bowmanz607 wrote: »

show previous quotes

leepalmer95 wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Torbschka wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Torbschka wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Torbschka wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Gan Xing wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Also what kind of nonscientific approach for the topic is that. You simply won´t get any worthwhile results @ZOS_BrianWheeler because people can not play the same way with CP compared to playing without.

They simply can´t use their skills in the same way.

Actually, it is very scientific. They observed a phenomenon and they are testing it throughout multiple different servers. Assuming that Azura's Star is the control (as it always was a non-cp campaign), they get to see how Haderus and True Flame is affected by the 1 week change, and then compare it to Azura's Star.

Also, I can assure the console that they won't have to deal with this test.

How is changing two variables at once scientific.

They are currently not able to tell if player behavior or noCP cause the difference for azura.
Taking away CP for all campaigns will inevitably change playerbehavior.

So if lag gets better during that time they still won´t be able to tell if it´s playerbehavior or CP causing the lag.

In fact the only meaningful result would be the campaigns still lagging @Gan Xing

Holy crap, I really never write such things, but this nonsense..

Im.currently writing a doctor thesis and if they change 1 variable it is scientific. All you do is assuming that there are 2, but there arent. Changing the CP is 1 change, the less skill spam is a result of that, non a variable.

Furthermore there will still be 1 min big zerg spam fights, if theres better performance u even have the answer. People could even play with more regen - so no change in playstyle. Variables are controllable and playstyle ist none holy ***.

So stop this *** just cuz ur build wont work that 1 week and your "game without CP is no fünf" term. Maxybe it isnt for you, but maybe it is for others, u thought about that ? Lawl PLZ stop that.

Ofc player behavior is a variable in this case (as it changes with no CP because players will be unable to play the same way they would if there were cp).
Their problem is that one variable is dependant on the other in their system.

If they can not distinguish between:
a) less lag because of different player behavior
b) less lag because of no cp calculations

Their only solution is to permanently disable CP. Or change CP calculations and hope that fixes lag (with the real risk of player behavior being the deciding factor for lag and wasting work on a change with no effect - thiswould not be a risk if it wasn´t a variable - but it is).

To draw relevant conclusions they´d have to find a way for people to play the same way they do currently (ie same costs and dmg/reductions) without cp enabled. That would yield results.

I don´t have high hopes for your doctor thesis - unless it´s in gender studies but than why bring it up as it´s obviously irrelevant.

Of course its not, u arent a dumb guy derra , come on.

How u wanna controller how I am playing? Ur asdumption is -> less sustain - less spam. Fine. What if -> less sustain -> stack more regen -> same spam.

Variables are on ur side, u can controll them. U just cant controll how much the players will spam or not, u can try to put them into one field, but there are (eapecially in this game) always ways to compensate that.

Data like CP are variables, u just put them off or on. This is a variable. How u wanna put game style off or on? Okay got me, habe 10h maintenance

You can't achieve CP sustain on non CP campaigns.
I don't understand why people are giving Derra so much sh** when he points out the huge gapping flaw of this test.

As other people have proposed, they should change battle spirit to make up for the removal of CP, just for that week. That way we indeed get to test the change of ONE variable, CP calculations, while keeping the same player behaviour.

Still not convinced. I guarentee that I will be able to create a setup with WAY more sustain than my current on the CP campaign and Im pretty sure both of u can do. The sacrifice in DMG is obvious, but thats about.

I dont give trash on derra, i like him, i just dont think hes (and you) are on the right track. I dont See how u wanna create the same playing field in this game, ur solution wont work either derra and its very simple.

E.g. I use atronach + regen drinks, u are mage + max food. U can do what u want, but as long as I am as a player has the choice to choose betweem different setups/styles u can not controll me - thats my whole point. There is no way u can controll me unless u have 5 skills, 1 set, 1 mundus and 1 drink/food and we obvious dont have that.

The problem is: Most people won´t go through the effort of adapting their build for one week.
That means those people (most likely the large silent majority) will skew your results.

