Where Are We Headed?

Takllin

Minno wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

WRX wrote: »

They completely reworked the battle leveling system overall with orsinium (I think), including BWB. People used to have 35k hp, 18k stam/mp and identical stats.

Now, and I am not joking, the highest DPS you can get on a toon at any point is when they are around level 40, in legendary gear, with willpower/agility items.

Yeah they finally started to take all gear and attributes into account, which was a much needed change.

Also, I am and also am not surprised if that's true, knowing ZOS.

Correct. Talks of no CP? I can't remember if that was confirmed for the next dlc or not.

That is next DLC.

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

They need to just make a Vet Version of Blackwater Blade and be done with it. the other night the was easily almost 200 people at Aleswell(between the 3 factions) and lag was zero, no red ping, no FPS drop below 35, nothing, everyone was using skills, most fun fights i have had since summer of 2014.

Common Denominator? Stuff dies fast in BB. Either you take the keep, or you get rekted by siege quickly, none of this ball group running around immune to this nonsense...if you stand under a door their getting oil poured on you, chances are our dead fast. This is exactly how the game was when it launched. ZOS made big mistakes nerfing siege weapons shortly after launch, they even should have left ground oils in the game...yes at level 12 i remember dropping an Oil in a 1v1 and ground oiling a guy 30 levels higher then me LOL!

Point is, in Blackwater Blade Barrier and Purge spam isn't there as a crutch to allow ball groups to live far longer then they should when they are standing in stuff they shouldn't be. This means they can't overload the server with message requests because fights end pretty fast. It has nothing to do with unlocking passives, these ball groups can't overload the server because when they stand in the breech in BB in siege fire they get rekted like they used to before they fixed Purge in 1.5 and before everyone unlocked Barrier....

Barrier was such a dumb idea to begin with...allowing 20 or so people to get a 15-20k sheild...dio you realize how broken that garbage is with the AOE caps, its just outright atrocious...

Weren't tons of people complaining when IC dropped that BWB resulted in fights taking forever because of the battle spirit changes and how no one had enough damage to kill in a timely manner? So which is it? Do people take forever to kill, or are they dying in a second? It can't be both. Moreover, as I said a few posts back, if the only solution is to make pvp fights end in a second or two and turn this into a FPS, ffs just throw in the towel and close the servers.

Furthermore, you, like many others, keep referring to groups as derogatory 'ball groups', blame them for all of the lag, and suddenly go quiet when someone points out the obvious - if ball groups are the cause of the lag, how is it that two full raids can collide and have lag free fights on empty campaigns or on the main campaigns so long as there aren't tons of other people present there (or tons of other people colliding somewhere else on the map)? I've asked this question dozens of times, and just get ignored because the only logical answer is that whether people are within 15m of each other or more spread out, the main cause of the lag is derived from total people in an area - you (and the others that keep repeating that false line), just don't want to venture into that piece of evidence because you know what it means. If it's the 'ball group' - people standing relatively close to each other instead of in a relative area, they should be causing lag each and every time they fight, everywhere they fight, and that is so far from the truth it's laughable that people keep parroting the same BS talking point because you heard someone else say it and want to be trendy.

As to your barrier point, I've always thought shields in this game were ridiculous, overpowered, and a poor mechanic - but given how the entire rest of the battle system operates, shields are so intertwined that there's no way to eliminate them given the super high damage in game and given that some classes (sorcs) are almost entirely dependent on them if you aren't stam. It could certainly be revamped, but there's no way wrobel would actually do it. That's why there is so much backlash over the barrier changes, he's revamping one skill when he should be revamping the entire mitigation system.

1) players complained because individual players were harder to kill making fights last longer. Group formatting in BWB is closer to loose raid formation than what we call competitive vet pvp. Can't compare the two when discussing actual dmg mechanics because they operate differently due to not having purge or barrier. Fight last long individually but when two factions face each other fights are determined by class ulti coordinated attacks and theirs constant push back. I doubt its as doom and gloom as you state. On BWB you get yellow ping for players present, but it never goes above that and fights are closer to how game functioned at launch than the vet ranks play now.

2) ball groups argument keeps being shuffled around because of the fact players continue to feel the strain near one on a populated server. I don't blame them, since their are simply observing. The "one vs one group alone" argument seems faulty for two reasons: a) vacuum condition that only 48 people can attest to. B)still no mention on measurement of how many messages the server can actual handle. It's likely no lag present due to the fact the server can handle the purge between two groups and if there are no other fight factors (I.e. another raid, solo players,siege, etc) then I can assume the fight didn't last very long under these conditions because both groups concentrated on themselves resulting in quick efficient death versus normal fight conditions. But if the issue was players being around players, why doesn't BWB have this red ping issue? Hence why players point at ball group mechanics; their inclusion in any fight results in players noticing higher pings than normal.

3) barrier has no drawback in its use. Class shield do (exception of sorcs other than breaking their stam). Barrier can buff everyone in the AOE range, gives 20k extra "health" , only uses one ulti slot, and it requires purge/barrier to counter. It's removal shouldn't cause a review of current class shields and removal of shields entirely would move the game closer to the FPS mentality you mentioned. Barrier does not match the pro/con mentality of an RPG.

When IC first came out, we spent about a month fighting with just our 20ish man raid against a large GOS emp group, large swp group, plus pugs. Sometimes there were 50-60 reds against our one raid, in protracted fights with counter siege, and we went so far as to naively think that the IC patch fixed the lag. Know why those TF fights didnt lag and crash the server? Total population was low.

Were you implying since only 48 people could attest to a vacuum condition that they aren't being truthful? I mean, we can dig through recorded fights if you'd like.

Furthermore, the point is, and has been, if people being in a ball is supposed to be the boogie man and the main cause of lag, it should hold true that balls cause lag all the time, and as someone who plays in one nightly and actually has experience to reference in that playstyle, there are certainly times when we don't lag. If balls DON'T cause lag each and every time, then clearly the main culprit is something else, or at least only one ingredient to the lag soup. It's never phrased that way though because it doesn't fit the anti group narrative, and Zos will just keep hearing the same untrue talking point repeated over and over and think, hey, maybe it's the ball! Should their anti lag efforts be focused on groups because that's the narrative a few want pushed? Or should their efforts be focused on the actual lag causes?

I'm open to hearing explanations of why there are times when ball group vs ball group doesn't cause lag if their very nature is supposed to be the cause of said lag, I really am. This is just usually the point where the usual suspects go quiet, avoid the subject, wait for a new thread, and say 'ball groups cause all the lag!' before the cycle repeats.

I think most people forget how smoothly the game ran at launch of IC. We used to run all around Trueflame with no issues against lots of EP/AD. Ball groups can operate with minimal to no lag, but when you start stacking more groups on top of any engagement, it's going to lag. Ball groups are the boogie man to a lot of uninformed/ignorant people.

It's when everyone came out of the sewers and back into Cyrodil that the lag started to pick up again. Though you never notice lag when "ball groups" engage each other out in the open field, it's only in keeps where there is a high concentration of players.

Like a few days ago up near Dragonclaw, didn't have any lag when we faced you guys. There wasn't any lag until there was a huge keep fight somewhere else down South, either Aleswell or Chalamo, can't remember which.

Also I'd kinda love to see Prox Det removed from the game...

Ghost-Shot

x99Needles wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

90% of your reply is pure insults, bashing and denying the thruth by stating opinions instead of facts but we will get into it point by point and try to clarify it with maturity and constructive critism (something you and some VE members obviously can't do when people disagree with you).

x99Needles wrote: »

Coming from someone who doesn't know how to keep to his word in any sense, I hope you don't expect me to take you seriously. Also, quoting me repeating my point in a different context and asking if I can be more contradictory? Can you be more ignorant?

In a first time, you try to make people realize that Cyrodiil is in a poor state and that we should know by now that the game cannot currently operate as was intended (too many players on the screen at once or too many aoe calculations at the same time or the anti-bot system), and then 6paragraphs later you complain because people are shaming large groups for playing the way it was intended. There is no "Frozen you are out of context". This is plain simple. Quoted your words.

You are on the forums in different threads constantly changing your opinion on multiple matters, seems the only real thing you can hold yourself to is whatever tickles your fancy in the immediate moment.

I am unsure about where and when I have been changing my opinion on multiple matters. I stick to the same points and have been promoting them for years (helping server performances - promoting quality gameplay over stacking more numbers) - just see my signature, it's all there. Feel free to enlight me about what you're reffering to. I'm afraid you are only bringing assumptions without facts which doesn't prove anything.

Upcoming prox det changes will not result in any different effect than there is now. Ball groups will use it, it will be most effective in 24 man raids no matter how you look at it.

Which part of "Zenimax plans to redesign Prox Det in the next major update to deal minimal damage to few players and lot more than before to several players. This is how it should have worked since the beginning. It will still be a tool for large group against large group play and it will help smaller groups/solo players against larger groups." did you not get? You simply replied to this by stating a thruth you think is absolute without giving any argument or making any sense. Try again.

As for running 16, I'll only run 16 when the game's group size is reduced. You mention max pop across all three factions, do you think everyone else runs around in 16 man groups? I'm the only one in cyrodiil that runs 24? Everything would be just fine if I ran 16? If you want smaller groups, take it up with ZOS.

As for running 16, I'll only run 16 when the game's group size is reduced.

You will only run a 16men group when the game's group size is reduced. @speeez - Could you link me a @fengrush 's sigh meme in here please? Could we know your reasoning behind this? Not that I didn't expect it, I knew that even if I begged you it would not change your mind whatsoever.

I've never said that I think everyone else runs around in a 16 man group. You are making up my words. I've never said that everything would be fine if you ran with a 16men group. You are making my words once again. I simply suggested that you give it a try with 16 players and go fight another group of 16 players with plenty of players on the screen (40)+. Your ping will spike for sure because of too many players on the screen, but I assure you it will never spike as much as when two groups of 24 players run into each other (1200-2000ms), as we saw yesterday at Farragut when DC got their scroll back.

I've got plenty of great fights on Azura 16vs16 and it was epic. I even recorded some and would be happy to upload them for you if you really want me to. There is a huge different between 16vs16 and 24vs24 gameplay in a campaign max pop.

"By playing intelligently." Frozen. You are reaching levels of stupidity I cannot begin to fathom. You seriously think running 16 is going to stop ALL lag? Are you that naive?

Ok. You quote me saying "By playing intelligently" and relate it to me reffering to playing in a 16men group. Let's link my sentence now and see if you make any sense.

By playing intelligently, I mean by that to communicate with other guilds constantly and hit different objectives.

Good try again, but I think you got confused a little bit trying to refute my point.

"You, you cannot play the game inside this keep because 16 ppl are already here. Sorry, you'll have to run somewhere else or log off." Seriously frozen, use that brain of yours, you have a degree remember? But hey, 8 more players in a group is the difference between 800ping and playable. I hope people read this and laugh at how ridiculous you sound.

Here you quote me saying something that I've never stated in my thread "You, you cannot play the game inside this keep because 16 ppl are already here. Sorry, you'll have to run somewhere else or log off."

You are so out of arguments that you gotta make up sentences that I supposedly said? I don't even mean this in any other way. What you said doesn't even reflect what I think. Your insults and tries to make me look bad are outrageous, I don't even know what to think. pfft

The Siege damage changes being implemented to further damage players is because we only siege one wall down? ....???????????????????? So when siege does more damage Against Players...we will somehow be forced to knock more walls down...?????????????????? Siege damage is being increased on players. Not walls. I don't even know what else to say, you have the least amount of logic in your posts it's getting to the point of bad for my blood pressure.

Ok. Again, a paragraph full of insults, bashing, words twisting and assumptions. Let's go back to my original post and figure this out like adults, shall we?

The way it is right now, an organized 24men group can easily get inside a keep without too many complications as long as people in the group follow these simply basics :

1) Stay stacked
2) Use Barrier
3) Have people spamming purges
4) Have someone popping maneuvers once and have everyone in the group not dealing any damage

If you follow these 4 instructions, siege will barely tickle you in any scenario. This is the actual meta. Now people have been asking for changes to make going inside the courtyard or going inside an inner keep harder than it actually is. I have never seen in any scenario in the world (game or movie related), attacker going inside a breach as easily as in this game. It is a joke. People who say that keeps are easy to defend have no idea what they're talking about. Now back to your post, you generalize saying that I think siege damage changes are being put in place to bring down additional walls which make me doubt if I'm the one learning english still or you. Then you say "Siege damage is being increased on players. Not walls" which prove how badly you misinterpret my point on purpose. Nothing else to add really. Just go read again my original post.

