Maintenance for the week of February 23:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
· [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
· [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
Cross healing maybe be one of several contributoring factors to lag in Cyrodiil.
-
rpa✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Other.Grianasteri wrote: »I am fairly sure that one of the main solutions that could improve laag and performance, would be investment in server space.
There I said it.
If too many complex calculations are causing issues... get more processing power...
Required processing power does not necessarily scale linearly. If calculations are proportional to square of number of players playing, doubling number of players would need quadrupling server power.0 -
HankTwo✭✭✭✭✭I like the current test, but this poll is biased to such an extend that its pretty much meaningless...PC EU
Stam DK, Magden, Magplar, Stamcro, Hybrid Sorc, Magblade & Mag DK1 -
pauld1_ESO✭✭✭✭Other.Ability lag is really bad right now, I don't know what he's talking about. Maybe one night he was on it was better but overall this test has been crap.4
-
SpacemanSpiff1✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭pauld1_ESO wrote: »Ability lag is really bad right now, I don't know what he's talking about. Maybe one night he was on it was better but overall this test has been crap.
yup. last night in no-cp was a [snip]. i had to relog at one point because non of my abilites would go off and bars wouldnt swap.
[edited for filter bypass]Edited by ZOS_Lunar on 8 October 2020 14:231 -
Grianasteri✭✭✭✭✭
✭YesGrianasteri wrote: »I am fairly sure that one of the main solutions that could improve laag and performance, would be investment in server space.
There I said it.
If too many complex calculations are causing issues... get more processing power...
Required processing power does not necessarily scale linearly. If calculations are proportional to square of number of players playing, doubling number of players would need quadrupling server power.
So quadruple the power. My point remains the same. Its great that work is being done to mitigate laag/performance pinch points... but ultimately a big investment in server power would surely mitigate similar or my suspicion is, a LOT more laag/performance issues.
I am more than happy to hear from more learned folks on the technical issues if my thoughts are not practical. it just strikes me as rather obvious - if the issues is multiple, complex calculations slowing the server down, wouldnt more server power help...3 -
mav1234✭✭✭✭✭Zos should redesign "smart" healing spells to all be positional with different types of cones or areas of effect so that different heals are best for different playstyles or situations. Assuming the source of lag is the number of targets in a massive field around the caster, this would address that well.1
-
TineaCruris✭✭✭✭✭The servers melted down again this morning. So, no, there is a lot more to it. Massive lag, disconnects, rubberbanding, etc....the whole boat of everything bad was full on again today.
Have they said anywhere that they might "test" better/more server capacity?2 -
TineaCruris✭✭✭✭✭SpacemanSpiff1 wrote: »pauld1_ESO wrote: »Ability lag is really bad right now, I don't know what he's talking about. Maybe one night he was on it was better but overall this test has been crap.
yup. last night in no-cp was a [snip]. i had to relog at one point because non of my abilites would go off and bars wouldnt swap.
[edited for filter bypass]
I also tried an alternate campaign last night. The lag seemed even worse in the low population camp for some reason.0 -
techyeshic✭✭✭✭✭TineaCruris wrote: »The servers melted down again this morning. So, no, there is a lot more to it. Massive lag, disconnects, rubberbanding, etc....the whole boat of everything bad was full on again today.
Have they said anywhere that they might "test" better/more server capacity?
Ignoring technical details of what the process of installing that would be; I imagine they are exploring every other option before electing to spend as I think the midyear mayhems people boast, if anything; are them re-allocating resources from other systems.
So if I were a business trying to make money, the last thing I would want to do is spend more if I don't have to. That includes exhausting as many alternatives and even after that; analyzing if the cost for improvement would outweigh the revenue lost by just letting it go0 -
Parasaurolophus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Other.In general, the lags remained as they were, they just became smaller. So this solution is not suitable.PC/EU1 -
OmniDo✭✭✭✭✭Yes
Can't make a good omelet without eggs to scramble.Grianasteri wrote: »Grianasteri wrote: »I am fairly sure that one of the main solutions that could improve laag and performance, would be investment in server space.
There I said it.
If too many complex calculations are causing issues... get more processing power...
Required processing power does not necessarily scale linearly. If calculations are proportional to square of number of players playing, doubling number of players would need quadrupling server power.
