imPDA wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

We need an explanation as to why on these performance graphs the player number axis is blurred out.

That's a good question. I initially thought it might be because the numbers on the chart do not correspond to the actual values on the axes and it would be really clear without the blur, but it turns out it aligns pretty well.



As you can see, 18mm on the ruler corresponds to 900 players, which is 50 players per ruler mm. The lower cap at 360 aligns almost perfectly - 7mm * 50 = 350, which is close to 360. It's not an accurate measurement for sure, but everything looks legit so far.

But why blur it for real? It raises another suspicion: what if the values are not as advertised? For example, what if there are no 360 players in GH now, but 300 or even less? Let's assume the chart grid tick is 200, so 200 = 5mm (40 people per ruler mm). This would mean the lower (current) cap is around 7mm * 40 = 280 people and the new higher cap is 18 * 40 = 720. Could this be the truth? I don't know - it's hard to tell since the numbers are strongly blurred. I like to analyze things and decided to share this picture

Btw, as I remember, this chart was shown on Twitch after the first test, right? Does somebody have a recording of this stream?

I think the answer is simply, they made this for that first stream when they didn't want to reveal numbers. They've decided to now reveal numbers but it's easier to just reuse the old picture.

The second graph, despite being labeled FPS, is clearly latency and the cutoff labels at the bottom say it's measured in ms.

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: »

imPDA wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

We need an explanation as to why on these performance graphs the player number axis is blurred out.

That's a good question. I initially thought it might be because the numbers on the chart do not correspond to the actual values on the axes and it would be really clear without the blur, but it turns out it aligns pretty well.



As you can see, 18mm on the ruler corresponds to 900 players, which is 50 players per ruler mm. The lower cap at 360 aligns almost perfectly - 7mm * 50 = 350, which is close to 360. It's not an accurate measurement for sure, but everything looks legit so far.

But why blur it for real? It raises another suspicion: what if the values are not as advertised? For example, what if there are no 360 players in GH now, but 300 or even less? Let's assume the chart grid tick is 200, so 200 = 5mm (40 people per ruler mm). This would mean the lower (current) cap is around 7mm * 40 = 280 people and the new higher cap is 18 * 40 = 720. Could this be the truth? I don't know - it's hard to tell since the numbers are strongly blurred. I like to analyze things and decided to share this picture

Btw, as I remember, this chart was shown on Twitch after the first test, right? Does somebody have a recording of this stream?

I think the answer is simply, they made this for that first stream when they didn't want to reveal numbers. They've decided to now reveal numbers but it's easier to just reuse the old picture.

The second graph, despite being labeled FPS, is clearly latency and the cutoff labels at the bottom say it's measured in ms.

To me this is a very suspicious alteration of the graphs. It's even more ironic that the original post was being made in the sake of "transparency". So why is the number values on the player number axis blurred out for the sake of transparency.

And Jessica's post says that these values are FPS in her summary.

If you go with “Scenario 2: We would close all existing Cyrodiil campaigns and open one or two Vengeance ruleset campaigns sometime next year.” guild of 500+ will go to Ashes of Creation so quick. Most would rather play an alpha. Thats a ton of subs being lost and money.

Zos - I am very excited to hear more about the mid-sized campaign mode! I have the feeling the higher performance will be super attractive to the gray host die hards. They might not realize it now, but I think they will love it. You can still have the massive siege combat in your own custom gear, but the performance speeds will be a lot better. Sounds like a win-win to me! Also, less running and more fighting would be cool too.

Also, I'm very excited to hear more about your plans for the new PvP progression system! Can't wait to see what that is all about!

I would like to chime in and share my one major concern though, and this is in alignment with other peoples comments above. But I am worried that between gray host, vengeance, IC, mid-sized campaign, and BGs, we are spreading the population to thin. Sometimes, the menu can be too large.

Here is my super unhinged and biased opinion on the matter (I know this will attract some haters, but this is my truth) -
I would be fine with gray host going away. Everyone is upset and complaining about the performance (for good reason), and nobody is having fun anymore. ZOS has been transparent by admitting that the game has gotten too in depth to handle all of the ticks. Lets just recognize that it is time for ESO to EVOLVE. Sometimes in order to do that, you need to shed old skin. Can we just drop gray host and allow ZOS to focus more on refreshing the game with new content. Again, I think this mid-size campaign mode sounds like a great step in the right direction. Kudos to ZOS for thinking outside of the box.