Even if we wanted to knock more walls down, how is that going to fix anything related to what I'm worried about? You're just going to stack fire balista, meat bags, and oil cats, with oil on the ledges inside the inner. You know, the choke with only two walls. Or have you forgotten keep layouts already?

As I previously said, if you want to capture a keep, you should scout it properly in the first time (not aim the one next to the transit line), otherwise expect alot of defense and a very challenging fight. Not saying it is not the right thing to do but with the actual server performances, I barely try anymore. Latency gets way too harsh. If you like that kind of stuff and lag doesn't bother you, then go for it, your call. But you should not expect to be able to drive your 24men ballgroup inside a breach without troubles when people are HIGHLY defending it. A defending position should always have the advantage. It is not the fact right now. There is no counter to purge spamming and maneuvers. A ball group can easily gets inside a single breach and out maneuvers all sieges and defenses in place.

With the next siege meta, even if I'm very disappointed they are not making siege unpurgable, there are several great points such as faster balista rotation which will help deal with ballgroups typical marathon runners. I think they should have decrease the ressource damage by half though. They can still change their mind, it is not even on the PTS yet.

I think the only reason you want these siege changes is because like most others who want it, its the only way you kill things.

Again, another free insult for no reason. You assume even if you know I can do much more than killing people on a siege, that I'm not worth more than that. Poor argumentation again coming from a guild leader of a well respected guild. I would be glad to take you in 1v1 anytime if you want to prove me wrong though. Oh wait, VE doesn't take guild or 1v1me brah challenges. My bad.

My comparison to the game cannot work as intended and saying we are shaming people for ball groups has literally nothing to do with contradicting myself. You assumed that I meant because the game can't handle it we should not run large groups, when I have only supported large groups and their right to be in cyrodiil. Also, when the basis of your argument is to quote me several paragraphs apart in my argument when I have moved on to talking about something else in my post is neither logical nor supportable. It seem you're incapable of understanding. I did not create this thread to argue with the likes of you frozn.

On top of your argument that we should scout a keep before immediately heading for it? So we should only hit a keep when its empty to avoid actual defenders and you know, acutally pvping. Because that's what that suggests. You are pretty much saying if we don't want to deal with defenders we shouldn't attack when its being defended. Brilliant Frozn. Strategist of the year award. Except some of us actually like PvPing in Cyrodiil, the pvp zone. We want the tough fights, what we don't want is biased balance changes for the sake of QQ.

Your're still trying to argue that as long as I'm fighting a 16 man with my 16 man it doesn't matter how many players are on screen it wont lag as bad....There is nothing I can even respond with at this point, its like arguing with a child. You are simply wrong and anyone with common sense can see it. We agree that ball groups are very effective right now and changes should be made, had you read my post thoroughly and been able to comprehend what I am suggesting you might have seen that.

What I have been trying to get across is that defense should not be so much easier simply because offense is too easy now. That is not an appropriate response in terms of balance, its an ignorant nerf hammer because people have cried "OP". A little math for you as well, but first some history! We have changed the Skill Prox Det, 2x. Two Times Already. We completely altered the way the skill was cast, and we have scaled damage to how many targets it hits. Both attempts to bring the skill into line with what they want have failed. But third time charm right?!

Now for the math frozn. 24 > 1. 24 Prox Dets armed in an area = AoE Damage that is barely matched by anything else. 1 Prox Det = very poor damage, easily healed through, barely noticeable. Now, this stays this way until you scale it up to about ten players, then you are starting to get a dangerous prox group. Prox Det is only dangerous when utilized by a group. Period. Keep changing it, to fix it you would need to break it. You want a zerg buster skill? They had an amazing one inside Frag Shield. Broke that real quick, or as most would prefer, "balanced" it.

Bringing up the fact that VE did not attend the GvG event is also completely unrelated and gives me a good laugh. Especially coming from someone who doesn't even have a real guild, for obvious reasons. I also think you just challenged me to a 1v1 on the forums, I can add that to the list of laughable things you've done starting with this year.

You should also really really take the time to learn proper English and reading comprehension. You made so many errors quoting my last post and assuming that I'm not quite sure what you were attempting. It is clear you need a refresher. Does not seem you understand the meaning of "implications" nor their practice in the English language either. As badly as I want to post a Let it Go meme, I'll leave you with your poor logic and inability to understand how this game actually works and moving forward what is going to happen in cyrodiil. I am left with nothing constructive to say to you. We will have to agree to disagree, I will refuse to argue with you further but feel free to respond. In truth*(not thruth) we should both just Let it Go.

@x99Needles 1v1 him in Bruma tonight?

_Chaos

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

x99Needles wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

90% of your reply is pure insults, bashing and denying the thruth by stating opinions instead of facts but we will get into it point by point and try to clarify it with maturity and constructive critism (something you and some VE members obviously can't do when people disagree with you).

x99Needles wrote: »

Coming from someone who doesn't know how to keep to his word in any sense, I hope you don't expect me to take you seriously. Also, quoting me repeating my point in a different context and asking if I can be more contradictory? Can you be more ignorant?

In a first time, you try to make people realize that Cyrodiil is in a poor state and that we should know by now that the game cannot currently operate as was intended (too many players on the screen at once or too many aoe calculations at the same time or the anti-bot system), and then 6paragraphs later you complain because people are shaming large groups for playing the way it was intended. There is no "Frozen you are out of context". This is plain simple. Quoted your words.

You are on the forums in different threads constantly changing your opinion on multiple matters, seems the only real thing you can hold yourself to is whatever tickles your fancy in the immediate moment.

I am unsure about where and when I have been changing my opinion on multiple matters. I stick to the same points and have been promoting them for years (helping server performances - promoting quality gameplay over stacking more numbers) - just see my signature, it's all there. Feel free to enlight me about what you're reffering to. I'm afraid you are only bringing assumptions without facts which doesn't prove anything.

Upcoming prox det changes will not result in any different effect than there is now. Ball groups will use it, it will be most effective in 24 man raids no matter how you look at it.

Which part of "Zenimax plans to redesign Prox Det in the next major update to deal minimal damage to few players and lot more than before to several players. This is how it should have worked since the beginning. It will still be a tool for large group against large group play and it will help smaller groups/solo players against larger groups." did you not get? You simply replied to this by stating a thruth you think is absolute without giving any argument or making any sense. Try again.

As for running 16, I'll only run 16 when the game's group size is reduced. You mention max pop across all three factions, do you think everyone else runs around in 16 man groups? I'm the only one in cyrodiil that runs 24? Everything would be just fine if I ran 16? If you want smaller groups, take it up with ZOS.

As for running 16, I'll only run 16 when the game's group size is reduced.

You will only run a 16men group when the game's group size is reduced. @speeez - Could you link me a @fengrush 's sigh meme in here please? Could we know your reasoning behind this? Not that I didn't expect it, I knew that even if I begged you it would not change your mind whatsoever.

I've never said that I think everyone else runs around in a 16 man group. You are making up my words. I've never said that everything would be fine if you ran with a 16men group. You are making my words once again. I simply suggested that you give it a try with 16 players and go fight another group of 16 players with plenty of players on the screen (40)+. Your ping will spike for sure because of too many players on the screen, but I assure you it will never spike as much as when two groups of 24 players run into each other (1200-2000ms), as we saw yesterday at Farragut when DC got their scroll back.

I've got plenty of great fights on Azura 16vs16 and it was epic. I even recorded some and would be happy to upload them for you if you really want me to. There is a huge different between 16vs16 and 24vs24 gameplay in a campaign max pop.

"By playing intelligently." Frozen. You are reaching levels of stupidity I cannot begin to fathom. You seriously think running 16 is going to stop ALL lag? Are you that naive?

Ok. You quote me saying "By playing intelligently" and relate it to me reffering to playing in a 16men group. Let's link my sentence now and see if you make any sense.

By playing intelligently, I mean by that to communicate with other guilds constantly and hit different objectives.

Good try again, but I think you got confused a little bit trying to refute my point.

"You, you cannot play the game inside this keep because 16 ppl are already here. Sorry, you'll have to run somewhere else or log off." Seriously frozen, use that brain of yours, you have a degree remember? But hey, 8 more players in a group is the difference between 800ping and playable. I hope people read this and laugh at how ridiculous you sound.

Here you quote me saying something that I've never stated in my thread "You, you cannot play the game inside this keep because 16 ppl are already here. Sorry, you'll have to run somewhere else or log off."

You are so out of arguments that you gotta make up sentences that I supposedly said? I don't even mean this in any other way. What you said doesn't even reflect what I think. Your insults and tries to make me look bad are outrageous, I don't even know what to think. pfft

The Siege damage changes being implemented to further damage players is because we only siege one wall down? ....???????????????????? So when siege does more damage Against Players...we will somehow be forced to knock more walls down...?????????????????? Siege damage is being increased on players. Not walls. I don't even know what else to say, you have the least amount of logic in your posts it's getting to the point of bad for my blood pressure.

Ok. Again, a paragraph full of insults, bashing, words twisting and assumptions. Let's go back to my original post and figure this out like adults, shall we?

The way it is right now, an organized 24men group can easily get inside a keep without too many complications as long as people in the group follow these simply basics :

1) Stay stacked
2) Use Barrier
3) Have people spamming purges
4) Have someone popping maneuvers once and have everyone in the group not dealing any damage

If you follow these 4 instructions, siege will barely tickle you in any scenario. This is the actual meta. Now people have been asking for changes to make going inside the courtyard or going inside an inner keep harder than it actually is. I have never seen in any scenario in the world (game or movie related), attacker going inside a breach as easily as in this game. It is a joke. People who say that keeps are easy to defend have no idea what they're talking about. Now back to your post, you generalize saying that I think siege damage changes are being put in place to bring down additional walls which make me doubt if I'm the one learning english still or you. Then you say "Siege damage is being increased on players. Not walls" which prove how badly you misinterpret my point on purpose. Nothing else to add really. Just go read again my original post.

Even if we wanted to knock more walls down, how is that going to fix anything related to what I'm worried about? You're just going to stack fire balista, meat bags, and oil cats, with oil on the ledges inside the inner. You know, the choke with only two walls. Or have you forgotten keep layouts already?

As I previously said, if you want to capture a keep, you should scout it properly in the first time (not aim the one next to the transit line), otherwise expect alot of defense and a very challenging fight. Not saying it is not the right thing to do but with the actual server performances, I barely try anymore. Latency gets way too harsh. If you like that kind of stuff and lag doesn't bother you, then go for it, your call. But you should not expect to be able to drive your 24men ballgroup inside a breach without troubles when people are HIGHLY defending it. A defending position should always have the advantage. It is not the fact right now. There is no counter to purge spamming and maneuvers. A ball group can easily gets inside a single breach and out maneuvers all sieges and defenses in place.

With the next siege meta, even if I'm very disappointed they are not making siege unpurgable, there are several great points such as faster balista rotation which will help deal with ballgroups typical marathon runners. I think they should have decrease the ressource damage by half though. They can still change their mind, it is not even on the PTS yet.

I think the only reason you want these siege changes is because like most others who want it, its the only way you kill things.

Again, another free insult for no reason. You assume even if you know I can do much more than killing people on a siege, that I'm not worth more than that. Poor argumentation again coming from a guild leader of a well respected guild. I would be glad to take you in 1v1 anytime if you want to prove me wrong though. Oh wait, VE doesn't take guild or 1v1me brah challenges. My bad.

My comparison to the game cannot work as intended and saying we are shaming people for ball groups has literally nothing to do with contradicting myself. You assumed that I meant because the game can't handle it we should not run large groups, when I have only supported large groups and their right to be in cyrodiil. Also, when the basis of your argument is to quote me several paragraphs apart in my argument when I have moved on to talking about something else in my post is neither logical nor supportable. It seem you're incapable of understanding. I did not create this thread to argue with the likes of you frozn.

On top of your argument that we should scout a keep before immediately heading for it? So we should only hit a keep when its empty to avoid actual defenders and you know, acutally pvping. Because that's what that suggests. You are pretty much saying if we don't want to deal with defenders we shouldn't attack when its being defended. Brilliant Frozn. Strategist of the year award. Except some of us actually like PvPing in Cyrodiil, the pvp zone. We want the tough fights, what we don't want is biased balance changes for the sake of QQ.

Your're still trying to argue that as long as I'm fighting a 16 man with my 16 man it doesn't matter how many players are on screen it wont lag as bad....There is nothing I can even respond with at this point, its like arguing with a child. You are simply wrong and anyone with common sense can see it. We agree that ball groups are very effective right now and changes should be made, had you read my post thoroughly and been able to comprehend what I am suggesting you might have seen that.