So quadruple the power. My point remains the same. Its great that work is being done to mitigate laag/performance pinch points... but ultimately a big investment in server power would surely mitigate similar or my suspicion is, a LOT more laag/performance issues.
Point is, all of this is academic.
Sure ZOS can "Optimize" code, but only up to a certain point.
After that, the math is the math.
Either more hardware is added or the performance will continue to bottleneck and decline.
It's a simple bandwidth numbers game.
No rocket surgery required.
Either you have the raw power to do what you want with what you have, or you don't.
Plain and simple.
Bottom line is: Zeni either:
1. Doesn't have the funds to accommodate
2. Doesn't want to spend them due to profit-loss (which is ultimately just greed)
There are no other explanations.
Which of the two it is we will never know, because Zeni is not obligated to reveal their business interests or practices to their consumers, since the consumers hold no stake in their company.Edited by OmniDo on 8 October 2020 16:304 -
Oreyn_Bearclaw✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Not going to lie, I didnt get a chance to go into PVP this week until last night. I thought the new cross healing restrictions only applied to groups, but it applied to everyone.
IT WAS AWESOME!!!
Everyone was a bit squishier on average, but you had way more control over your own heals. Rapid Regen actually went to me when I cast it, what a concept. Lag was actually really good for primetime other than when a ball group would show up. A 12 man ball group can apparently still tank the server. That said, there where plenty of lag free large fights absent a BG.
Take it farther. Lower group sizes a bit more, delete purge, and maybe put a VMOL type DOT on crown so people cant stack on him.
Question: Other than heals, what skills have the potential to target an "ally" that is not in your group?2 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Other.TineaCruris wrote: »The servers melted down again this morning. So, no, there is a lot more to it. Massive lag, disconnects, rubberbanding, etc....the whole boat of everything bad was full on again today.
Have they said anywhere that they might "test" better/more server capacity?
This is among the most accurate statements in here. There is a lot more to it than the healing the OP statement in this thread attempts to make it out to be. Yes, healing plays a role in the lag just like damage does. Those are simple facts. It would not make sense to reduce damage on targets to those your group initiated and not allow other members of your alliance to help kill the target or take the keep. It also does not make sense to have it so a healer cannot heal a teammate because they are not in the same small group. Logic prevailed here.2 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Other.relentless_turnip wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »i canot, under any circumstance, forward this opinion...
It renders Healers and support Roles utterly useless in Cyrodil. i repeat myself here, but it seems not everyone of the DD players (no offense) understands, how tremendous this impacts the rest of the viable options in PVP...
With less cross healing it also makes your role more important and sought after to anyone who knows what they're doing. I do appreciate it makes joining in less of a casual undertaking than someone just doing damage.
I would predict that if this was a permanent change then we would see group building become more important over time. It is just a numbers game at the moment and totally indescriminate. What I'm saying is the net effect will most likely be that support roles become more important, not less.
No group relies on ungrouped PuG healers so there isn't going to be a greater demand for their role. If I'm running solo, I'm running solo and it's not like I'm gonna all of a sudden put LF healer in zone chat to play.
All this change will do is force people who don't necessarily want to group or just want to hop in for an hour or so to group up just to play, which is not only dumb and constraining, but goes completely against the supposed mantra of "play as you want." If ZOS made it so DPS could not damage enemy players unless they were grouped, 95% of the people who support this change would immediately say no way.
The change would also undeniably strengthen the organized groups that people claim to hate and claim to want to see nerfed. If the PuGs can;t heal each other, they stand zero chance unless stacking in ridiculous numbers.
And even if you want to force PuGs to just randomly group up simply to get heals, it will still create idiotic situations where if one group is getting destroyed on a keep flag, their teammates from a different group still can;t support them. It's no longer AvAvA, it's just a glorified battleground with allies who are just in the wayAlso in any battle scenario would a medic heal 100 people or is it more likely they were responsible for a smaller group? Say 12?
If people couldn't do damage outside of a group then yes everyone would be upset. That is because the over arching point of any PvP scenario is to kill your enemy. Support roles are exactly that... Support. If you have a healer and your enemy doesn't you are at major advantage. Arguing they are the same is redundant in my opinion...