I understand that a large portion of the community loves gray host. I really do. I used to love gray host as well. But what I don't understand, is how people will ONLY play ESO if gray host is around. Look, the writing is on the wall. The game needs to evolve and change in order to grow into the future. The ways of the past, 10 years ago, are no longer viable. Can you please try and be open to new game modes like the mid sized campaign? Please? If not, you might be the ones who are solely responsible for holding ZOS back and preventing ESO PVP from becoming great again.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

There is no way that current population on Greyhost is 360. that would be 120 across all factions which is the same as 10 groups worth.

During the time we were fighting a guild on EP They invited almost every single player on their faction and got to 86 vs us one night, this was when group cap was 24. and the campaign queue was in its 200+ era .

Numbers have not been that high for over 4 years now.

I expect if anything that this 360 number comes from when they ran the previous tests years ago not actual recent gameplay.

Are you a dev? Do you have a source that these numbers aren't actual caps that isn't just guessing? I knew someone would come out and deny it, took longer than I thought though.

If only Grey Host and Vengeance are going to be around, I really will miss Blackreach. Blackreach has been my home on all my characters on PCNA and PCEU for years because I don't really care for Alliance-locking.

Also, if there will only be those two, perhaps we could rename Grey Host to a more content-neutral word? Western Skyrim came out so many years ago! Maybe something like Nemesis, to sort of match?

Radiate77 wrote: »

With a permanent Vengeance campaign, we need sets, and we need Subclassing + Scribing.

Save the sets for Gray Host. Vengeance doesn't need them.

Subclassing can be implemented in Vengeance easily, but the Vengeance equivalent of Scribing will take some time to develop. The whole point of Vengeance is that abilities are optimized for performance, and Scribing abilities are not optimized for that at all.

JustLovely wrote: »

Cloudtrader wrote: »

If only Grey Host and Vengeance are going to be around, I really will miss Blackreach. Blackreach has been my home on all my characters on PCNA and PCEU for years because I don't really care for Alliance-locking.

Also, if there will only be those two, perhaps we could rename Grey Host to a more content-neutral word? Western Skyrim came out so many years ago! Maybe something like Nemesis, to sort of match?

It's going to be either grey host or vengance. It will not be both....according to Jessica's explanation.

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

With a permanent Vengeance campaign, we need sets, and we need Subclassing + Scribing.

Save the sets for Gray Host. Vengeance doesn't need them.

Subclassing can be implemented in Vengeance easily, but the Vengeance equivalent of Scribing will take some time to develop. The whole point of Vengeance is that abilities are optimized for performance, and Scribing abilities are not optimized for that at all.

What are you talking about?

Radiate77 wrote: »

…This is the trajectory of Option 2. Give us a reason to play all content, other than titles of which we have countless.

Let’s not pretend Option 2 isn’t entirely likely.

If/when we get Option 2, we need sets, otherwise players like me are not going to participate in PvE at the level we all currently do.

We need to prepare for the worst.

Erickson9610 wrote: »

How is Option 2 even remotely possible? ZOS has stated several times that they do not want to go down that path. There's actually nothing stopping them from continuing to ignore Gray Host and leave it as it always has been.

ZOS had stated several times that vengeance was "only a test."

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

With a permanent Vengeance campaign, we need sets, and we need Subclassing + Scribing.

Save the sets for Gray Host. Vengeance doesn't need them.

Subclassing can be implemented in Vengeance easily, but the Vengeance equivalent of Scribing will take some time to develop. The whole point of Vengeance is that abilities are optimized for performance, and Scribing abilities are not optimized for that at all.

What are you talking about?

Radiate77 wrote: »

…This is the trajectory of Option 2. Give us a reason to play all content, other than titles of which we have countless.

Let’s not pretend Option 2 isn’t entirely likely.

If/when we get Option 2, we need sets, otherwise players like me are not going to participate in PvE at the level we all currently do.

We need to prepare for the worst.

How is Option 2 even remotely possible? ZOS has stated several times that they do not want to go down that path. There's actually nothing stopping them from continuing to ignore Gray Host and leave it as it always has been.

In fact, they are offering several compromises, which will all exist simultaneously:

1. Gray Host, the same as it's always been. Large scale map with a lower population cap with in-depth builds.
2. Vengeance, a version of Cyrodiil with higher population caps but with simplified builds.
3. A new medium-sized map, with the same gameplay and builds as Gray Host but with a smaller map and improved performance.