What I have been trying to get across is that defense should not be so much easier simply because offense is too easy now. That is not an appropriate response in terms of balance, its an ignorant nerf hammer because people have cried "OP". A little math for you as well, but first some history! We have changed the Skill Prox Det, 2x. Two Times Already. We completely altered the way the skill was cast, and we have scaled damage to how many targets it hits. Both attempts to bring the skill into line with what they want have failed. But third time charm right?!

Now for the math frozn. 24 > 1. 24 Prox Dets armed in an area = AoE Damage that is barely matched by anything else. 1 Prox Det = very poor damage, easily healed through, barely noticeable. Now, this stays this way until you scale it up to about ten players, then you are starting to get a dangerous prox group. Prox Det is only dangerous when utilized by a group. Period. Keep changing it, to fix it you would need to break it. You want a zerg buster skill? They had an amazing one inside Frag Shield. Broke that real quick, or as most would prefer, "balanced" it.

Bringing up the fact that VE did not attend the GvG event is also completely unrelated and gives me a good laugh. Especially coming from someone who doesn't even have a real guild, for obvious reasons. I also think you just challenged me to a 1v1 on the forums, I can add that to the list of laughable things you've done starting with this year.

You should also really really take the time to learn proper English and reading comprehension. You made so many errors quoting my last post and assuming that I'm not quite sure what you were attempting. It is clear you need a refresher. Does not seem you understand the meaning of "implications" nor their practice in the English language either. As badly as I want to post a Let it Go meme, I'll leave you with your poor logic and inability to understand how this game actually works and moving forward what is going to happen in cyrodiil. I am left with nothing constructive to say to you. We will have to agree to disagree, I will refuse to argue with you further but feel free to respond. In truth*(not thruth) we should both just Let it Go.

@x99Needles 1v1 him in Bruma tonight?

*slots meteor*

Joy_Division

@Zheg - The changes to battle leveling in the Orsinium patch made it so BB players are basically v16s and can kill people relatively quick if their gear matches their level (more so if people are new and have no CPs).

Poxheart

Minno wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

WRX wrote: »

They completely reworked the battle leveling system overall with orsinium (I think), including BWB. People used to have 35k hp, 18k stam/mp and identical stats.

Now, and I am not joking, the highest DPS you can get on a toon at any point is when they are around level 40, in legendary gear, with willpower/agility items.

Yeah they finally started to take all gear and attributes into account, which was a much needed change.

Also, I am and also am not surprised if that's true, knowing ZOS.

Correct. Talks of no CP? I can't remember if that was confirmed for the next dlc or not.

Minno

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

They need to just make a Vet Version of Blackwater Blade and be done with it. the other night the was easily almost 200 people at Aleswell(between the 3 factions) and lag was zero, no red ping, no FPS drop below 35, nothing, everyone was using skills, most fun fights i have had since summer of 2014.

Common Denominator? Stuff dies fast in BB. Either you take the keep, or you get rekted by siege quickly, none of this ball group running around immune to this nonsense...if you stand under a door their getting oil poured on you, chances are our dead fast. This is exactly how the game was when it launched. ZOS made big mistakes nerfing siege weapons shortly after launch, they even should have left ground oils in the game...yes at level 12 i remember dropping an Oil in a 1v1 and ground oiling a guy 30 levels higher then me LOL!

Point is, in Blackwater Blade Barrier and Purge spam isn't there as a crutch to allow ball groups to live far longer then they should when they are standing in stuff they shouldn't be. This means they can't overload the server with message requests because fights end pretty fast. It has nothing to do with unlocking passives, these ball groups can't overload the server because when they stand in the breech in BB in siege fire they get rekted like they used to before they fixed Purge in 1.5 and before everyone unlocked Barrier....

Barrier was such a dumb idea to begin with...allowing 20 or so people to get a 15-20k sheild...dio you realize how broken that garbage is with the AOE caps, its just outright atrocious...

Weren't tons of people complaining when IC dropped that BWB resulted in fights taking forever because of the battle spirit changes and how no one had enough damage to kill in a timely manner? So which is it? Do people take forever to kill, or are they dying in a second? It can't be both. Moreover, as I said a few posts back, if the only solution is to make pvp fights end in a second or two and turn this into a FPS, ffs just throw in the towel and close the servers.

Furthermore, you, like many others, keep referring to groups as derogatory 'ball groups', blame them for all of the lag, and suddenly go quiet when someone points out the obvious - if ball groups are the cause of the lag, how is it that two full raids can collide and have lag free fights on empty campaigns or on the main campaigns so long as there aren't tons of other people present there (or tons of other people colliding somewhere else on the map)? I've asked this question dozens of times, and just get ignored because the only logical answer is that whether people are within 15m of each other or more spread out, the main cause of the lag is derived from total people in an area - you (and the others that keep repeating that false line), just don't want to venture into that piece of evidence because you know what it means. If it's the 'ball group' - people standing relatively close to each other instead of in a relative area, they should be causing lag each and every time they fight, everywhere they fight, and that is so far from the truth it's laughable that people keep parroting the same BS talking point because you heard someone else say it and want to be trendy.

As to your barrier point, I've always thought shields in this game were ridiculous, overpowered, and a poor mechanic - but given how the entire rest of the battle system operates, shields are so intertwined that there's no way to eliminate them given the super high damage in game and given that some classes (sorcs) are almost entirely dependent on them if you aren't stam. It could certainly be revamped, but there's no way wrobel would actually do it. That's why there is so much backlash over the barrier changes, he's revamping one skill when he should be revamping the entire mitigation system.

1) players complained because individual players were harder to kill making fights last longer. Group formatting in BWB is closer to loose raid formation than what we call competitive vet pvp. Can't compare the two when discussing actual dmg mechanics because they operate differently due to not having purge or barrier. Fight last long individually but when two factions face each other fights are determined by class ulti coordinated attacks and theirs constant push back. I doubt its as doom and gloom as you state. On BWB you get yellow ping for players present, but it never goes above that and fights are closer to how game functioned at launch than the vet ranks play now.

2) ball groups argument keeps being shuffled around because of the fact players continue to feel the strain near one on a populated server. I don't blame them, since their are simply observing. The "one vs one group alone" argument seems faulty for two reasons: a) vacuum condition that only 48 people can attest to. B)still no mention on measurement of how many messages the server can actual handle. It's likely no lag present due to the fact the server can handle the purge between two groups and if there are no other fight factors (I.e. another raid, solo players,siege, etc) then I can assume the fight didn't last very long under these conditions because both groups concentrated on themselves resulting in quick efficient death versus normal fight conditions. But if the issue was players being around players, why doesn't BWB have this red ping issue? Hence why players point at ball group mechanics; their inclusion in any fight results in players noticing higher pings than normal.

3) barrier has no drawback in its use. Class shield do (exception of sorcs other than breaking their stam). Barrier can buff everyone in the AOE range, gives 20k extra "health" , only uses one ulti slot, and it requires purge/barrier to counter. It's removal shouldn't cause a review of current class shields and removal of shields entirely would move the game closer to the FPS mentality you mentioned. Barrier does not match the pro/con mentality of an RPG.

When IC first came out, we spent about a month fighting with just our 20ish man raid against a large GOS emp group, large swp group, plus pugs. Sometimes there were 50-60 reds against our one raid, in protracted fights with counter siege, and we went so far as to naively think that the IC patch fixed the lag. Know why those TF fights didnt lag and crash the server? Total population was low.

Were you implying since only 48 people could attest to a vacuum condition that they aren't being truthful? I mean, we can dig through recorded fights if you'd like.

Furthermore, the point is, and has been, if people being in a ball is supposed to be the boogie man and the main cause of lag, it should hold true that balls cause lag all the time, and as someone who plays in one nightly and actually has experience to reference in that playstyle, there are certainly times when we don't lag. If balls DON'T cause lag each and every time, then clearly the main culprit is something else, or at least only one ingredient to the lag soup. It's never phrased that way though because it doesn't fit the anti group narrative, and Zos will just keep hearing the same untrue talking point repeated over and over and think, hey, maybe it's the ball! Should their anti lag efforts be focused on groups because that's the narrative a few want pushed? Or should their efforts be focused on the actual lag causes?

I'm open to hearing explanations of why there are times when ball group vs ball group doesn't cause lag if their very nature is supposed to be the cause of said lag, I really am. This is just usually the point where the usual suspects go quiet, avoid the subject, wait for a new thread, and say 'ball groups cause all the lag!' before the cycle repeats.

48 player comment was made in that context, yes. Videos present a personal bias, not that there's anything wrong with that, but makes it hard to determine a factual stance. And without a way to show/record numbers on packet loss in real time while playing, both sides can be militant as they desperately clinch for straw-truths.

Siding with anti-ball groups becomes clearer when you compare the vet campaigns with the BWB. Both have numbers on screen but why does BWB stay ESO while Azura vet becomes Microsoft PowerPoint Online? If its certains skills missing then remove those skills or reduce the effects causing calcs.

Why do ball groups get flack for this? Priority of their groups skills dedicated to intense spamming in non-combat roles (rapid regen spam, buff stack, shield stack, etc in an effort to be AC friendly and ready for combat.) More calcs per square-inch instead of per square foot for normal/solo players in both combat and non combat. If Wheeler says lag caused by players in same area spamming skills, why does balling up get a free pass but other looser players don't? Ball group style raids have to answer that question for removal of itself from blame of lag.

Remember, your playstyle is not at fault or discouraged. But under certain review, might be better suited in instance based arena pvp where server can calculate it properly.

Minno

Takllin wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

WRX wrote: »

They completely reworked the battle leveling system overall with orsinium (I think), including BWB. People used to have 35k hp, 18k stam/mp and identical stats.

Now, and I am not joking, the highest DPS you can get on a toon at any point is when they are around level 40, in legendary gear, with willpower/agility items.

Yeah they finally started to take all gear and attributes into account, which was a much needed change.

Also, I am and also am not surprised if that's true, knowing ZOS.

Correct. Talks of no CP? I can't remember if that was confirmed for the next dlc or not.

That is next DLC.

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

They need to just make a Vet Version of Blackwater Blade and be done with it. the other night the was easily almost 200 people at Aleswell(between the 3 factions) and lag was zero, no red ping, no FPS drop below 35, nothing, everyone was using skills, most fun fights i have had since summer of 2014.

Common Denominator? Stuff dies fast in BB. Either you take the keep, or you get rekted by siege quickly, none of this ball group running around immune to this nonsense...if you stand under a door their getting oil poured on you, chances are our dead fast. This is exactly how the game was when it launched. ZOS made big mistakes nerfing siege weapons shortly after launch, they even should have left ground oils in the game...yes at level 12 i remember dropping an Oil in a 1v1 and ground oiling a guy 30 levels higher then me LOL!

Point is, in Blackwater Blade Barrier and Purge spam isn't there as a crutch to allow ball groups to live far longer then they should when they are standing in stuff they shouldn't be. This means they can't overload the server with message requests because fights end pretty fast. It has nothing to do with unlocking passives, these ball groups can't overload the server because when they stand in the breech in BB in siege fire they get rekted like they used to before they fixed Purge in 1.5 and before everyone unlocked Barrier....

Barrier was such a dumb idea to begin with...allowing 20 or so people to get a 15-20k sheild...dio you realize how broken that garbage is with the AOE caps, its just outright atrocious...

Weren't tons of people complaining when IC dropped that BWB resulted in fights taking forever because of the battle spirit changes and how no one had enough damage to kill in a timely manner? So which is it? Do people take forever to kill, or are they dying in a second? It can't be both. Moreover, as I said a few posts back, if the only solution is to make pvp fights end in a second or two and turn this into a FPS, ffs just throw in the towel and close the servers.

Furthermore, you, like many others, keep referring to groups as derogatory 'ball groups', blame them for all of the lag, and suddenly go quiet when someone points out the obvious - if ball groups are the cause of the lag, how is it that two full raids can collide and have lag free fights on empty campaigns or on the main campaigns so long as there aren't tons of other people present there (or tons of other people colliding somewhere else on the map)? I've asked this question dozens of times, and just get ignored because the only logical answer is that whether people are within 15m of each other or more spread out, the main cause of the lag is derived from total people in an area - you (and the others that keep repeating that false line), just don't want to venture into that piece of evidence because you know what it means. If it's the 'ball group' - people standing relatively close to each other instead of in a relative area, they should be causing lag each and every time they fight, everywhere they fight, and that is so far from the truth it's laughable that people keep parroting the same BS talking point because you heard someone else say it and want to be trendy.