When that´s a real possibility you have a test that can yield no conclusive result apart from a total failure. That is not a good test.

Also you´re having your whole argument backwards. You can´t control what the player does. True.
But that´s exactly why you have to present them with a test where they don´t have to change anything.
If the players in the first place have to change something to receive comparable results on their end (ie same sustain) your test is bad.
I have no idea how you can´t understand that.

You can´t control the player directly. Thats why you have to controll the environment so the player does not notice a change he might be inclined to react on.
That´s an absolutely basic approach to problem solving tbh.

You don't know what people will and won't do first of all. It is pure speculation on your part. I can turn and say I believe that many people will adapt for the time. For one they will earn more ap during double ap. It is also a chance to try something new and less current meta. Point is both sides is a imply speculation. Bottom line is people will want to pvp more so now then before if for nothing more than ap. This stress tests the servers.

Also, you seem to be missing the point. Gear and builds is not what is being tested here. It is the CP system that is being tested. It is all of those passive and perks from the CP tree that cause all the extra calculation that are being tested. So yes taking them out to see performance is a solid way to go. The fact that people don't want to adapt to the change for whatever reason is irrelevant for purposes of this test.

That said, it is not hard to make some tweaks to your build for the week. Changing glyphs and mundus stone to sustain goes a long way. Crafted gear such as seduced and eternal hunt are easy to get and viable options that will take no time at all. People will also realize how much more balanced heavy armor is without cp.

You read nothing that Derra wrote did you?
You can't control players, is the exact reason why this test is bound to fail from the start.
When you remove CP, you force players to change their playstyles, so there will be no way to know if there is less lag because of different player behaviour, or because of less CP calculations.

The only way to truly test the effect of CP calculations is to make sure players have the same stats so that they play the same way they usually do.

Wrong. You change playstyle sure. But theven focus is not on playstyle is it. The focus is on the calculations the server needs to make from cp. No matter your playstyle you utilize cp and calculations are made on server. With no cp people still are free to change playstyle, but their are no cp calculations to be made.

We ar3 not testing players here. We are testing how a system works when it has to make all of these extra calculations and how it works when it does not have to make all those extra calculations.

Cp = more sustain = higher dmg setups that spam big skills more.

Non cp = less sustain = less spam.

i would disagree to a degree. No cp = build change = same amount of skills being spammed, but with less damage.

Derra wrote: »

show previous quotes

bowmanz607 wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Torbschka wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Torbschka wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Torbschka wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Gan Xing wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Also what kind of nonscientific approach for the topic is that. You simply won´t get any worthwhile results @ZOS_BrianWheeler because people can not play the same way with CP compared to playing without.

They simply can´t use their skills in the same way.

Actually, it is very scientific. They observed a phenomenon and they are testing it throughout multiple different servers. Assuming that Azura's Star is the control (as it always was a non-cp campaign), they get to see how Haderus and True Flame is affected by the 1 week change, and then compare it to Azura's Star.

Also, I can assure the console that they won't have to deal with this test.

How is changing two variables at once scientific.

They are currently not able to tell if player behavior or noCP cause the difference for azura.
Taking away CP for all campaigns will inevitably change playerbehavior.

So if lag gets better during that time they still won´t be able to tell if it´s playerbehavior or CP causing the lag.

In fact the only meaningful result would be the campaigns still lagging @Gan Xing

Holy crap, I really never write such things, but this nonsense..

Im.currently writing a doctor thesis and if they change 1 variable it is scientific. All you do is assuming that there are 2, but there arent. Changing the CP is 1 change, the less skill spam is a result of that, non a variable.

Furthermore there will still be 1 min big zerg spam fights, if theres better performance u even have the answer. People could even play with more regen - so no change in playstyle. Variables are controllable and playstyle ist none holy ***.