There is no downside to having more options. And when Crossplay gets added, there'll most likely need to be an additional campaign open to support players coming in from other platforms.


As far as more incentive to play goes, I think that new PvP progression system that was briefly mentioned will go a long way. Ideally there'll be enough people to populate all three of those options listed above.

You’ve never experienced this? Where you’re told two options, one of which you don’t want, and you start off with the better one while being undermined the whole time?

What do you think, Jess meant when she said that no more work could be done on Grayhost?

Read between the lines.

They may not want to do it, but that doesn’t mean they won’t. The fact that it is even an idea on the table, speaks volumes.

Now answer me this, why WOULDN’T they want to remove Grayhost? They can’t fix it. Why would they leave an experience in the game that will by their words, never improve? Who would want to even invest time into that?

It’s the New World situation all over again.
Why would anybody play a live service that is done being serviced? Grayhost is done. The sooner we can all accept that, we can begin to sculpt Vengeance into what it needs to be.

Radiate77 wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

With a permanent Vengeance campaign, we need sets, and we need Subclassing + Scribing.

Save the sets for Gray Host. Vengeance doesn't need them.

Subclassing can be implemented in Vengeance easily, but the Vengeance equivalent of Scribing will take some time to develop. The whole point of Vengeance is that abilities are optimized for performance, and Scribing abilities are not optimized for that at all.

What are you talking about?

Radiate77 wrote: »

…This is the trajectory of Option 2. Give us a reason to play all content, other than titles of which we have countless.

Let’s not pretend Option 2 isn’t entirely likely.

If/when we get Option 2, we need sets, otherwise players like me are not going to participate in PvE at the level we all currently do.

We need to prepare for the worst.

How is Option 2 even remotely possible? ZOS has stated several times that they do not want to go down that path. There's actually nothing stopping them from continuing to ignore Gray Host and leave it as it always has been.

In fact, they are offering several compromises, which will all exist simultaneously:

1. Gray Host, the same as it's always been. Large scale map with a lower population cap with in-depth builds.
2. Vengeance, a version of Cyrodiil with higher population caps but with simplified builds.
3. A new medium-sized map, with the same gameplay and builds as Gray Host but with a smaller map and improved performance.

There is no downside to having more options. And when Crossplay gets added, there'll most likely need to be an additional campaign open to support players coming in from other platforms.


As far as more incentive to play goes, I think that new PvP progression system that was briefly mentioned will go a long way. Ideally there'll be enough people to populate all three of those options listed above.

You’ve never experienced this? Where you’re told two options, one of which you don’t want, and you start off with the better one while being undermined the whole time?

What do you think, Jess meant when she said that no more work could be done on Grayhost?

Read between the lines.

They may not want to do it, but that doesn’t mean they won’t. The fact that it is even an idea on the table, speaks volumes.

Now answer me this, why WOULDN’T they want to remove Grayhost? They can’t fix it. Why would they leave an experience in the game that will by their words, never improve? Who would want to even invest time into that?

It’s the New World situation all over again.
Why would anybody play a live service that is done being serviced? Grayhost is done. The sooner we can all accept that, we can begin to sculpt Vengeance into what it needs to be.

They wouldn't remove Gray Host because it has a dedicated player base who would leave if it was removed. That's not hard to believe.

If anything, I can see Vengeance becoming the new standard, with Gray Host being like how No-Proc was to regular Cyrodiil. It's clear to me that Vengeance is how ZOS intends Cyrodiil to be, but as long as Gray Host has a dedicated crowd, it will stick around. That's probably why ZOS wants to make this new medium-sized map — it'll have the gameplay of regular Cyrodiil but with the scale that ZOS wants from the battles.

Muizer wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

There is no downside to having more options.

Yes there is: If they keep current Cyrodiil and add Vengeance, then that is a serious increase in the amount of content to maintain and develop going forward. Considering the team evidently lacks resources to do so, something will have to give. My money is on current Cyrodiil PvP.

I’d agree here. They’ll continue to pour resources into Vengeance for balance, etc. Classic Cyrodiil would essentially go into a semi and eventually permanent maintenance mode. They’ve pretty much said in their opinion it’s impossible to improve current Cyrodiil performance, so why would they commit other resources to it? Maybe a few set adjustments, but beyond that it doesn’t seem doable with their current staffing.