LOCK Campaigns

Skander

The lag is unbearable. There are 4-6 active campaigns and only 1 (for cp and non cp) are populated. So.

When reached a mass the server should CLOSE

I mean. I tried talking people up to go in other campaigns, but it doesn't work and don't tell me "if you don't want to lag go X". Becouse it doesn't work that way. Close a campaign when it's too much populated. Since people can't manage themselves, at lease manage them

VaranisArano

So two thoughts:

One, there's already a population lock on campaigns. That pop lock used to be a lot higher and ZOS has lowered it because they can't fix performance issues. Frankly, lowering it further to force players out would do more harm than good. Low pop PVP is not healthy for campaigns in the long run, as you can see on the emptier campaigns that are often dominated by one faction.

Two, I play on PC/NA Vivec with my guild, the most competitive, and thus the laggiest, campaign. So why don't we just go to Shor?

Because we have gone to Shor.

If my guild, and just my guild, goes to Shor, we dominate Shor. No offense to the fine players over there, but one organized guild from Vivec can take much of the map. And very quickly, its no fun for us to dominate the map, and its no fun for the Shor regulars either.

So unless other enemy guilds from Vivec come over to fight us on Shor, well, we don't stay on Shor long. We head back to Vivec where we can find fun, if laggy, competition.

So if you want people to spread out, you have to spread them out equally and in enough numbers that you fet actual competition.

Or ZOS could simply fix the persistent performance issues with PVP.

Skander

VaranisArano wrote: »

So two thoughts:

One, there's already a population lock on campaigns. That pop lock used to be a lot higher and ZOS has lowered it because they can't fix performance issues. Frankly, lowering it further to force players out would do more harm than good. Low pop PVP is not healthy for campaigns in the long run, as you can see on the emptier campaigns that are often dominated by one faction.

Two, I play on PC/NA Vivec with my guild, the most competitive, and thus the laggiest, campaign. So why don't we just go to Shor?

Because we have gone to Shor.

If my guild, and just my guild, goes to Shor, we dominate Shor. No offense to the fine players over there, but one organized guild from Vivec can take much of the map. And very quickly, its no fun for us to dominate the map, and its no fun for the Shor regulars either.

So unless other enemy guilds from Vivec come over to fight us on Shor, well, we don't stay on Shor long. We head back to Vivec where we can find fun, if laggy, competition.

So if you want people to spread out, you have to spread them out equally and in enough numbers that you fet actual competition.

Or ZOS could simply fix the persistent performance issues with PVP.

the iusse is people won't migrate servers even if they experience absurd amount of lag. THAT must be adressed

VaranisArano

Skander wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

So two thoughts:

One, there's already a population lock on campaigns. That pop lock used to be a lot higher and ZOS has lowered it because they can't fix performance issues. Frankly, lowering it further to force players out would do more harm than good. Low pop PVP is not healthy for campaigns in the long run, as you can see on the emptier campaigns that are often dominated by one faction.

Two, I play on PC/NA Vivec with my guild, the most competitive, and thus the laggiest, campaign. So why don't we just go to Shor?

Because we have gone to Shor.

If my guild, and just my guild, goes to Shor, we dominate Shor. No offense to the fine players over there, but one organized guild from Vivec can take much of the map. And very quickly, its no fun for us to dominate the map, and its no fun for the Shor regulars either.

So unless other enemy guilds from Vivec come over to fight us on Shor, well, we don't stay on Shor long. We head back to Vivec where we can find fun, if laggy, competition.

So if you want people to spread out, you have to spread them out equally and in enough numbers that you fet actual competition.

Or ZOS could simply fix the persistent performance issues with PVP.

the iusse is people won't migrate servers even if they experience absurd amount of lag. THAT must be adressed

The underlying issue is lag and other persistent performance issues. The solution is for ZOS to fix rhose issues. Player behavior can mitigate it to some small extent, as you suggest, but cannot fix it.

Also, I explained why we don't migrate to lower pop campaigns anymore despite the lag. Do you have a solution to the lack of competition that drove us back to Vivec?

Skander

VaranisArano wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

So two thoughts:

One, there's already a population lock on campaigns. That pop lock used to be a lot higher and ZOS has lowered it because they can't fix performance issues. Frankly, lowering it further to force players out would do more harm than good. Low pop PVP is not healthy for campaigns in the long run, as you can see on the emptier campaigns that are often dominated by one faction.

Two, I play on PC/NA Vivec with my guild, the most competitive, and thus the laggiest, campaign. So why don't we just go to Shor?

Because we have gone to Shor.

If my guild, and just my guild, goes to Shor, we dominate Shor. No offense to the fine players over there, but one organized guild from Vivec can take much of the map. And very quickly, its no fun for us to dominate the map, and its no fun for the Shor regulars either.

So unless other enemy guilds from Vivec come over to fight us on Shor, well, we don't stay on Shor long. We head back to Vivec where we can find fun, if laggy, competition.

So if you want people to spread out, you have to spread them out equally and in enough numbers that you fet actual competition.

Or ZOS could simply fix the persistent performance issues with PVP.

the iusse is people won't migrate servers even if they experience absurd amount of lag. THAT must be adressed

The underlying issue is lag and other persistent performance issues. The solution is for ZOS to fix rhose issues. Player behavior can mitigate it to some small extent, as you suggest, but cannot fix it.