As to your barrier point, I've always thought shields in this game were ridiculous, overpowered, and a poor mechanic - but given how the entire rest of the battle system operates, shields are so intertwined that there's no way to eliminate them given the super high damage in game and given that some classes (sorcs) are almost entirely dependent on them if you aren't stam. It could certainly be revamped, but there's no way wrobel would actually do it. That's why there is so much backlash over the barrier changes, he's revamping one skill when he should be revamping the entire mitigation system.

1) players complained because individual players were harder to kill making fights last longer. Group formatting in BWB is closer to loose raid formation than what we call competitive vet pvp. Can't compare the two when discussing actual dmg mechanics because they operate differently due to not having purge or barrier. Fight last long individually but when two factions face each other fights are determined by class ulti coordinated attacks and theirs constant push back. I doubt its as doom and gloom as you state. On BWB you get yellow ping for players present, but it never goes above that and fights are closer to how game functioned at launch than the vet ranks play now.

2) ball groups argument keeps being shuffled around because of the fact players continue to feel the strain near one on a populated server. I don't blame them, since their are simply observing. The "one vs one group alone" argument seems faulty for two reasons: a) vacuum condition that only 48 people can attest to. B)still no mention on measurement of how many messages the server can actual handle. It's likely no lag present due to the fact the server can handle the purge between two groups and if there are no other fight factors (I.e. another raid, solo players,siege, etc) then I can assume the fight didn't last very long under these conditions because both groups concentrated on themselves resulting in quick efficient death versus normal fight conditions. But if the issue was players being around players, why doesn't BWB have this red ping issue? Hence why players point at ball group mechanics; their inclusion in any fight results in players noticing higher pings than normal.

3) barrier has no drawback in its use. Class shield do (exception of sorcs other than breaking their stam). Barrier can buff everyone in the AOE range, gives 20k extra "health" , only uses one ulti slot, and it requires purge/barrier to counter. It's removal shouldn't cause a review of current class shields and removal of shields entirely would move the game closer to the FPS mentality you mentioned. Barrier does not match the pro/con mentality of an RPG.

When IC first came out, we spent about a month fighting with just our 20ish man raid against a large GOS emp group, large swp group, plus pugs. Sometimes there were 50-60 reds against our one raid, in protracted fights with counter siege, and we went so far as to naively think that the IC patch fixed the lag. Know why those TF fights didnt lag and crash the server? Total population was low.

Were you implying since only 48 people could attest to a vacuum condition that they aren't being truthful? I mean, we can dig through recorded fights if you'd like.

Furthermore, the point is, and has been, if people being in a ball is supposed to be the boogie man and the main cause of lag, it should hold true that balls cause lag all the time, and as someone who plays in one nightly and actually has experience to reference in that playstyle, there are certainly times when we don't lag. If balls DON'T cause lag each and every time, then clearly the main culprit is something else, or at least only one ingredient to the lag soup. It's never phrased that way though because it doesn't fit the anti group narrative, and Zos will just keep hearing the same untrue talking point repeated over and over and think, hey, maybe it's the ball! Should their anti lag efforts be focused on groups because that's the narrative a few want pushed? Or should their efforts be focused on the actual lag causes?

I'm open to hearing explanations of why there are times when ball group vs ball group doesn't cause lag if their very nature is supposed to be the cause of said lag, I really am. This is just usually the point where the usual suspects go quiet, avoid the subject, wait for a new thread, and say 'ball groups cause all the lag!' before the cycle repeats.

I think most people forget how smoothly the game ran at launch of IC. We used to run all around Trueflame with no issues against lots of EP/AD. Ball groups can operate with minimal to no lag, but when you start stacking more groups on top of any engagement, it's going to lag. Ball groups are the boogie man to a lot of uninformed/ignorant people.

It's when everyone came out of the sewers and back into Cyrodil that the lag started to pick up again. Though you never notice lag when "ball groups" engage each other out in the open field, it's only in keeps where there is a high concentration of players.

Like a few days ago up near Dragonclaw, didn't have any lag when we faced you guys. There wasn't any lag until there was a huge keep fight somewhere else down South, either Aleswell or Chalamo, can't remember which.

Also I'd kinda love to see Prox Det removed from the game...

Subjective argument. Because flip side is how come people experience red lag on other side of the map during one keep fight?

We either are too trigger happy both in and out of combat (comparing to BWB this is normal), or our ball grouping with combat/out of combat spam creates red-ping when none should exist.

Takllin

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

They need to just make a Vet Version of Blackwater Blade and be done with it. the other night the was easily almost 200 people at Aleswell(between the 3 factions) and lag was zero, no red ping, no FPS drop below 35, nothing, everyone was using skills, most fun fights i have had since summer of 2014.

Common Denominator? Stuff dies fast in BB. Either you take the keep, or you get rekted by siege quickly, none of this ball group running around immune to this nonsense...if you stand under a door their getting oil poured on you, chances are our dead fast. This is exactly how the game was when it launched. ZOS made big mistakes nerfing siege weapons shortly after launch, they even should have left ground oils in the game...yes at level 12 i remember dropping an Oil in a 1v1 and ground oiling a guy 30 levels higher then me LOL!

Point is, in Blackwater Blade Barrier and Purge spam isn't there as a crutch to allow ball groups to live far longer then they should when they are standing in stuff they shouldn't be. This means they can't overload the server with message requests because fights end pretty fast. It has nothing to do with unlocking passives, these ball groups can't overload the server because when they stand in the breech in BB in siege fire they get rekted like they used to before they fixed Purge in 1.5 and before everyone unlocked Barrier....

Barrier was such a dumb idea to begin with...allowing 20 or so people to get a 15-20k sheild...dio you realize how broken that garbage is with the AOE caps, its just outright atrocious...

Weren't tons of people complaining when IC dropped that BWB resulted in fights taking forever because of the battle spirit changes and how no one had enough damage to kill in a timely manner? So which is it? Do people take forever to kill, or are they dying in a second? It can't be both. Moreover, as I said a few posts back, if the only solution is to make pvp fights end in a second or two and turn this into a FPS, ffs just throw in the towel and close the servers.

Furthermore, you, like many others, keep referring to groups as derogatory 'ball groups', blame them for all of the lag, and suddenly go quiet when someone points out the obvious - if ball groups are the cause of the lag, how is it that two full raids can collide and have lag free fights on empty campaigns or on the main campaigns so long as there aren't tons of other people present there (or tons of other people colliding somewhere else on the map)? I've asked this question dozens of times, and just get ignored because the only logical answer is that whether people are within 15m of each other or more spread out, the main cause of the lag is derived from total people in an area - you (and the others that keep repeating that false line), just don't want to venture into that piece of evidence because you know what it means. If it's the 'ball group' - people standing relatively close to each other instead of in a relative area, they should be causing lag each and every time they fight, everywhere they fight, and that is so far from the truth it's laughable that people keep parroting the same BS talking point because you heard someone else say it and want to be trendy.

As to your barrier point, I've always thought shields in this game were ridiculous, overpowered, and a poor mechanic - but given how the entire rest of the battle system operates, shields are so intertwined that there's no way to eliminate them given the super high damage in game and given that some classes (sorcs) are almost entirely dependent on them if you aren't stam. It could certainly be revamped, but there's no way wrobel would actually do it. That's why there is so much backlash over the barrier changes, he's revamping one skill when he should be revamping the entire mitigation system.

1) players complained because individual players were harder to kill making fights last longer. Group formatting in BWB is closer to loose raid formation than what we call competitive vet pvp. Can't compare the two when discussing actual dmg mechanics because they operate differently due to not having purge or barrier. Fight last long individually but when two factions face each other fights are determined by class ulti coordinated attacks and theirs constant push back. I doubt its as doom and gloom as you state. On BWB you get yellow ping for players present, but it never goes above that and fights are closer to how game functioned at launch than the vet ranks play now.

2) ball groups argument keeps being shuffled around because of the fact players continue to feel the strain near one on a populated server. I don't blame them, since their are simply observing. The "one vs one group alone" argument seems faulty for two reasons: a) vacuum condition that only 48 people can attest to. B)still no mention on measurement of how many messages the server can actual handle. It's likely no lag present due to the fact the server can handle the purge between two groups and if there are no other fight factors (I.e. another raid, solo players,siege, etc) then I can assume the fight didn't last very long under these conditions because both groups concentrated on themselves resulting in quick efficient death versus normal fight conditions. But if the issue was players being around players, why doesn't BWB have this red ping issue? Hence why players point at ball group mechanics; their inclusion in any fight results in players noticing higher pings than normal.

3) barrier has no drawback in its use. Class shield do (exception of sorcs other than breaking their stam). Barrier can buff everyone in the AOE range, gives 20k extra "health" , only uses one ulti slot, and it requires purge/barrier to counter. It's removal shouldn't cause a review of current class shields and removal of shields entirely would move the game closer to the FPS mentality you mentioned. Barrier does not match the pro/con mentality of an RPG.

When IC first came out, we spent about a month fighting with just our 20ish man raid against a large GOS emp group, large swp group, plus pugs. Sometimes there were 50-60 reds against our one raid, in protracted fights with counter siege, and we went so far as to naively think that the IC patch fixed the lag. Know why those TF fights didnt lag and crash the server? Total population was low.

Were you implying since only 48 people could attest to a vacuum condition that they aren't being truthful? I mean, we can dig through recorded fights if you'd like.

Furthermore, the point is, and has been, if people being in a ball is supposed to be the boogie man and the main cause of lag, it should hold true that balls cause lag all the time, and as someone who plays in one nightly and actually has experience to reference in that playstyle, there are certainly times when we don't lag. If balls DON'T cause lag each and every time, then clearly the main culprit is something else, or at least only one ingredient to the lag soup. It's never phrased that way though because it doesn't fit the anti group narrative, and Zos will just keep hearing the same untrue talking point repeated over and over and think, hey, maybe it's the ball! Should their anti lag efforts be focused on groups because that's the narrative a few want pushed? Or should their efforts be focused on the actual lag causes?

I'm open to hearing explanations of why there are times when ball group vs ball group doesn't cause lag if their very nature is supposed to be the cause of said lag, I really am. This is just usually the point where the usual suspects go quiet, avoid the subject, wait for a new thread, and say 'ball groups cause all the lag!' before the cycle repeats.

48 player comment was made in that context, yes. Videos present a personal bias, not that there's anything wrong with that, but makes it hard to determine a factual stance. And without a way to show/record numbers on packet loss in real time while playing, both sides can be militant as they desperately clinch for straw-truths.

Siding with anti-ball groups becomes clearer when you compare the vet campaigns with the BWB. Both have numbers on screen but why does BWB stay ESO while Azura vet becomes Microsoft PowerPoint Online? If its certains skills missing then remove those skills or reduce the effects causing calcs.

Why do ball groups get flack for this? Priority of their groups skills dedicated to intense spamming in non-combat roles (rapid regen spam, buff stack, shield stack, etc in an effort to be AC friendly and ready for combat.) More calcs per square-inch instead of per square foot for normal/solo players in both combat and non combat. If Wheeler says lag caused by players in same area spamming skills, why does balling up get a free pass but other looser players don't? Ball group style raids have to answer that question for removal of itself from blame of lag.

Remember, your playstyle is not at fault or discouraged. But under certain review, might be better suited in instance based arena pvp where server can calculate it properly.

BWB can still become a slideshow, just not near what vet is because they lack the passives, skills, gearsets, etc.

Who said looser players aren't getting a pass? It's all about the total number of players in a given area, doesn't matter if they are in a ball group or loose players.

Minno wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

WRX wrote: »

They completely reworked the battle leveling system overall with orsinium (I think), including BWB. People used to have 35k hp, 18k stam/mp and identical stats.

Now, and I am not joking, the highest DPS you can get on a toon at any point is when they are around level 40, in legendary gear, with willpower/agility items.

Yeah they finally started to take all gear and attributes into account, which was a much needed change.

Also, I am and also am not surprised if that's true, knowing ZOS.

Correct. Talks of no CP? I can't remember if that was confirmed for the next dlc or not.

That is next DLC.

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

They need to just make a Vet Version of Blackwater Blade and be done with it. the other night the was easily almost 200 people at Aleswell(between the 3 factions) and lag was zero, no red ping, no FPS drop below 35, nothing, everyone was using skills, most fun fights i have had since summer of 2014.

Common Denominator? Stuff dies fast in BB. Either you take the keep, or you get rekted by siege quickly, none of this ball group running around immune to this nonsense...if you stand under a door their getting oil poured on you, chances are our dead fast. This is exactly how the game was when it launched. ZOS made big mistakes nerfing siege weapons shortly after launch, they even should have left ground oils in the game...yes at level 12 i remember dropping an Oil in a 1v1 and ground oiling a guy 30 levels higher then me LOL!