So stop this *** just cuz ur build wont work that 1 week and your "game without CP is no fünf" term. Maxybe it isnt for you, but maybe it is for others, u thought about that ? Lawl PLZ stop that.

Ofc player behavior is a variable in this case (as it changes with no CP because players will be unable to play the same way they would if there were cp).
Their problem is that one variable is dependant on the other in their system.

If they can not distinguish between:
a) less lag because of different player behavior
b) less lag because of no cp calculations

Their only solution is to permanently disable CP. Or change CP calculations and hope that fixes lag (with the real risk of player behavior being the deciding factor for lag and wasting work on a change with no effect - thiswould not be a risk if it wasn´t a variable - but it is).

To draw relevant conclusions they´d have to find a way for people to play the same way they do currently (ie same costs and dmg/reductions) without cp enabled. That would yield results.

I don´t have high hopes for your doctor thesis - unless it´s in gender studies but than why bring it up as it´s obviously irrelevant.

Of course its not, u arent a dumb guy derra , come on.

How u wanna controller how I am playing? Ur asdumption is -> less sustain - less spam. Fine. What if -> less sustain -> stack more regen -> same spam.

Variables are on ur side, u can controll them. U just cant controll how much the players will spam or not, u can try to put them into one field, but there are (eapecially in this game) always ways to compensate that.

Data like CP are variables, u just put them off or on. This is a variable. How u wanna put game style off or on? Okay got me, habe 10h maintenance

You can't achieve CP sustain on non CP campaigns.
I don't understand why people are giving Derra so much sh** when he points out the huge gapping flaw of this test.

As other people have proposed, they should change battle spirit to make up for the removal of CP, just for that week. That way we indeed get to test the change of ONE variable, CP calculations, while keeping the same player behaviour.

Still not convinced. I guarentee that I will be able to create a setup with WAY more sustain than my current on the CP campaign and Im pretty sure both of u can do. The sacrifice in DMG is obvious, but thats about.

I dont give trash on derra, i like him, i just dont think hes (and you) are on the right track. I dont See how u wanna create the same playing field in this game, ur solution wont work either derra and its very simple.

E.g. I use atronach + regen drinks, u are mage + max food. U can do what u want, but as long as I am as a player has the choice to choose betweem different setups/styles u can not controll me - thats my whole point. There is no way u can controll me unless u have 5 skills, 1 set, 1 mundus and 1 drink/food and we obvious dont have that.

The problem is: Most people won´t go through the effort of adapting their build for one week.
That means those people (most likely the large silent majority) will skew your results.

When that´s a real possibility you have a test that can yield no conclusive result apart from a total failure. That is not a good test.

Also you´re having your whole argument backwards. You can´t control what the player does. True.
But that´s exactly why you have to present them with a test where they don´t have to change anything.
If the players in the first place have to change something to receive comparable results on their end (ie same sustain) your test is bad.
I have no idea how you can´t understand that.

You can´t control the player directly. Thats why you have to controll the environment so the player does not notice a change he might be inclined to react on.
That´s an absolutely basic approach to problem solving tbh.

You don't know what people will and won't do first of all. It is pure speculation on your part. I can turn and say I believe that many people will adapt for the time. For one they will earn more ap during double ap. It is also a chance to try something new and less current meta. Point is both sides is a imply speculation. Bottom line is people will want to pvp more so now then before if for nothing more than ap. This stress tests the servers.

Also, you seem to be missing the point. Gear and builds is not what is being tested here. It is the CP system that is being tested. It is all of those passive and perks from the CP tree that cause all the extra calculation that are being tested. So yes taking them out to see performance is a solid way to go. The fact that people don't want to adapt to the change for whatever reason is irrelevant for purposes of this test.

That said, it is not hard to make some tweaks to your build for the week. Changing glyphs and mundus stone to sustain goes a long way. Crafted gear such as seduced and eternal hunt are easy to get and viable options that will take no time at all. People will also realize how much more balanced heavy armor is without cp.