You act like there is nothing in between solo and group. Even in a duo you can take a much larger group. In a group of 24 you don't need healers as much because off all the cross healing, when you lose half of that it is noticible and roles become more important. Would you need healers in a trial if you could take 24 people and everyone was casting aoe heals?
This is a great question. Besides the fact that one player cannot actually have heals going on 100 characters at the same time, but a wise and well-trained medic with 100 soldiers in their sight will not restrict themselves, nor be restricted. to the small group they are attached to. They will heal any and all allies based on the training they have received.
@relentless_turnip I might have missed it but I answered your question yet have not seen you address it since it does throw a stone into your argument.0 -
relentless_turnip✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Other.relentless_turnip wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »i canot, under any circumstance, forward this opinion...
It renders Healers and support Roles utterly useless in Cyrodil. i repeat myself here, but it seems not everyone of the DD players (no offense) understands, how tremendous this impacts the rest of the viable options in PVP...
With less cross healing it also makes your role more important and sought after to anyone who knows what they're doing. I do appreciate it makes joining in less of a casual undertaking than someone just doing damage.
I would predict that if this was a permanent change then we would see group building become more important over time. It is just a numbers game at the moment and totally indescriminate. What I'm saying is the net effect will most likely be that support roles become more important, not less.
No group relies on ungrouped PuG healers so there isn't going to be a greater demand for their role. If I'm running solo, I'm running solo and it's not like I'm gonna all of a sudden put LF healer in zone chat to play.
All this change will do is force people who don't necessarily want to group or just want to hop in for an hour or so to group up just to play, which is not only dumb and constraining, but goes completely against the supposed mantra of "play as you want." If ZOS made it so DPS could not damage enemy players unless they were grouped, 95% of the people who support this change would immediately say no way.
The change would also undeniably strengthen the organized groups that people claim to hate and claim to want to see nerfed. If the PuGs can;t heal each other, they stand zero chance unless stacking in ridiculous numbers.
And even if you want to force PuGs to just randomly group up simply to get heals, it will still create idiotic situations where if one group is getting destroyed on a keep flag, their teammates from a different group still can;t support them. It's no longer AvAvA, it's just a glorified battleground with allies who are just in the wayAlso in any battle scenario would a medic heal 100 people or is it more likely they were responsible for a smaller group? Say 12?
If people couldn't do damage outside of a group then yes everyone would be upset. That is because the over arching point of any PvP scenario is to kill your enemy. Support roles are exactly that... Support. If you have a healer and your enemy doesn't you are at major advantage. Arguing they are the same is redundant in my opinion...
You act like there is nothing in between solo and group. Even in a duo you can take a much larger group. In a group of 24 you don't need healers as much because off all the cross healing, when you lose half of that it is noticible and roles become more important. Would you need healers in a trial if you could take 24 people and everyone was casting aoe heals?
This is a great question. Besides the fact that one player cannot actually have heals going on 100 characters at the same time, but a wise and well-trained medic with 100 soldiers in their sight will not restrict themselves, nor be restricted. to the small group they are attached to. They will heal any and all allies based on the training they have received.
@relentless_turnip I might have missed it but I answered your question yet have not seen you address it since it does throw a stone into your argument.
No worries @idk I wasn't ignoring it 😂 the issue you raise is also my counter point to someone else's point. You are not a medic choosing to help any of the 100 men in your area, you are medic continuously throwing bandages in the air in hope they land on the right person. I cannot heal the person in front of me, despite my efforts and everytime the heal misses but gives to another 1 out of the 100 I have to hit the button again.
In a real life scenario we are both correct in my opinion. As a medic your responsibility would most likely be to a unit of soldiers, but I would hope that morality would step in if someone outside of your unit needed help.
In ESO you aren't given the choice of who you are healing, because of how healing works. I appreciate there are some ground heals and conal heals, but generally people spam rapids. At least in a group you are given an area of responsibility and can see which of your ally's need your assistance via group health bars.
I would still advocate having the option to share buffs with your group or not and have penalties such as cooldowns and escalating costs when there are too many players sharing buffs in a group. I proposed no more than 3 per a group of 12, but with this system in place a group size could be much larger as long as there was a limit to those who share buffs. This creates importance to support roles in my opinion. As i always play DD and rarely share heals, hots and buffs purposefully, my character would have close to zero radius checks. I also think this idea better tackles ball groups.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Other.relentless_turnip wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »i canot, under any circumstance, forward this opinion...