Point is, in Blackwater Blade Barrier and Purge spam isn't there as a crutch to allow ball groups to live far longer then they should when they are standing in stuff they shouldn't be. This means they can't overload the server with message requests because fights end pretty fast. It has nothing to do with unlocking passives, these ball groups can't overload the server because when they stand in the breech in BB in siege fire they get rekted like they used to before they fixed Purge in 1.5 and before everyone unlocked Barrier....

Barrier was such a dumb idea to begin with...allowing 20 or so people to get a 15-20k sheild...dio you realize how broken that garbage is with the AOE caps, its just outright atrocious...

Weren't tons of people complaining when IC dropped that BWB resulted in fights taking forever because of the battle spirit changes and how no one had enough damage to kill in a timely manner? So which is it? Do people take forever to kill, or are they dying in a second? It can't be both. Moreover, as I said a few posts back, if the only solution is to make pvp fights end in a second or two and turn this into a FPS, ffs just throw in the towel and close the servers.

Furthermore, you, like many others, keep referring to groups as derogatory 'ball groups', blame them for all of the lag, and suddenly go quiet when someone points out the obvious - if ball groups are the cause of the lag, how is it that two full raids can collide and have lag free fights on empty campaigns or on the main campaigns so long as there aren't tons of other people present there (or tons of other people colliding somewhere else on the map)? I've asked this question dozens of times, and just get ignored because the only logical answer is that whether people are within 15m of each other or more spread out, the main cause of the lag is derived from total people in an area - you (and the others that keep repeating that false line), just don't want to venture into that piece of evidence because you know what it means. If it's the 'ball group' - people standing relatively close to each other instead of in a relative area, they should be causing lag each and every time they fight, everywhere they fight, and that is so far from the truth it's laughable that people keep parroting the same BS talking point because you heard someone else say it and want to be trendy.

As to your barrier point, I've always thought shields in this game were ridiculous, overpowered, and a poor mechanic - but given how the entire rest of the battle system operates, shields are so intertwined that there's no way to eliminate them given the super high damage in game and given that some classes (sorcs) are almost entirely dependent on them if you aren't stam. It could certainly be revamped, but there's no way wrobel would actually do it. That's why there is so much backlash over the barrier changes, he's revamping one skill when he should be revamping the entire mitigation system.

1) players complained because individual players were harder to kill making fights last longer. Group formatting in BWB is closer to loose raid formation than what we call competitive vet pvp. Can't compare the two when discussing actual dmg mechanics because they operate differently due to not having purge or barrier. Fight last long individually but when two factions face each other fights are determined by class ulti coordinated attacks and theirs constant push back. I doubt its as doom and gloom as you state. On BWB you get yellow ping for players present, but it never goes above that and fights are closer to how game functioned at launch than the vet ranks play now.

2) ball groups argument keeps being shuffled around because of the fact players continue to feel the strain near one on a populated server. I don't blame them, since their are simply observing. The "one vs one group alone" argument seems faulty for two reasons: a) vacuum condition that only 48 people can attest to. B)still no mention on measurement of how many messages the server can actual handle. It's likely no lag present due to the fact the server can handle the purge between two groups and if there are no other fight factors (I.e. another raid, solo players,siege, etc) then I can assume the fight didn't last very long under these conditions because both groups concentrated on themselves resulting in quick efficient death versus normal fight conditions. But if the issue was players being around players, why doesn't BWB have this red ping issue? Hence why players point at ball group mechanics; their inclusion in any fight results in players noticing higher pings than normal.

3) barrier has no drawback in its use. Class shield do (exception of sorcs other than breaking their stam). Barrier can buff everyone in the AOE range, gives 20k extra "health" , only uses one ulti slot, and it requires purge/barrier to counter. It's removal shouldn't cause a review of current class shields and removal of shields entirely would move the game closer to the FPS mentality you mentioned. Barrier does not match the pro/con mentality of an RPG.

When IC first came out, we spent about a month fighting with just our 20ish man raid against a large GOS emp group, large swp group, plus pugs. Sometimes there were 50-60 reds against our one raid, in protracted fights with counter siege, and we went so far as to naively think that the IC patch fixed the lag. Know why those TF fights didnt lag and crash the server? Total population was low.

Were you implying since only 48 people could attest to a vacuum condition that they aren't being truthful? I mean, we can dig through recorded fights if you'd like.

Furthermore, the point is, and has been, if people being in a ball is supposed to be the boogie man and the main cause of lag, it should hold true that balls cause lag all the time, and as someone who plays in one nightly and actually has experience to reference in that playstyle, there are certainly times when we don't lag. If balls DON'T cause lag each and every time, then clearly the main culprit is something else, or at least only one ingredient to the lag soup. It's never phrased that way though because it doesn't fit the anti group narrative, and Zos will just keep hearing the same untrue talking point repeated over and over and think, hey, maybe it's the ball! Should their anti lag efforts be focused on groups because that's the narrative a few want pushed? Or should their efforts be focused on the actual lag causes?

I'm open to hearing explanations of why there are times when ball group vs ball group doesn't cause lag if their very nature is supposed to be the cause of said lag, I really am. This is just usually the point where the usual suspects go quiet, avoid the subject, wait for a new thread, and say 'ball groups cause all the lag!' before the cycle repeats.

I think most people forget how smoothly the game ran at launch of IC. We used to run all around Trueflame with no issues against lots of EP/AD. Ball groups can operate with minimal to no lag, but when you start stacking more groups on top of any engagement, it's going to lag. Ball groups are the boogie man to a lot of uninformed/ignorant people.

It's when everyone came out of the sewers and back into Cyrodil that the lag started to pick up again. Though you never notice lag when "ball groups" engage each other out in the open field, it's only in keeps where there is a high concentration of players.

Like a few days ago up near Dragonclaw, didn't have any lag when we faced you guys. There wasn't any lag until there was a huge keep fight somewhere else down South, either Aleswell or Chalamo, can't remember which.

Also I'd kinda love to see Prox Det removed from the game...

Subjective argument. Because flip side is how come people experience red lag on other side of the map during one keep fight?

We either are too trigger happy both in and out of combat (comparing to BWB this is normal), or our ball grouping with combat/out of combat spam creates red-ping when none should exist.

Subjective argument? Everything that anyone says on this matter is subjective...

Cyrodil is one large zone, that's why. Doesn't matter where you are standing, your located on the same server that has to deal with calculations in Uzbekistan if the lag is coming from Vietnam...

Brian went over all of this in detail with his white board...

I only ever have red ping during huge battles, consistently sit between 100-200 otherwise regardless if people spam abilities out of combat or not. It's been tested before too. @Crown did this before with Misfitz IIRC. Random out of combat ability spam, specifically Healing Springs and Purge along with other AoEs resulted in no difference in ping/latency.

Zheg

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

They need to just make a Vet Version of Blackwater Blade and be done with it. the other night the was easily almost 200 people at Aleswell(between the 3 factions) and lag was zero, no red ping, no FPS drop below 35, nothing, everyone was using skills, most fun fights i have had since summer of 2014.

Common Denominator? Stuff dies fast in BB. Either you take the keep, or you get rekted by siege quickly, none of this ball group running around immune to this nonsense...if you stand under a door their getting oil poured on you, chances are our dead fast. This is exactly how the game was when it launched. ZOS made big mistakes nerfing siege weapons shortly after launch, they even should have left ground oils in the game...yes at level 12 i remember dropping an Oil in a 1v1 and ground oiling a guy 30 levels higher then me LOL!

Point is, in Blackwater Blade Barrier and Purge spam isn't there as a crutch to allow ball groups to live far longer then they should when they are standing in stuff they shouldn't be. This means they can't overload the server with message requests because fights end pretty fast. It has nothing to do with unlocking passives, these ball groups can't overload the server because when they stand in the breech in BB in siege fire they get rekted like they used to before they fixed Purge in 1.5 and before everyone unlocked Barrier....

Barrier was such a dumb idea to begin with...allowing 20 or so people to get a 15-20k sheild...dio you realize how broken that garbage is with the AOE caps, its just outright atrocious...

Weren't tons of people complaining when IC dropped that BWB resulted in fights taking forever because of the battle spirit changes and how no one had enough damage to kill in a timely manner? So which is it? Do people take forever to kill, or are they dying in a second? It can't be both. Moreover, as I said a few posts back, if the only solution is to make pvp fights end in a second or two and turn this into a FPS, ffs just throw in the towel and close the servers.

Furthermore, you, like many others, keep referring to groups as derogatory 'ball groups', blame them for all of the lag, and suddenly go quiet when someone points out the obvious - if ball groups are the cause of the lag, how is it that two full raids can collide and have lag free fights on empty campaigns or on the main campaigns so long as there aren't tons of other people present there (or tons of other people colliding somewhere else on the map)? I've asked this question dozens of times, and just get ignored because the only logical answer is that whether people are within 15m of each other or more spread out, the main cause of the lag is derived from total people in an area - you (and the others that keep repeating that false line), just don't want to venture into that piece of evidence because you know what it means. If it's the 'ball group' - people standing relatively close to each other instead of in a relative area, they should be causing lag each and every time they fight, everywhere they fight, and that is so far from the truth it's laughable that people keep parroting the same BS talking point because you heard someone else say it and want to be trendy.

As to your barrier point, I've always thought shields in this game were ridiculous, overpowered, and a poor mechanic - but given how the entire rest of the battle system operates, shields are so intertwined that there's no way to eliminate them given the super high damage in game and given that some classes (sorcs) are almost entirely dependent on them if you aren't stam. It could certainly be revamped, but there's no way wrobel would actually do it. That's why there is so much backlash over the barrier changes, he's revamping one skill when he should be revamping the entire mitigation system.

1) players complained because individual players were harder to kill making fights last longer. Group formatting in BWB is closer to loose raid formation than what we call competitive vet pvp. Can't compare the two when discussing actual dmg mechanics because they operate differently due to not having purge or barrier. Fight last long individually but when two factions face each other fights are determined by class ulti coordinated attacks and theirs constant push back. I doubt its as doom and gloom as you state. On BWB you get yellow ping for players present, but it never goes above that and fights are closer to how game functioned at launch than the vet ranks play now.

2) ball groups argument keeps being shuffled around because of the fact players continue to feel the strain near one on a populated server. I don't blame them, since their are simply observing. The "one vs one group alone" argument seems faulty for two reasons: a) vacuum condition that only 48 people can attest to. B)still no mention on measurement of how many messages the server can actual handle. It's likely no lag present due to the fact the server can handle the purge between two groups and if there are no other fight factors (I.e. another raid, solo players,siege, etc) then I can assume the fight didn't last very long under these conditions because both groups concentrated on themselves resulting in quick efficient death versus normal fight conditions. But if the issue was players being around players, why doesn't BWB have this red ping issue? Hence why players point at ball group mechanics; their inclusion in any fight results in players noticing higher pings than normal.

3) barrier has no drawback in its use. Class shield do (exception of sorcs other than breaking their stam). Barrier can buff everyone in the AOE range, gives 20k extra "health" , only uses one ulti slot, and it requires purge/barrier to counter. It's removal shouldn't cause a review of current class shields and removal of shields entirely would move the game closer to the FPS mentality you mentioned. Barrier does not match the pro/con mentality of an RPG.

When IC first came out, we spent about a month fighting with just our 20ish man raid against a large GOS emp group, large swp group, plus pugs. Sometimes there were 50-60 reds against our one raid, in protracted fights with counter siege, and we went so far as to naively think that the IC patch fixed the lag. Know why those TF fights didnt lag and crash the server? Total population was low.

Were you implying since only 48 people could attest to a vacuum condition that they aren't being truthful? I mean, we can dig through recorded fights if you'd like.

Furthermore, the point is, and has been, if people being in a ball is supposed to be the boogie man and the main cause of lag, it should hold true that balls cause lag all the time, and as someone who plays in one nightly and actually has experience to reference in that playstyle, there are certainly times when we don't lag. If balls DON'T cause lag each and every time, then clearly the main culprit is something else, or at least only one ingredient to the lag soup. It's never phrased that way though because it doesn't fit the anti group narrative, and Zos will just keep hearing the same untrue talking point repeated over and over and think, hey, maybe it's the ball! Should their anti lag efforts be focused on groups because that's the narrative a few want pushed? Or should their efforts be focused on the actual lag causes?

I'm open to hearing explanations of why there are times when ball group vs ball group doesn't cause lag if their very nature is supposed to be the cause of said lag, I really am. This is just usually the point where the usual suspects go quiet, avoid the subject, wait for a new thread, and say 'ball groups cause all the lag!' before the cycle repeats.

