This will sound super lame but we could do something crazy like no abilities AvA for one campaign. Light and heavy attacks only, with siege use. No ultimates, no ability bars, pure old-fashioned sieging.

Good old-fashioned bow squads and sword and board leading the charge, siege to provide support fire from the rear. Too bad it's nigh impossible to coordinate this as players, would be a totally different experience (and lag free I bet).

s7732425ub17_ESO wrote: »

The devs know exactly when lag occurs and why it happens. Hell, anyone who plays PVP knows what causes it and can duplicate it on demand.

Fixing it is the hard part.

There are some more obvious and seemingly obvious causes, sure, but even when fixes for those are devised stress testing is still important. There may be other less obvious causes or more obscure details within the obvious ones that need to be identified and addressed. There are many systems interacting and some really small thing can potentially cause a problem like the lag to become much worse.

Basically I'm just asking if there is anything that players who want to get the lag reduced can do that might help speed up the process creating or testing fixes for improvement. Honestly, if heading over to the PTS a few times for a some huge battles or what not would help with getting noticeable improvement on the live server sooner, I'm all for it.

I know ZOS has been looking at a particle issue as part of the ongoing lag fix, and of course many players want to see AoE caps removed. So, if ZOS were to announce some dates to experiment with things like turning off those caps or pushing a major stress test for a new lag patch rather than waiting to put it out with an update, and make a big deal of recruiting players to help out and showing their appreciation for the assistance, it might 1) actually get new fixes pushed out faster/working better and 2) help convince those who have long been frustrated with the lag in PvP that the issue really is being taken more seriously than many of them believe.

One of the worst PR issues is having customers think, rightly or wrongly, that their concerns are not important or a priority. I personally think ZOS does take this seriously, but that aside, finding ways to make progress that involve more active feedback and participation from the players is a win-win. ZOS has said they want more transparency and more engagement on these kinds of issues, so, I'm tossing it out there: What else can we do to be an active part of that problem-solving process?

Don't sit in a ball and spam healing springs.

Where do you want our feedback? the thread is locked currently.

I hope this is a very temporary solution whilst your fixing it??

P.S please answer on the low pop bonus +1480 post :<

no aoe cap = no lag

What gets me, is this wasn't an issue at release.

Somewhere along the lines ZOS changed something, it was the patch with the lighting IIRC and ever since Cyrodiil has been horrible.

I really don't think lowering the number of people who can play online in Cyrodiil at once in a given campaign is a good idea, it already feels somewhat Underpopulated in relation to the epic wars we're lead to believe happen.

@ZOS_GinaBruno can we have information on what the numbers were previous to the change and what they are now? I'd like to know how many fewer people we'll have in the war now.

Unfortunately I doubt they'd share population limit numbers, people would make speculations on how the game is performing from that. They'll keep it vague enough to inform us, but never sharing too much.

Its the ZoS method of 'fixing' things isn't it, like the forward camp issues, i.e. don't actually fix anything, just do whatever's easiest.

So we've just permanently lost the populations we had, because if this does improve performance, there's no way you guys will work to bring the populations back up.

s7732425ub17_ESO wrote: »

Let's be serious here- they can go ahead and implement any attempted lag fixes on the main server and skip the PTS entirely. They cannot make things worse than they already are. Want to test what Cyrodiil would be like without AOE caps? Push it live and see what happens. They can easily revert a patch if something gets screwed up really bad.

Also, you will never get a stress test on the PTS that is anywhere close to the real thing.

Sure, in the original post I mentioned trying things on either live or PTS. I'm fine with either. I was wanting to be as broad as possible, since I have no idea all of the things ZOS is considering or exploring or actively coding. I just wondered if any of it might benefit from some additional action on the part of the players.

---

As for the change pushed a little while ago, it may be that AoE caps, something that was in the lighting patch, memory leaks, and/or a number of other things mentioned have affected the level of performance possible with a certain population size.

I guess the question for ZOS was whether, as a stop-gap, it is better to shrink the population cap now in an attempt for a more immediate performance boost until other fixes are ready to be pushed, or just keep going like it has been with the same caps and the same performance until the next large patch or update. They seem to have chosen the former rather than letting the situation wait until the new year.

It will be interesting to see what difference it makes. Has anyone seen a difference so far?

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Why do I keep seeing people post about the lighting patch being the cause of the problems. The lag we've had recently hasn't been fps lag like the lighting patch caused (which resulted in fps slowly dropping to like 10 Over time), what we've had recently is server lag where the ping spikes to 1000+ which suggest server load issues.

@xsorusb14_ESO I think it's more that Cyrodiil worked wonderfully until that patch, since then it's been a downward spiral to oblivion with nothing being changed to make it better.

The FPS lag and memory leak were fixed, but since that one patch Cyrodiil has never been the same, people are going to stay focused on it because that's the time we noticed the change.

Limiting how many people can log into a pvp server doesn't sound like a fix. Sure its a bandaid but the underlying issue isn't being addressed.