It renders Healers and support Roles utterly useless in Cyrodil. i repeat myself here, but it seems not everyone of the DD players (no offense) understands, how tremendous this impacts the rest of the viable options in PVP...
With less cross healing it also makes your role more important and sought after to anyone who knows what they're doing. I do appreciate it makes joining in less of a casual undertaking than someone just doing damage.
I would predict that if this was a permanent change then we would see group building become more important over time. It is just a numbers game at the moment and totally indescriminate. What I'm saying is the net effect will most likely be that support roles become more important, not less.
No group relies on ungrouped PuG healers so there isn't going to be a greater demand for their role. If I'm running solo, I'm running solo and it's not like I'm gonna all of a sudden put LF healer in zone chat to play.
All this change will do is force people who don't necessarily want to group or just want to hop in for an hour or so to group up just to play, which is not only dumb and constraining, but goes completely against the supposed mantra of "play as you want." If ZOS made it so DPS could not damage enemy players unless they were grouped, 95% of the people who support this change would immediately say no way.
The change would also undeniably strengthen the organized groups that people claim to hate and claim to want to see nerfed. If the PuGs can;t heal each other, they stand zero chance unless stacking in ridiculous numbers.
And even if you want to force PuGs to just randomly group up simply to get heals, it will still create idiotic situations where if one group is getting destroyed on a keep flag, their teammates from a different group still can;t support them. It's no longer AvAvA, it's just a glorified battleground with allies who are just in the wayAlso in any battle scenario would a medic heal 100 people or is it more likely they were responsible for a smaller group? Say 12?
If people couldn't do damage outside of a group then yes everyone would be upset. That is because the over arching point of any PvP scenario is to kill your enemy. Support roles are exactly that... Support. If you have a healer and your enemy doesn't you are at major advantage. Arguing they are the same is redundant in my opinion...
You act like there is nothing in between solo and group. Even in a duo you can take a much larger group. In a group of 24 you don't need healers as much because off all the cross healing, when you lose half of that it is noticible and roles become more important. Would you need healers in a trial if you could take 24 people and everyone was casting aoe heals?
This is a great question. Besides the fact that one player cannot actually have heals going on 100 characters at the same time, but a wise and well-trained medic with 100 soldiers in their sight will not restrict themselves, nor be restricted. to the small group they are attached to. They will heal any and all allies based on the training they have received.
@relentless_turnip I might have missed it but I answered your question yet have not seen you address it since it does throw a stone into your argument.
No worries @idk I wasn't ignoring it 😂 the issue you raise is also my counter point to someone else's point. You are not a medic choosing to help any of the 100 men in your area, you are medic continuously throwing bandages in the air in hope they land on the right person. I cannot heal the person in front of me, despite my efforts and everytime the heal misses but gives
This is merely due to the design of combat in this game. Further, you can heal the person in front of you by using a heal that only casts in front of you. We have heals that only go out in one direction in the shape of a cone and they work well. It is also a really bad idea to make it so one cannot heal an ally which seems to be what you are suggesting.
In fact, any suggestion of only being able to heal those in our group would make some heals completely useless at times. Further, I can imagine a healer riding back to the battle to join their group and comes across another big battle and is virtually useless because someone decided they should not be able to heal people on their team. Brilliant.
We might as well abandon alliances and make PvP a free for all if they are to start leaning towards being meaningless which would be the case if we cannot heal our allies. I care about the team.5 -
Oreyn_Bearclaw✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭relentless_turnip wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »i canot, under any circumstance, forward this opinion...
It renders Healers and support Roles utterly useless in Cyrodil. i repeat myself here, but it seems not everyone of the DD players (no offense) understands, how tremendous this impacts the rest of the viable options in PVP...
With less cross healing it also makes your role more important and sought after to anyone who knows what they're doing. I do appreciate it makes joining in less of a casual undertaking than someone just doing damage.
I would predict that if this was a permanent change then we would see group building become more important over time. It is just a numbers game at the moment and totally indescriminate. What I'm saying is the net effect will most likely be that support roles become more important, not less.