48 player comment was made in that context, yes. Videos present a personal bias, not that there's anything wrong with that, but makes it hard to determine a factual stance. And without a way to show/record numbers on packet loss in real time while playing, both sides can be militant as they desperately clinch for straw-truths.

Siding with anti-ball groups becomes clearer when you compare the vet campaigns with the BWB. Both have numbers on screen but why does BWB stay ESO while Azura vet becomes Microsoft PowerPoint Online? If its certains skills missing then remove those skills or reduce the effects causing calcs.

Why do ball groups get flack for this? Priority of their groups skills dedicated to intense spamming in non-combat roles (rapid regen spam, buff stack, shield stack, etc in an effort to be AC friendly and ready for combat.) More calcs per square-inch instead of per square foot for normal/solo players in both combat and non combat. If Wheeler says lag caused by players in same area spamming skills, why does balling up get a free pass but other looser players don't? Ball group style raids have to answer that question for removal of itself from blame of lag.

Remember, your playstyle is not at fault or discouraged. But under certain review, might be better suited in instance based arena pvp where server can calculate it properly.

When we get to a point where the word of entire raids of people with multiple videos against varying enemies on different days as backup proof is chalked up as some conspiracy theory, I should think people need to pause and question the effect that prolonged exposure to the anti group hysterics has had on them, for realz.

I never said ball groups are blameless, in the dozen or so other threads where I raised this counterpoint (right before the usual suspects suddenly start looking to the side, begin whistling, and avoiding the subject) I make arguments that from all of my experiences it always seems to be total players in a relative area that causes ping to jump. While strongly condensed players (ball) probably does have a heftier burden per square inch than per square foot (to paraphrase you), I never notice a difference in ping when players are in a ball vs spread throughout the inner courtyard. So while it probably is making contributions, empiracle evidence has always demonstrated to me that the effect is negligible compared to total number of players. But again, this doesn't fit the popular narrative.

The fallacy is when players directly state or insinuate ball groups ARE the lag. As I've said in other threads, if total players holds true as the main driver (and it does from the majority of evidence), of course when 20 people show up at once you will reach that critical threshold sooner than you would if 20 solo players trickle in, and uninformed or willfully ignorant players will choose the easier scapegoat even though there is no noticeable difference in ping from the 20 people who come in altogether or the 20 solos. Again, I see FAR more evidence to suggest total player numbers drives the lag than I do for players being condensed, and see almost no counter evidence provided by people on the other side of the argument to contest that, yet the narrative continues.

I don't know why ESO lag is ESO lag, all I have are my experiences and educated guesses over the past 2 years. However, I don't want Zos to focus anti lag efforts on tightly packed players when I see zero strong arguments for that being the driver of lag.

Minno

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

They need to just make a Vet Version of Blackwater Blade and be done with it. the other night the was easily almost 200 people at Aleswell(between the 3 factions) and lag was zero, no red ping, no FPS drop below 35, nothing, everyone was using skills, most fun fights i have had since summer of 2014.

Common Denominator? Stuff dies fast in BB. Either you take the keep, or you get rekted by siege quickly, none of this ball group running around immune to this nonsense...if you stand under a door their getting oil poured on you, chances are our dead fast. This is exactly how the game was when it launched. ZOS made big mistakes nerfing siege weapons shortly after launch, they even should have left ground oils in the game...yes at level 12 i remember dropping an Oil in a 1v1 and ground oiling a guy 30 levels higher then me LOL!

Point is, in Blackwater Blade Barrier and Purge spam isn't there as a crutch to allow ball groups to live far longer then they should when they are standing in stuff they shouldn't be. This means they can't overload the server with message requests because fights end pretty fast. It has nothing to do with unlocking passives, these ball groups can't overload the server because when they stand in the breech in BB in siege fire they get rekted like they used to before they fixed Purge in 1.5 and before everyone unlocked Barrier....

Barrier was such a dumb idea to begin with...allowing 20 or so people to get a 15-20k sheild...dio you realize how broken that garbage is with the AOE caps, its just outright atrocious...

Weren't tons of people complaining when IC dropped that BWB resulted in fights taking forever because of the battle spirit changes and how no one had enough damage to kill in a timely manner? So which is it? Do people take forever to kill, or are they dying in a second? It can't be both. Moreover, as I said a few posts back, if the only solution is to make pvp fights end in a second or two and turn this into a FPS, ffs just throw in the towel and close the servers.

Furthermore, you, like many others, keep referring to groups as derogatory 'ball groups', blame them for all of the lag, and suddenly go quiet when someone points out the obvious - if ball groups are the cause of the lag, how is it that two full raids can collide and have lag free fights on empty campaigns or on the main campaigns so long as there aren't tons of other people present there (or tons of other people colliding somewhere else on the map)? I've asked this question dozens of times, and just get ignored because the only logical answer is that whether people are within 15m of each other or more spread out, the main cause of the lag is derived from total people in an area - you (and the others that keep repeating that false line), just don't want to venture into that piece of evidence because you know what it means. If it's the 'ball group' - people standing relatively close to each other instead of in a relative area, they should be causing lag each and every time they fight, everywhere they fight, and that is so far from the truth it's laughable that people keep parroting the same BS talking point because you heard someone else say it and want to be trendy.

As to your barrier point, I've always thought shields in this game were ridiculous, overpowered, and a poor mechanic - but given how the entire rest of the battle system operates, shields are so intertwined that there's no way to eliminate them given the super high damage in game and given that some classes (sorcs) are almost entirely dependent on them if you aren't stam. It could certainly be revamped, but there's no way wrobel would actually do it. That's why there is so much backlash over the barrier changes, he's revamping one skill when he should be revamping the entire mitigation system.

1) players complained because individual players were harder to kill making fights last longer. Group formatting in BWB is closer to loose raid formation than what we call competitive vet pvp. Can't compare the two when discussing actual dmg mechanics because they operate differently due to not having purge or barrier. Fight last long individually but when two factions face each other fights are determined by class ulti coordinated attacks and theirs constant push back. I doubt its as doom and gloom as you state. On BWB you get yellow ping for players present, but it never goes above that and fights are closer to how game functioned at launch than the vet ranks play now.

2) ball groups argument keeps being shuffled around because of the fact players continue to feel the strain near one on a populated server. I don't blame them, since their are simply observing. The "one vs one group alone" argument seems faulty for two reasons: a) vacuum condition that only 48 people can attest to. B)still no mention on measurement of how many messages the server can actual handle. It's likely no lag present due to the fact the server can handle the purge between two groups and if there are no other fight factors (I.e. another raid, solo players,siege, etc) then I can assume the fight didn't last very long under these conditions because both groups concentrated on themselves resulting in quick efficient death versus normal fight conditions. But if the issue was players being around players, why doesn't BWB have this red ping issue? Hence why players point at ball group mechanics; their inclusion in any fight results in players noticing higher pings than normal.

3) barrier has no drawback in its use. Class shield do (exception of sorcs other than breaking their stam). Barrier can buff everyone in the AOE range, gives 20k extra "health" , only uses one ulti slot, and it requires purge/barrier to counter. It's removal shouldn't cause a review of current class shields and removal of shields entirely would move the game closer to the FPS mentality you mentioned. Barrier does not match the pro/con mentality of an RPG.

When IC first came out, we spent about a month fighting with just our 20ish man raid against a large GOS emp group, large swp group, plus pugs. Sometimes there were 50-60 reds against our one raid, in protracted fights with counter siege, and we went so far as to naively think that the IC patch fixed the lag. Know why those TF fights didnt lag and crash the server? Total population was low.

Were you implying since only 48 people could attest to a vacuum condition that they aren't being truthful? I mean, we can dig through recorded fights if you'd like.

Furthermore, the point is, and has been, if people being in a ball is supposed to be the boogie man and the main cause of lag, it should hold true that balls cause lag all the time, and as someone who plays in one nightly and actually has experience to reference in that playstyle, there are certainly times when we don't lag. If balls DON'T cause lag each and every time, then clearly the main culprit is something else, or at least only one ingredient to the lag soup. It's never phrased that way though because it doesn't fit the anti group narrative, and Zos will just keep hearing the same untrue talking point repeated over and over and think, hey, maybe it's the ball! Should their anti lag efforts be focused on groups because that's the narrative a few want pushed? Or should their efforts be focused on the actual lag causes?

I'm open to hearing explanations of why there are times when ball group vs ball group doesn't cause lag if their very nature is supposed to be the cause of said lag, I really am. This is just usually the point where the usual suspects go quiet, avoid the subject, wait for a new thread, and say 'ball groups cause all the lag!' before the cycle repeats.

48 player comment was made in that context, yes. Videos present a personal bias, not that there's anything wrong with that, but makes it hard to determine a factual stance. And without a way to show/record numbers on packet loss in real time while playing, both sides can be militant as they desperately clinch for straw-truths.

Siding with anti-ball groups becomes clearer when you compare the vet campaigns with the BWB. Both have numbers on screen but why does BWB stay ESO while Azura vet becomes Microsoft PowerPoint Online? If its certains skills missing then remove those skills or reduce the effects causing calcs.

Why do ball groups get flack for this? Priority of their groups skills dedicated to intense spamming in non-combat roles (rapid regen spam, buff stack, shield stack, etc in an effort to be AC friendly and ready for combat.) More calcs per square-inch instead of per square foot for normal/solo players in both combat and non combat. If Wheeler says lag caused by players in same area spamming skills, why does balling up get a free pass but other looser players don't? Ball group style raids have to answer that question for removal of itself from blame of lag.

Remember, your playstyle is not at fault or discouraged. But under certain review, might be better suited in instance based arena pvp where server can calculate it properly.

When we get to a point where the word of entire raids of people with multiple videos against varying enemies on different days as backup proof is chalked up as some conspiracy theory, I should think people need to pause and question the effect that prolonged exposure to the anti group hysterics has had on them, for realz.

I never said ball groups are blameless, in the dozen or so other threads where I raised this counterpoint (right before the usual suspects suddenly start looking to the side, begin whistling, and avoiding the subject) I make arguments that from all of my experiences it always seems to be total players in a relative area that causes ping to jump. While strongly condensed players (ball) probably does have a heftier burden per square inch than per square foot (to paraphrase you), I never notice a difference in ping when players are in a ball vs spread throughout the inner courtyard. So while it probably is making contributions, empiracle evidence has always demonstrated to me that the effect is negligible compared to total number of players. But again, this doesn't fit the popular narrative.

The fallacy is when players directly state or insinuate ball groups ARE the lag. As I've said in other threads, if total players holds true as the main driver (and it does from the majority of evidence), of course when 20 people show up at once you will reach that critical threshold sooner than you would if 20 solo players trickle in, and uninformed or willfully ignorant players will choose the easier scapegoat even though there is no noticeable difference in ping from the 20 people who come in altogether or the 20 solos. Again, I see FAR more evidence to suggest total player numbers drives the lag than I do for players being condensed, and see almost no counter evidence provided by people on the other side of the argument to contest that, yet the narrative continues.

I don't know why ESO lag is ESO lag, all I have are my experiences and educated guesses over the past 2 years. However, I don't want Zos to focus anti lag efforts on tightly packed players when I see zero strong arguments for that being the driver of lag.

I get the tin-foil approach is fool-hardy. I'm coming from the standpoint that most video evidence is constructed by a bias viewpoint therefore under scrutiny despite its visuals suggest otherwise; one vantage can be one way but another disproves it. We need numbered data.

You raise the good argument in defense of ball-groupings in that paragraph. Likely one to forever be unchallenged. Let me raise you wheelers description of how the server calcs the abilities:

- my understanding from his words was that the server divides the map into quadrants.
- When players start bunching up AND spamming abilities, the server tries to keep up with input/output packages. If nothing is going on on the other side of the map, one can assume the server to concentrating on calculating the area that is under load.

My argument is that, I.E., while your group is still in good ping at chal, across the map players are feeling the pressure more so. I'm not sure of their specific hardware, but it wouldn't be "tin-foil" to suggest the server is prioritizing your groups efforts over others because your group is sending more packets per second than other players.

- now if my argument is true above, this would be an indication that a) information from balls of players are prioritized over solo players (an unseen advantage towards group play) vantage points being subjective since your group is receiving more process power to help calculate the per inch instead of foot of other players(not to mention lags in video capture vs actual lag studder bias but that's easy to separate.)

Here's where the argument comes full circle. If the server is keeping up with yellow lag during regular play groupings. The speed in which those players die, can be parallel to the servers calculating caps. Because those players are not a) fully protected by AOE caps mitigation prolonging certain fights. their bars don't slot purge, so more abilities deal dmg to them resulting in death. This is more true in BWB, where ping can rise, but because death occurs faster the server can calculate everyone more effortlessly. And seige constructs a huge part in that killing (hence its dmg being returned with extra bonuses.)

