thing that has a chance to fix it. I guess it was too much to expect any of the "top tier" guilds to give a ___

[snip]

There are 6 rounds of testing. IC event is over and everyone is back in participating in the testing, surprise surprise lag is still the same as every. Their global servers can't handle their game infrastructure.

When they finish the testing, they're going to look at the results of all the tests, and they'll see that the global AOE cooldown in the first week resulted in the smoothest server performance.

They will also look at the population and see the server was dead. The pvdoor guilds should have come to IC with the rest of the better guilds, to show zos how insane Global AOE cooldowns are.

So guess what remedy they'll choose? [snip] but do you really want that?

[snip]
Simple answer AP is about pvdooring and Dolmens and not actually pvp. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Edited for Baiting/Bashing]

pma_pacifier · September 2020

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Yep, if you wanted to PVP you were in IC if you wanted to pvdoor you were in Cyro.

Eh, this isn't accurate. The big issue for PC NA was that the EP numbers were so overwhelming, it was often a losing battle for AD (and DC, when they decided to show up before leaving again to keep their low-pop bonus in order to stay in 2nd place). So there were still people PvPing in Gray Host, it was just an uphill battle unless you were EP, who had the numbers to continually swarm all over the map.

All three populations were certainly lower - I never saw DC go over two bars, and rarely saw AD at three. EP was consistently at 2-3 bars, with the occasional pop-lock - but it would not be correct to say there was no PvP happening.

EP greyhoust had the highest population during the IC Event because they have the most pug guilds that can only pvdoor. Guilds like GAO and Army of the Pact its perfect for them. All the real pvp guilds were in IC fighting it out for the event. PVdoor is not Pvp.

I concur. One example was AOTP with full guild raid assembled (with tabbards) pvdooring trikeeps of AD and DC when the pop of AD/DC was like 1 or 2 bars. Any opposing faction members trying to participate would just leave because they kept swarming the trikeeps. Imagine....

I would assume the situation will not get better with faction change tokens being consumed to switch to EP with each iteration of campaign locks. In every campaign iteration I've been seeing usual AD/DC faces in EP.

Psiion · September 2020

Greetings all,

After removing a few unnecessary back and forth posts form this thread, we would like to remind everyone that Baiting is against the Forum's Community Rules as stated below:

Trolling or Baiting: The act of trolling is defined as something that is created for the intent to provoke conflict, shock others, or to elicit a strong negative or emotional reaction. It’s okay and very normal to disagree with others, and even to debate, but provoking conflict, baiting, inciting, mocking, etc. is never acceptable in the official The Elder Scrolls Online community. If you do not have something constructive or meaningful to add to a discussion, we strongly recommend you refrain from posting in that thread, and find another discussion to participate in instead. It is also not constructive or helpful to publicly call out others and accuse them of trolling, or call them a troll—please refrain from doing so. If you genuinely believe someone is trolling, please report the post or thread to the ESO Team, and leave it at that.

Flangdoodle · September 2020

ZOS_KageW wrote: »

Greetings all,

After removing a few unnecessary back and forth posts form this thread, we would like to remind everyone that Baiting is against the Forum's Community Rules as stated below:

Trolling or Baiting: The act of trolling is defined as something that is created for the intent to provoke conflict, shock others, or to elicit a strong negative or emotional reaction. It’s okay and very normal to disagree with others, and even to debate, but provoking conflict, baiting, inciting, mocking, etc. is never acceptable in the official The Elder Scrolls Online community.

Hello ZOS_KageW. Thanks. Does the baiting inciting and mocking include groups as well as individuals? If so, I'd suggest that for consistency a few more posts need to be removed from this thread?

Joy_Division · September 2020

That particular test does not need to be run again because it makes the game unplayable for about 85% of the population.

Soul_Demon · September 2020

Flangdoodle wrote: »

The first test was run in an empty server. Gray Host didn't have a queue for the entire week. Neither yellow nor blue were pop-locked for 95% of the time in prime time and red though it showed as pop-locked never had queues longer than a minute, if at all. Whether it was because of the IC event, or whatever excuse, any results from that test should be tossed because it wasn't even close to normal conditions in that campaign.

I didn't really like having to wait three seconds to run another ability any more than anyone else - and I would hate for that to become the new standard because that test showed the least amount of server lag. *Of course* it did - there was nobody there.

I am sure that was by design....I cant imagine a world where the Devs did not know that the players would gravitate to IC for an event when they ran the testing- so the result will reflect on server as the timer on AOE's showed server performance way up for the duration of that week. If it was accidental I am not quite sure how engaged Devs would be to NOT see that as a serious problem in the testing design---it will clearly produce a result that is predictable. As groups return for the other tests and the event is over the server will show decrease in performance, again suggesting AOE's must be put on timers.

marlonbrando · September 2020

pma_pacifier wrote: »

I concur. One example was AOTP with full guild raid assembled (with tabbards) pvdooring trikeeps of AD and DC when the pop of AD/DC was like 1 or 2 bars. Any opposing faction members trying to participate would just leave because they kept swarming the trikeeps. Imagine....

I can't help but think that you're trying to make this sound like AP was somehow exploiting something here rather than playing the game like we do whenever we group up.

We were running our usual number of people in our usual campaign, hoping to find someone to fight who would help stress the system the way ZOS wanted to stress it. We switched to other campaigns when it seems like there were more DC and AD in those campaigns but, eventually, when no one showed up to fight we (the horror!) ended up just taking keeps, hoping that maybe the alarm would go out and an opposing faction would show up to fight.

For whatever reason, we really only saw large groups of opposing players on one night, which goes to Flang's point that the initial cooldown test wasn't really valid.

Note that this is not the case with the current round of individual cooldown testing. AP has been in conflict with groups from both AD and DC which is exactly what should be happening for these tests.

.

Adamus · September 2020

The first week tests should be re-done.
It's painful to say, to think about and I'm not a fan of them at all but there was a noticeable lack of lag on the server during the first test. For whatever reason the servers weren't stressed to their normal conditions, it's unfortunate, but having experienced little change in lag during the second week, 3 sec individual cool downs, I would be very hesitant to support a 3 sec. global cool down without another test.
Ultimately not my decision to make and we'll just have to adapt to the final decision, I just hope the remaining tests are more promising than Week 2.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · September 2020

Adamus wrote: »

The first week tests should be re-done.
It's painful to say, to think about and I'm not a fan of them at all but there was a noticeable lack of lag on the server during the first test. For whatever reason the servers weren't stressed to their normal conditions, it's unfortunate, but having experienced little change in lag during the second week, 3 sec individual cool downs, I would be very hesitant to support a 3 sec. global cool down without another test.
Ultimately not my decision to make and we'll just have to adapt to the final decision, I just hope the remaining tests are more promising than Week 2.

I would also be interested in a re-run of the first week's test to see if the population being higher makes a difference

Satiar · September 2020

It has to be Cyro. No appreciative lag in IC with 3+ organized groups in same zone.

PenguinInACan · September 2020

Satiar wrote: »

It has to be Cyro. No appreciative lag in IC with 3+ organized groups in same zone.

There has to be something with how IC is rendered. Doors with load screens etc. Not really sure how they can tune Cyro to parallel IC zoning but my money has been on IC as the model performance for a while now.