No group relies on ungrouped PuG healers so there isn't going to be a greater demand for their role. If I'm running solo, I'm running solo and it's not like I'm gonna all of a sudden put LF healer in zone chat to play.
All this change will do is force people who don't necessarily want to group or just want to hop in for an hour or so to group up just to play, which is not only dumb and constraining, but goes completely against the supposed mantra of "play as you want." If ZOS made it so DPS could not damage enemy players unless they were grouped, 95% of the people who support this change would immediately say no way.
The change would also undeniably strengthen the organized groups that people claim to hate and claim to want to see nerfed. If the PuGs can;t heal each other, they stand zero chance unless stacking in ridiculous numbers.
And even if you want to force PuGs to just randomly group up simply to get heals, it will still create idiotic situations where if one group is getting destroyed on a keep flag, their teammates from a different group still can;t support them. It's no longer AvAvA, it's just a glorified battleground with allies who are just in the wayAlso in any battle scenario would a medic heal 100 people or is it more likely they were responsible for a smaller group? Say 12?
If people couldn't do damage outside of a group then yes everyone would be upset. That is because the over arching point of any PvP scenario is to kill your enemy. Support roles are exactly that... Support. If you have a healer and your enemy doesn't you are at major advantage. Arguing they are the same is redundant in my opinion...
You act like there is nothing in between solo and group. Even in a duo you can take a much larger group. In a group of 24 you don't need healers as much because off all the cross healing, when you lose half of that it is noticible and roles become more important. Would you need healers in a trial if you could take 24 people and everyone was casting aoe heals?
This is a great question. Besides the fact that one player cannot actually have heals going on 100 characters at the same time, but a wise and well-trained medic with 100 soldiers in their sight will not restrict themselves, nor be restricted. to the small group they are attached to. They will heal any and all allies based on the training they have received.
@relentless_turnip I might have missed it but I answered your question yet have not seen you address it since it does throw a stone into your argument.
No worries @idk I wasn't ignoring it 😂 the issue you raise is also my counter point to someone else's point. You are not a medic choosing to help any of the 100 men in your area, you are medic continuously throwing bandages in the air in hope they land on the right person. I cannot heal the person in front of me, despite my efforts and everytime the heal misses but gives
This is merely due to the design of combat in this game. Further, you can heal the person in front of you by using a heal that only casts in front of you. We have heals that only go out in one direction in the shape of a cone and they work well. It is also a really bad idea to make it so one cannot heal an ally which seems to be what you are suggesting.
In fact, any suggestion of only being able to heal those in our group would make some heals completely useless at times. Further, I can imagine a healer riding back to the battle to join their group and comes across another big battle and is virtually useless because someone decided they should not be able to heal people on their team. Brilliant.
We might as well abandon alliances and make PvP a free for all if they are to start leaning towards being meaningless which would be the case if we cannot heal our allies. I care about the team.
Part of me thinks the balance lies somewhere in the middle. Already stated it, but I love the gameplay of this week (essentially, selfish heals week). I generally don't group, but I do rely on heals (rapid regen) that are part of the problem, as they can go anywhere (randomly) for 28 meters. I felt like I received a pretty hefty buff to be honest, and never once was in a group this week.
I do acknowledge that it leaves pure healer builds in a pretty bad spot outside a group. I would not be opposed to leaving a handful of skills, looking at things like cone shapped heals, maybe ground based heals like springs or certain ultimates, as able to go to an ally outside a group, but the vast majority of them should not (both for gameplay and performance).
Honestly, I am a believer that any of the trinity roles (tank healer DPS) only make sense in a group. So if you want to play solo, you probably shouldnt go all in on any of them. If the playstyle of a zerg surfing rapid regen spammer is eliminated, I am okay with it.
This is certainly the best performance of any of the test weeks. Not saying it was perfect, but every time it got really bad, there was a ball group in the area. Ball groups are the elephant in the room. As much fun as they can be, the server simply cant handle them.2 -
relentless_turnip✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Other.relentless_turnip wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »i canot, under any circumstance, forward this opinion...