Now I don't want anti-group fixes either. But we can all agree barrier/purge creates an environment of play the server can't resolve. The past few updates we've seen seige be reduced and more players balling up to compensate. The mentality of safety a group can bring, brings the lag (either from a hardware standpoint or abilities.) Truth remains, the servers can't keep up with the long fights featuring 24+ groupings.

We may also need to consider removing large instance cyro for small scale arenas if we want pvp to be competitive, functional and viable end game content.

If I missed a point, I'll add it in another comment.
Also @RinaldoGandolphi ,or any other networking admins, correct me on my understanding of server packet loss too.

Zheg

I'm not in a position to confirm or refute the quadrant calcs and the effect it has. That's something only ZOS can do. To tie this tangent back to the OP, many of us see these changes as something that will result in more players going to the same objective. While the goal may be to stop balling, if the super majority of lag comes from total players at a keep, hopefully the concern is now obvious. I can talk till I'm blue in the face, these changes are already happening and there's little I can do to stop it. But if and when the meta plays out exactly like myself and others have been arguing it will, and if the lag ends up taking a turn for the worse because of it, I assure you I'm in no way above saying I told you so.

_Chaos

Just to clarify, the quadrants Brian was referring to were:

1. Overland Cyrodiil
2. Cyrodiil Delves
3. Imperial Sewers
4. Imperial City Districts

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For Cyrodiil the answer is simply that it's one zone and if anything floods the server with requests from that zone, regardless of where it occurred in the zone, will effect the entire zone. There may have been a battle at Alessia bridge, but it could effect what happens at Fort Warden.

Servers address packets in a "first come, first serve" basis so just because a group is sending out more packets, it doesn't mean the server prioritizes those packets in that given area while queing or delaying others.

TheBonesXXX

Satiar wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

I was unsure what to make for dinner tonight but then came here and was reminded how delicious Bulb's salty tears are.

When DC was complaining about alllllll this a year ago we were told to suck it up. By people like Bulb. So my sympathy meter is at an all time low. Peace.

And than our entire guild rerolled to help out. lol

Irrelevant. Appreciated but irrelevant. Ya'll enjoyed over pop status for a looooooong time and got yo killz on for a looooooooong time before deciding to try to balance the scales. Let DC have their moment in the sun. I like that so much I'm gonna make it my signature.

Ah yes, my glorious overpopulated days of getting gate camped by DC on Bloodthorn. How could I forget

I'm still bitter Zenimax broke EP leveling the first week of release, I had Bloodthorn painted red, lock stock and barrel.

#buffargonians

Karatos

RinaldoGandolphi

@Minno

I was summoned?

I'll try and simply this in the best way that I can:

1. ESO uses TCP as its main connection method. If folks don't know, TCP uses a 3-way Handshake method to establish connections and transfer data. Im not going to write a wall of text on how TCP works, but here is a very simple explanation of how the TCP 3-way handshake works and how TCP connections are actually established and work in very easy terms.

http://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/internet/tcp/3-way_handshake.shtml

2. The lag and Red Ping in ESO is caused by Packet Loss. Packet loss can occur for a variety of reasons, in the case of ESO its caused by an overloaded server. When the server is overloaded and it can't process any more requests, it simply just drops the packet, this is how it works. there is nothing else it really can do, at some point it drops the packet and error control methods resends the request after X amount of time has passed without a response.

When a web server is under a DOS Attack when you try and load it and it fails, the server simply can't process anymore requests and the packets are droped and you can't load the page. The red ping indicator on your ESO client going into the red is indication of packet loss, packet loss caused by the server being unable to handle the amoutn of requests being flooded at it.

As long as we players keep creating conditions that allow this to occur, and ZOS continues to have skills andmechanics in the game that allow this to go on, its not going to change. The only way it changes is by ZOS changing player behavior, and honestly, nothing short of removing the AOE caps and removing Barrier and Purge alltogether is going to fix....this would make Vet PVP liek Blackwater Blade, its not perfect, but its 150% better then any vet campaign right now and only lags maybe 5% of the time, can you say the same for Azuras?

Minno

Zheg wrote: »

I'm not in a position to confirm or refute the quadrant calcs and the effect it has. That's something only ZOS can do. To tie this tangent back to the OP, many of us see these changes as something that will result in more players going to the same objective. While the goal may be to stop balling, if the super majority of lag comes from total players at a keep, hopefully the concern is now obvious. I can talk till I'm blue in the face, these changes are already happening and there's little I can do to stop it. But if and when the meta plays out exactly like myself and others have been arguing it will, and if the lag ends up taking a turn for the worse because of it, I assure you I'm in no way above saying I told you so.

That's why I said we may have to accept open pvp is a failure. There are no group limit caps, heals aren't group priority only, dmg is capped for AOE, skills used to help break up players are used by the players themselves, lack of policing by ZOS etc. We have no viable leader rankings, no way to compare group ranking, no official support of which group size should be the pvp standard of measurement, etc and onward.

The shift in pvp is moving from 24m raids to smaller scale. The average player logs on, plays with 3-4 friends then logs off. Nothing in cyro offers such, hence the eventual adoption of cyro 24 groups or go to the keep under burst to leech on a groups burst. No objectives, nothing new and vibrant is offered. It's terribly linear, and aside from the above changes, we have nothing to go on.

We could be better players/leaders and start to construct a better standard for how we play cyro but we ignore it. So far only Jules offered a different way to see cyro, and some of the guilds ignored or attacked that thread militantly. How can we take the group playstyle seriously if the above groups just do it to be competitive and/lock new players out? Where is the effort to turn the 24man standard into something new that aligns with the sandbox nature of the map? So far I only see King Richard trying to organize tournaments, Sypher organizing location meetups, and Fengrush showing how to guerrilla fight in Axe.

I explained why large raid format gets more flack than smaller for the lag. And I'll try to offer ways to look at the map differently (see my post history for a new game style in IC that we can do right now for an example.).

We want change in cyro? Cool, lets enforce our own standard to "F" ZOS and stick with it.

CN_Daniel

It has more to do with the number of people in a campaign than anything.

I remember when Azura was a ghost town except for us (3 full groups) and a horde of bananas like we've never seen since. We'd have epic 50+ vs 50+ fights with no lag.

Zheg

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

I'm not in a position to confirm or refute the quadrant calcs and the effect it has. That's something only ZOS can do. To tie this tangent back to the OP, many of us see these changes as something that will result in more players going to the same objective. While the goal may be to stop balling, if the super majority of lag comes from total players at a keep, hopefully the concern is now obvious. I can talk till I'm blue in the face, these changes are already happening and there's little I can do to stop it. But if and when the meta plays out exactly like myself and others have been arguing it will, and if the lag ends up taking a turn for the worse because of it, I assure you I'm in no way above saying I told you so.

That's why I said we may have to accept open pvp is a failure. There are no group limit caps, heals aren't group priority only, dmg is capped for AOE, skills used to help break up players are used by the players themselves, lack of policing by ZOS etc. We have no viable leader rankings, no way to compare group ranking, no official support of which group size should be the pvp standard of measurement, etc and onward.

The shift in pvp is moving from 24m raids to smaller scale. The average player logs on, plays with 3-4 friends then logs off. Nothing in cyro offers such, hence the eventual adoption of cyro 24 groups or go to the keep under burst to leech on a groups burst. No objectives, nothing new and vibrant is offered. It's terribly linear, and aside from the above changes, we have nothing to go on.

We could be better players/leaders and start to construct a better standard for how we play cyro but we ignore it. So far only Jules offered a different way to see cyro, and some of the guilds ignored or attacked that thread militantly. How can we take the group playstyle seriously if the above groups just do it to be competitive and/lock new players out? Where is the effort to turn the 24man standard into something new that aligns with the sandbox nature of the map? So far I only see King Richard trying to organize tournaments, Sypher organizing location meetups, and Fengrush showing how to guerrilla fight in Axe.

I explained why large raid format gets more flack than smaller for the lag. And I'll try to offer ways to look at the map differently (see my post history for a new game style in IC that we can do right now for an example.).

We want change in cyro? Cool, lets enforce our own standard to "F" ZOS and stick with it.

I can ask ad leaders not to bring 60+ to a keep, but the response is just 'Daniel does it, so will we', same for red. Maybe I'm just too much of a realist to think players will follow any kind of self made rules, much less even be able to agree on them. Furthermore, the people that seem to be the first to nominate themselves to come up with the moral rules for how everyone else should play quickly have excuses when they themselves break them, or want something like emp and suddenly there was fine print in the pvp moral rules.

While it 'sounds cool' to try and get players to follow pvp rules, it is in no way based in reality, and all it does is create asinine drama.

If people want to form events, train pugs, all the more power to them. As soon as someone says 'follow my rules because reasons', it just becomes free entertainment and in no way benefits the game.

Minno

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

I'm not in a position to confirm or refute the quadrant calcs and the effect it has. That's something only ZOS can do. To tie this tangent back to the OP, many of us see these changes as something that will result in more players going to the same objective. While the goal may be to stop balling, if the super majority of lag comes from total players at a keep, hopefully the concern is now obvious. I can talk till I'm blue in the face, these changes are already happening and there's little I can do to stop it. But if and when the meta plays out exactly like myself and others have been arguing it will, and if the lag ends up taking a turn for the worse because of it, I assure you I'm in no way above saying I told you so.

That's why I said we may have to accept open pvp is a failure. There are no group limit caps, heals aren't group priority only, dmg is capped for AOE, skills used to help break up players are used by the players themselves, lack of policing by ZOS etc. We have no viable leader rankings, no way to compare group ranking, no official support of which group size should be the pvp standard of measurement, etc and onward.

The shift in pvp is moving from 24m raids to smaller scale. The average player logs on, plays with 3-4 friends then logs off. Nothing in cyro offers such, hence the eventual adoption of cyro 24 groups or go to the keep under burst to leech on a groups burst. No objectives, nothing new and vibrant is offered. It's terribly linear, and aside from the above changes, we have nothing to go on.

We could be better players/leaders and start to construct a better standard for how we play cyro but we ignore it. So far only Jules offered a different way to see cyro, and some of the guilds ignored or attacked that thread militantly. How can we take the group playstyle seriously if the above groups just do it to be competitive and/lock new players out? Where is the effort to turn the 24man standard into something new that aligns with the sandbox nature of the map? So far I only see King Richard trying to organize tournaments, Sypher organizing location meetups, and Fengrush showing how to guerrilla fight in Axe.

I explained why large raid format gets more flack than smaller for the lag. And I'll try to offer ways to look at the map differently (see my post history for a new game style in IC that we can do right now for an example.).

We want change in cyro? Cool, lets enforce our own standard to "F" ZOS and stick with it.

I can ask ad leaders not to bring 60+ to a keep, but the response is just 'Daniel does it, so will we', same for red. Maybe I'm just too much of a realist to think players will follow any kind of self made rules, much less even be able to agree on them. Furthermore, the people that seem to be the first to nominate themselves to come up with the moral rules for how everyone else should play quickly have excuses when they themselves break them, or want something like emp and suddenly there was fine print in the pvp moral rules.

While it 'sounds cool' to try and get players to follow pvp rules, it is in no way based in reality, and all it does is create asinine drama.

If people want to form events, train pugs, all the more power to them. As soon as someone says 'follow my rules because reasons', it just becomes free entertainment and in no way benefits the game.

I get the reality of policing ourselves.
So then lets structure more events within cyro. Why use the keep-to-keep linear expression as the only PVP experience? Why are we, as a community, so basic?

Satiar

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

I'm not in a position to confirm or refute the quadrant calcs and the effect it has. That's something only ZOS can do. To tie this tangent back to the OP, many of us see these changes as something that will result in more players going to the same objective. While the goal may be to stop balling, if the super majority of lag comes from total players at a keep, hopefully the concern is now obvious. I can talk till I'm blue in the face, these changes are already happening and there's little I can do to stop it. But if and when the meta plays out exactly like myself and others have been arguing it will, and if the lag ends up taking a turn for the worse because of it, I assure you I'm in no way above saying I told you so.

That's why I said we may have to accept open pvp is a failure. There are no group limit caps, heals aren't group priority only, dmg is capped for AOE, skills used to help break up players are used by the players themselves, lack of policing by ZOS etc. We have no viable leader rankings, no way to compare group ranking, no official support of which group size should be the pvp standard of measurement, etc and onward.

The shift in pvp is moving from 24m raids to smaller scale. The average player logs on, plays with 3-4 friends then logs off. Nothing in cyro offers such, hence the eventual adoption of cyro 24 groups or go to the keep under burst to leech on a groups burst. No objectives, nothing new and vibrant is offered. It's terribly linear, and aside from the above changes, we have nothing to go on.