You read nothing that Derra wrote did you?
You can't control players, is the exact reason why this test is bound to fail from the start.
When you remove CP, you force players to change their playstyles, so there will be no way to know if there is less lag because of different player behaviour, or because of less CP calculations.

The only way to truly test the effect of CP calculations is to make sure players have the same stats so that they play the same way they usually do.

Wrong. You change playstyle sure. But theven focus is not on playstyle is it. The focus is on the calculations the server needs to make from cp. No matter your playstyle you utilize cp and calculations are made on server. With no cp people still are free to change playstyle, but their are no cp calculations to be made.

We ar3 not testing players here. We are testing how a system works when it has to make all of these extra calculations and how it works when it does not have to make all those extra calculations.

Cp = more sustain = higher dmg setups that spam big skills more.

Non cp = less sustain = less spam.

i would disagree to a degree. No cp = build change = same amount of skills being spammed, but with less damage.

Which would require the majority of players to change their build.
Even if 50% change their build the results would still be skewed (i´d bet you rl moneys there won´t be 50% changing builds - but we have no way to tell).

Do you know how unwilling people are to adapt to new things. The only gets worsened as it´s not a permanent change.

bowmanz607 wrote: »

i disagree. if people are dieing because they cant sustain and are losing fights and not gaining ap to take advantage of double ap, then they will change some basic things to sustain such as glyphs and mundus stones. Easy fix to get through the week. Really the only change i make when i go to azuras and dont want to make a new build. Again, it will take 10 min to get seducer or eternal hunt crafted. and throw it on.

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

Will there be some kind of Battle Spirit reduction to skill costs if you ever get rid of CP in all of PvP? The mitigation increases from red stars and the damage increases from blue stars kind of cancel each other out, but the resource management via the green stars is not really cancelled out in any way via CP. Resource management is much tougher on the non-CP campaigns. And it feels like, throughout the game, skill and resource costs have been based around assuming people will have certain levels of resource management via green CP stars. An across the board 16% increase in skill costs in PvP and 25% regen decrease in PvP is likely to just lead to people running out of resources quickly and dying. Which makes sense for certain builds decked out in "infinite resource" gear, but is just going to make TTK go way down for the typical PvP player in modest gear.

And are the stars you put the points in even the problem? Those ultimately feel no different than putting points in attributes or skills. Is the real problem the "passive" CP stars that kick in at 10, 30, 75, 120 CP? Many of those have conditional effects that may require constant server calculations to see if they should activate. Maybe disabling the CP passives in all PvP while keeping the star points invested would help performance a lot while still making long time, dedicated players feel like they have some tangible reward for time played over a brand new player who grinded to CP160 in a few days.

flguy147ub17_ESO wrote: »

show previous quotes

Skulfur wrote: »

Great news, but adjusting the amount of AP/Keepflip afterwards? That means 12k per flip over the course of a week? That sounds like everyone will just flip keeps over the course of a week instead of fighting, cause flipping keeps is gonna give more AP.

Thats sad if people do that, If you truely care about the game, you will help ZOS. This is a big deal for them to take this effort to try and improve the performance in PVP. If the community doesnt help them for their selfish gains then its just really sad. This is for the longevity of the game not a short time AP boost.

OtarTheMad wrote: »

I think people are overreacting. I don't think they will remove all CP from all campaigns after this test (unless they introduced a campaign with soft caps and dynamic ult).

This is just a test week in my opinion, maybe I am wrong, but I don't see them taking CP away. They might change the CP a bit (like @Princess_Asgari said in another thread, it really needs some adjustment)

Just because they might install a test where everyone has to wear a red hat to see if the color red is messing up the server, it doesn't mean going forward every hat will be red it just means they are trying to isolate something to see if it's the problem.

Finisherofwar wrote: »

If you want to make tests leave at least one campaign with cp and no double alliance points on that one so those that enjoy cp campaigns can continue to pvp.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

This has been discussed internally at length and we are still going to double the AP from those sources during this test.