It renders Healers and support Roles utterly useless in Cyrodil. i repeat myself here, but it seems not everyone of the DD players (no offense) understands, how tremendous this impacts the rest of the viable options in PVP...
With less cross healing it also makes your role more important and sought after to anyone who knows what they're doing. I do appreciate it makes joining in less of a casual undertaking than someone just doing damage.
I would predict that if this was a permanent change then we would see group building become more important over time. It is just a numbers game at the moment and totally indescriminate. What I'm saying is the net effect will most likely be that support roles become more important, not less.
No group relies on ungrouped PuG healers so there isn't going to be a greater demand for their role. If I'm running solo, I'm running solo and it's not like I'm gonna all of a sudden put LF healer in zone chat to play.
All this change will do is force people who don't necessarily want to group or just want to hop in for an hour or so to group up just to play, which is not only dumb and constraining, but goes completely against the supposed mantra of "play as you want." If ZOS made it so DPS could not damage enemy players unless they were grouped, 95% of the people who support this change would immediately say no way.
The change would also undeniably strengthen the organized groups that people claim to hate and claim to want to see nerfed. If the PuGs can;t heal each other, they stand zero chance unless stacking in ridiculous numbers.
And even if you want to force PuGs to just randomly group up simply to get heals, it will still create idiotic situations where if one group is getting destroyed on a keep flag, their teammates from a different group still can;t support them. It's no longer AvAvA, it's just a glorified battleground with allies who are just in the wayAlso in any battle scenario would a medic heal 100 people or is it more likely they were responsible for a smaller group? Say 12?
If people couldn't do damage outside of a group then yes everyone would be upset. That is because the over arching point of any PvP scenario is to kill your enemy. Support roles are exactly that... Support. If you have a healer and your enemy doesn't you are at major advantage. Arguing they are the same is redundant in my opinion...
You act like there is nothing in between solo and group. Even in a duo you can take a much larger group. In a group of 24 you don't need healers as much because off all the cross healing, when you lose half of that it is noticible and roles become more important. Would you need healers in a trial if you could take 24 people and everyone was casting aoe heals?
This is a great question. Besides the fact that one player cannot actually have heals going on 100 characters at the same time, but a wise and well-trained medic with 100 soldiers in their sight will not restrict themselves, nor be restricted. to the small group they are attached to. They will heal any and all allies based on the training they have received.
@relentless_turnip I might have missed it but I answered your question yet have not seen you address it since it does throw a stone into your argument.
No worries @idk I wasn't ignoring it 😂 the issue you raise is also my counter point to someone else's point. You are not a medic choosing to help any of the 100 men in your area, you are medic continuously throwing bandages in the air in hope they land on the right person. I cannot heal the person in front of me, despite my efforts and everytime the heal misses but gives
This is merely due to the design of combat in this game. Further, you can heal the person in front of you by using a heal that only casts in front of you. We have heals that only go out in one direction in the shape of a cone and they work well. It is also a really bad idea to make it so one cannot heal an ally which seems to be what you are suggesting.
In fact, any suggestion of only being able to heal those in our group would make some heals completely useless at times. Further, I can imagine a healer riding back to the battle to join their group and comes across another big battle and is virtually useless because someone decided they should not be able to heal people on their team. Brilliant.
We might as well abandon alliances and make PvP a free for all if they are to start leaning towards being meaningless which would be the case if we cannot heal our allies. I care about the team.
I think the point you made in the second paragraph is a very good one. I can only imagine how defeated I would feel if I couldn't help my allies spontaneously like in the example you gave.
I have also stated that simply a much smaller radius would be appropriate, but I think controlling how many people are healing in one area is also important. I am of course talking specifically about ballgroups here and how the style of gameplay needs deterring short term. The four or so people spamming rapids in said ballgroup and causing four radius checks over 30 or so feet a second needs addressing.
The option to switch off buff sharing is still a good idea imo even if it has nothing to do with grouping.
1 -
Knockmaker✭✭✭✭I haven't played in a while and haven't seen the cross healing test myself. But, if it really has considerable impact, they might want to consider keeping group sizes at 24 and allowing only 1 or 2 healers in a group, tops (via the role selection thing). Without the cross healing, and not too many healers in a group, this should help improve things a bit, since there is only so much heal 1-2 healers can provide, and only seldom times we see more than 3 full groups going at each other at the same location.