We could be better players/leaders and start to construct a better standard for how we play cyro but we ignore it. So far only Jules offered a different way to see cyro, and some of the guilds ignored or attacked that thread militantly. How can we take the group playstyle seriously if the above groups just do it to be competitive and/lock new players out? Where is the effort to turn the 24man standard into something new that aligns with the sandbox nature of the map? So far I only see King Richard trying to organize tournaments, Sypher organizing location meetups, and Fengrush showing how to guerrilla fight in Axe.

I explained why large raid format gets more flack than smaller for the lag. And I'll try to offer ways to look at the map differently (see my post history for a new game style in IC that we can do right now for an example.).

We want change in cyro? Cool, lets enforce our own standard to "F" ZOS and stick with it.

I can ask ad leaders not to bring 60+ to a keep, but the response is just 'Daniel does it, so will we', same for red. Maybe I'm just too much of a realist to think players will follow any kind of self made rules, much less even be able to agree on them. Furthermore, the people that seem to be the first to nominate themselves to come up with the moral rules for how everyone else should play quickly have excuses when they themselves break them, or want something like emp and suddenly there was fine print in the pvp moral rules.

While it 'sounds cool' to try and get players to follow pvp rules, it is in no way based in reality, and all it does is create asinine drama.

If people want to form events, train pugs, all the more power to them. As soon as someone says 'follow my rules because reasons', it just becomes free entertainment and in no way benefits the game.

I get the reality of policing ourselves.
So then lets structure more events within cyro. Why use the keep-to-keep linear expression as the only PVP experience? Why are we, as a community, so basic?

Personally I love the open world PvP play. There are plenty of games for structured PvP, very few with this set up.

Minno

Satiar wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

I'm not in a position to confirm or refute the quadrant calcs and the effect it has. That's something only ZOS can do. To tie this tangent back to the OP, many of us see these changes as something that will result in more players going to the same objective. While the goal may be to stop balling, if the super majority of lag comes from total players at a keep, hopefully the concern is now obvious. I can talk till I'm blue in the face, these changes are already happening and there's little I can do to stop it. But if and when the meta plays out exactly like myself and others have been arguing it will, and if the lag ends up taking a turn for the worse because of it, I assure you I'm in no way above saying I told you so.

That's why I said we may have to accept open pvp is a failure. There are no group limit caps, heals aren't group priority only, dmg is capped for AOE, skills used to help break up players are used by the players themselves, lack of policing by ZOS etc. We have no viable leader rankings, no way to compare group ranking, no official support of which group size should be the pvp standard of measurement, etc and onward.

The shift in pvp is moving from 24m raids to smaller scale. The average player logs on, plays with 3-4 friends then logs off. Nothing in cyro offers such, hence the eventual adoption of cyro 24 groups or go to the keep under burst to leech on a groups burst. No objectives, nothing new and vibrant is offered. It's terribly linear, and aside from the above changes, we have nothing to go on.

We could be better players/leaders and start to construct a better standard for how we play cyro but we ignore it. So far only Jules offered a different way to see cyro, and some of the guilds ignored or attacked that thread militantly. How can we take the group playstyle seriously if the above groups just do it to be competitive and/lock new players out? Where is the effort to turn the 24man standard into something new that aligns with the sandbox nature of the map? So far I only see King Richard trying to organize tournaments, Sypher organizing location meetups, and Fengrush showing how to guerrilla fight in Axe.

I explained why large raid format gets more flack than smaller for the lag. And I'll try to offer ways to look at the map differently (see my post history for a new game style in IC that we can do right now for an example.).

We want change in cyro? Cool, lets enforce our own standard to "F" ZOS and stick with it.

I can ask ad leaders not to bring 60+ to a keep, but the response is just 'Daniel does it, so will we', same for red. Maybe I'm just too much of a realist to think players will follow any kind of self made rules, much less even be able to agree on them. Furthermore, the people that seem to be the first to nominate themselves to come up with the moral rules for how everyone else should play quickly have excuses when they themselves break them, or want something like emp and suddenly there was fine print in the pvp moral rules.

While it 'sounds cool' to try and get players to follow pvp rules, it is in no way based in reality, and all it does is create asinine drama.

If people want to form events, train pugs, all the more power to them. As soon as someone says 'follow my rules because reasons', it just becomes free entertainment and in no way benefits the game.

I get the reality of policing ourselves.
So then lets structure more events within cyro. Why use the keep-to-keep linear expression as the only PVP experience? Why are we, as a community, so basic?

Personally I love the open world PvP play. There are plenty of games for structured PvP, very few with this set up.

True. It offers us an unscripted place for combat which is still fun when it works.

Marclej

How is the lag so insane now ? Before I stopped playing a few months ago I'd be in azuras star every night and was part of some insane keep defenses and attacks where all 3 factions were there in very large numbers and it was still playable.. yeah there was a loss of fps but now it seems as soon as there is a large scale battle the server just loses its *** and crazy things happen like dying with no sign of being attacked until you see the death recap.. taking a few seconds to swap weapons... these fights aren't no where near the scale of what I have seen before and yet the lag is so much worse.. clearly they've *** something up that they have no idea to reverse..

Jules

CN_Daniel wrote: »

It has more to do with the number of people in a campaign than anything.

I remember when Azura was a ghost town except for us (3 full groups) and a horde of bananas like we've never seen since. We'd have epic 50+ vs 50+ fights with no lag.

3x24 = 50??

Ah, good old CN math.

Poxheart

Jules wrote: »

CN_Daniel wrote: »

It has more to do with the number of people in a campaign than anything.

I remember when Azura was a ghost town except for us (3 full groups) and a horde of bananas like we've never seen since. We'd have epic 50+ vs 50+ fights with no lag.

3x24 = 50??

Ah, good old CN math.

I'm glad somebody else caught that...

Manoekin

Jules wrote: »

CN_Daniel wrote: »

It has more to do with the number of people in a campaign than anything.

I remember when Azura was a ghost town except for us (3 full groups) and a horde of bananas like we've never seen since. We'd have epic 50+ vs 50+ fights with no lag.

3x24 = 50??

Ah, good old CN math.

What's 35/2 Jules?

Minno

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Just to clarify, the quadrants Brian was referring to were:

1. Overland Cyrodiil
2. Cyrodiil Delves
3. Imperial Sewers
4. Imperial City Districts

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For Cyrodiil the answer is simply that it's one zone and if anything floods the server with requests from that zone, regardless of where it occurred in the zone, will effect the entire zone. There may have been a battle at Alessia bridge, but it could effect what happens at Fort Warden.

Servers address packets in a "first come, first serve" basis so just because a group is sending out more packets, it doesn't mean the server prioritizes those packets in that given area while queing or delaying others.

Thanks! Paints a better picture. Still seems like a mess

Jules

Manoekin wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

CN_Daniel wrote: »

It has more to do with the number of people in a campaign than anything.

I remember when Azura was a ghost town except for us (3 full groups) and a horde of bananas like we've never seen since. We'd have epic 50+ vs 50+ fights with no lag.

3x24 = 50??

Ah, good old CN math.

What's 35/2 Jules?

12.

#cnmath

CN_Daniel

A plus is a sign that indicates more than. I don't want to shock you...but yes, 72 is more than 50.

Hektik_V

CN_Daniel wrote: »

A plus is a sign that indicates more than. I don't want to shock you...but yes, 72 is more than 50.

It seems like you honestly believe there is a code in the game that goes "if faction ep has emp; ping = 999+"

I'm sorry but there isn't. I can play on Azura's all day with an emperor and it's fine. This unplayable server that you are trying to cleanse by dethroning the emperor is a self fulfilling prophecy because you are the one bringing larger and larger raids to the last emperor keep to ensure a dethrone. Any reasonable raid lead of yesteryear would have systematically ignored the emperor keep; while taking every other resource, scroll and keep on the map while the emperor group and PuGs rot away in the last emperor keep, but that's only if you do actually care about objectives which you claim to.

Zheg

Hektik_V wrote: »

CN_Daniel wrote: »

A plus is a sign that indicates more than. I don't want to shock you...but yes, 72 is more than 50.

It seems like you honestly believe there is a code in the game that goes "if faction ep has emp; ping = 999+"

I'm sorry but there isn't. I can play on Azura's all day with an emperor and it's fine. This unplayable server that you are trying to cleanse by dethroning the emperor is a self fulfilling prophecy because you are the one bringing larger and larger raids to the last emperor keep to ensure a dethrone. Any reasonable raid lead of yesteryear would have systematically ignored the emperor keep; while taking every other resource, scroll and keep on the map while the emperor group and PuGs rot away in the last emperor keep, but that's only if you do actually care about objectives which you claim to.

Of course it's fine during the day, population is low. Going into primetime with an emp and then trying to blame anyone (including daniel) for the ensuing lag is silly. Yellow did most of the work on tonight's dethrone, yet you're still looking to blame daniel, it's bizarre.

I'm surprised you guys are still so gung-*** about emp - they are no where near as powerful as they used to be, I honestly can't remember the last time an emp was capped during primetime when there was legitimate resistance, and dethrones just make the lag go supernova. I'm glad to see there wasn't a repeat of the silly drama from the last dethrone, but seriously, 2 years in, why are people still getting so worked up over getting and keeping emp?

Just play the map when there's resistance, get fights, and pvp ffs. The moral argument you're trying to make about everyone leaving the emp alone for the entire night can easily be turned around on you. If you're intentionally capping when there's minimal resistance on, that's plain pathetic. If you aren't intentionally capping when there's minimal resistance on, you can easily take the 'moral' high ground and just let the dethrone be over with in 5 minutes so the server doesn't have to put up with the dethrone shenanigans and everyone can go back to pvp.

Whenever our raid starts up at primetime, if there's an emp, dethrone is automatically the objective; it seems to be that way for the other blue guilds on azura as well. It also seems to be true for yellow. You can complain if you'd like, or you can just accept that people don't want to put up with emps any more and will just get the dethrone out the way as soon as possible.

It would be a well-received late xmas present from Brian if the next patch said "emperor system is being abandoned because all it does is create drama, exacerbate lag, and funnel players to prioritized objectives".

Hektik_V

Zheg wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

CN_Daniel wrote: »

A plus is a sign that indicates more than. I don't want to shock you...but yes, 72 is more than 50.

It seems like you honestly believe there is a code in the game that goes "if faction ep has emp; ping = 999+"

I'm sorry but there isn't. I can play on Azura's all day with an emperor and it's fine. This unplayable server that you are trying to cleanse by dethroning the emperor is a self fulfilling prophecy because you are the one bringing larger and larger raids to the last emperor keep to ensure a dethrone. Any reasonable raid lead of yesteryear would have systematically ignored the emperor keep; while taking every other resource, scroll and keep on the map while the emperor group and PuGs rot away in the last emperor keep, but that's only if you do actually care about objectives which you claim to.

Of course it's fine during the day, population is low. Going into primetime with an emp and then trying to blame anyone (including daniel) for the ensuing lag is silly. Yellow did most of the work on tonight's dethrone, yet you're still looking to blame daniel, it's bizarre.

I'm surprised you guys are still so gung-*** about emp - they are no where near as powerful as they used to be, I honestly can't remember the last time an emp was capped during primetime when there was legitimate resistance, and dethrones just make the lag go supernova. I'm glad to see there wasn't a repeat of the silly drama from the last dethrone, but seriously, 2 years in, why are people still getting so worked up over getting and keeping emp?

Just play the map when there's resistance, get fights, and pvp ffs. The moral argument you're trying to make about everyone leaving the emp alone for the entire night can easily be turned around on you. If you're intentionally capping when there's minimal resistance on, that's plain pathetic. If you aren't intentionally capping when there's minimal resistance on, you can easily take the 'moral' high ground and just let the dethrone be over with in 5 minutes so the server doesn't have to put up with the dethrone shenanigans and everyone can go back to pvp.

Whenever our raid starts up at primetime, if there's an emp, dethrone is automatically the objective; it seems to be that way for the other blue guilds on azura as well. It also seems to be true for yellow. You can complain if you'd like, or you can just accept that people don't want to put up with emps any more and will just get the dethrone out the way as soon as possible.

It would be a well-received late xmas present from Brian if the next patch said "emperor system is being abandoned because all it does is create drama, exacerbate lag, and funnel players to prioritized objectives".

All this was tl:dr. I was replying to Daniel in another thread he post. If your guild has someone in line for emperor it's generally been since launch that your guild would push the ring for you, why you think this has changed is beyond me.