However, this still will be punishing solo players and especially healers. Also, like I said, I haven't played in a while and seen the cross healing test myself, and I am totally against limiting/punishing players (especially because of server-side problems). To me, these tests seem not very well thought of overall. I hope zos decides to go deeper and consider looking at the codes or at least improving server capacity.
Edit: I honestly don't think the issue is related with anything about game-mechanics such as large/small groups, healing/aoe etc. I am sure many people will remember that when there are ,let's say, 50 players from different alliances in the same area, the problems begin even before anyone can actually start using abilities, skills etc.Edited by Knockmaker on 8 October 2020 17:450 -
Lintashi✭✭✭✭✭Tried it. Horrible performance, and as a healer, terrible idea. I was attacking keep with a group. Around me was around 25 people, but I could heal only 8 or so, because the rest of my group were near another wall, and players near me were unhealable. So, I suggest another test. One where dps could only damage players of their own class. Like wardens can only damage wardens, but not nb. Less calculations this way, right? And it would feel almost exactly like healers playstyle now.7 -
WaywardArgonian✭✭✭✭✭Cyrodiil is still unplayable at prime time in my experience (PC/EU - Ravenwatch). Perhaps a tad less so than the previous week, when I could not even get Cloak to work reliably, but still enough lag spikes and skill delay to make me leave the place in 30 mins even though I had planned to spend my evening there. Could this test contribute towards an improved performance? Perhaps? Is it the solution? I fear that we're stell very far removed from that.PC/EU altaholic | #1 PVP support player (contested) | @ degonyte in-game | Nibani Ilath-Pal (AD Nightblade) - AvA rank 50 | Jehanne Teymour (AD Sorcerer) - AvA rank 50 | Niria Ilath-Pal (AD Templar) - AvA rank 500 -
Chilly-McFreeze✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭I can't help but are those who experience far better performance on NA? I keep reading how bad the perf is on EU.0 -
Revokus✭✭✭✭✭YesTo be honest it was a lot better for me last night. I wanted to see for myself queued for Cyro at 10 PM prime time with a 50 people queue.
I was able to play at 10 PM which never happened in 5 years.
Of course it was still lagging but it was playable and it didn't took 4 times pressing a skill to go off.
It was also a lot more fluid when a zerg was getting destroyed compared to before when even if there was no fight at 10 PM ET on the map you still couldn't play even before the tests.
PC NA.
I think ZOS should go forward with this and not just for smart heals..to everything. If you're solo all your skills should affect you only. And if you're in a group only your group.
It shouldn't have a bunch of useless skills/proc sets/heals going off everywhere to a bunch of randoms creating even more stress on the server.
@ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsomEdited by Revokus on 8 October 2020 21:49Playing since January 23, 20161 -
Thevampirenight✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
There is many more people playing on the Pc Eu server. Not just from Europe but also from places like Russia and other non eu countries that play on those servers. Basically the devs have stated this in the past, that Eu servers have a lot more traffic. They have a much bigger gaming market down there. Now after official Russian language support you got more Russian players playing the game. Which in turn makes an already bad situation of too many players worse on the Eu side. That means the overbearing calculations you see on Na would be so much more on the Eu side of things.Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »I can't help but are those who experience far better performance on NA? I keep reading how bad the perf is on EU.
What this means is Na servers are able to handle things a lot better then Eu ones. Because Eu has far more traffic that means more calculations to the point, that while a change such as this may dent on some of the performance issues on the pc na. Pc Eu, it would not be as effective and at best would make it slightly better. To make an impacts on the Eu side of things would require reducing the stressful impact of the most stressful overbearing calculations in all areas of the game play where they exist. Even then it might be better but at the end of the day there still is so many playing on the Eu side that it might still get a lot of lag problems.Edited by Thevampirenight on 9 October 2020 01:29PC NA
Please add Fangs to Vampires.0 -
pauld1_ESO✭✭✭✭Other.This thread needs to go, cyrodiil is as laggy as ever. Abilities not firing off, feels like my character is fighting in mud.0
-
Drdeath20✭✭✭✭✭
✭Its not the skills or the players....Edited by Drdeath20 on 9 October 2020 04:391