Also, I explained why we don't migrate to lower pop campaigns anymore despite the lag. Do you have a solution to the lack of competition that drove us back to Vivec?

Mass migration. If you force people to migrate, locking a campaing. Hard lock, no more entries. You'll see it gets better

Vilestride

Skander wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

So two thoughts:

One, there's already a population lock on campaigns. That pop lock used to be a lot higher and ZOS has lowered it because they can't fix performance issues. Frankly, lowering it further to force players out would do more harm than good. Low pop PVP is not healthy for campaigns in the long run, as you can see on the emptier campaigns that are often dominated by one faction.

Two, I play on PC/NA Vivec with my guild, the most competitive, and thus the laggiest, campaign. So why don't we just go to Shor?

Because we have gone to Shor.

If my guild, and just my guild, goes to Shor, we dominate Shor. No offense to the fine players over there, but one organized guild from Vivec can take much of the map. And very quickly, its no fun for us to dominate the map, and its no fun for the Shor regulars either.

So unless other enemy guilds from Vivec come over to fight us on Shor, well, we don't stay on Shor long. We head back to Vivec where we can find fun, if laggy, competition.

So if you want people to spread out, you have to spread them out equally and in enough numbers that you fet actual competition.

Or ZOS could simply fix the persistent performance issues with PVP.

the iusse is people won't migrate servers even if they experience absurd amount of lag. THAT must be adressed

The underlying issue is lag and other persistent performance issues. The solution is for ZOS to fix rhose issues. Player behavior can mitigate it to some small extent, as you suggest, but cannot fix it.

Also, I explained why we don't migrate to lower pop campaigns anymore despite the lag. Do you have a solution to the lack of competition that drove us back to Vivec?

Mass migration. If you force people to migrate, locking a campaing. Hard lock, no more entries. You'll see it gets better

I'm confused. A hard lock already exists.

Are you suggesting lowering it?

Or are you suggesting a lock other than the already existing pop lock?

Sacredx

The difference between all faction 3 bars and lock is like black and white. My experience as an oceanic player:

Whenever I play during NA on the weekend with all factions locked the ping goes to 400+ but the actual skill activation feels much worse, more like double the ping. In big fights with everyone jam-packed together it's basically unplayable.

Whenever I play during Oceanic the ping sits around 300 and the skill activation feels about the same as the ping. In oceanic we get to around 3 bars during peak time on average.

The difference is huge and it comes down to server stability due to number of players. Given it has been like this for who knows how long it is safe to say that game performance is not going to improve. The only viable solution is to lower the cap. Maybe a 20% reduction across the board would do the trick. I'm sure people would rather have a playable campaign with a minor reduction in players rather than one where lag dominates over skill. The one positive side effect is that the other servers may actually get some population going their way.

Dreyloch

Vilestride wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

So two thoughts:

One, there's already a population lock on campaigns. That pop lock used to be a lot higher and ZOS has lowered it because they can't fix performance issues. Frankly, lowering it further to force players out would do more harm than good. Low pop PVP is not healthy for campaigns in the long run, as you can see on the emptier campaigns that are often dominated by one faction.

Two, I play on PC/NA Vivec with my guild, the most competitive, and thus the laggiest, campaign. So why don't we just go to Shor?

Because we have gone to Shor.

If my guild, and just my guild, goes to Shor, we dominate Shor. No offense to the fine players over there, but one organized guild from Vivec can take much of the map. And very quickly, its no fun for us to dominate the map, and its no fun for the Shor regulars either.

So unless other enemy guilds from Vivec come over to fight us on Shor, well, we don't stay on Shor long. We head back to Vivec where we can find fun, if laggy, competition.

So if you want people to spread out, you have to spread them out equally and in enough numbers that you fet actual competition.

Or ZOS could simply fix the persistent performance issues with PVP.

the iusse is people won't migrate servers even if they experience absurd amount of lag. THAT must be adressed

The underlying issue is lag and other persistent performance issues. The solution is for ZOS to fix rhose issues. Player behavior can mitigate it to some small extent, as you suggest, but cannot fix it.

Also, I explained why we don't migrate to lower pop campaigns anymore despite the lag. Do you have a solution to the lack of competition that drove us back to Vivec?

Mass migration. If you force people to migrate, locking a campaing. Hard lock, no more entries. You'll see it gets better

I'm confused. A hard lock already exists.

Are you suggesting lowering it?

Or are you suggesting a lock other than the already existing pop lock?

Think he means a "Harder" lock. Like not having a queue at all after pop lock.Server fills to a certain point, lock gets enabled and no one is allowed further entry. You'd be forced to go to another server then.But that comes with the issue of people that were already in before the lockout. If they go LD, crash etc, then ZoS would have to keep track of all who were in there previously. It's not ideal, and I'm pretty sure ZoS would never do this.

It would also force guilds such as yours to get everyone online and in the campaign before that perma lock could happen. As that might force guildmates to be on time, it could hurt those in slightly different timezones out of the night's raid. =/

ZoS just needs to fix the lag. It's that simple. The populations of the 3 factions will not regulate themselves to move to other servers without a healthy reason. Like you said, no comp, means boring play. ZoS still thinks the players will do it themselves and its NOT going to happen.

Personally I'm hoping the map changes for next path will help a bit. Although, after time, there will still be chokepoints that all the factions will occupy. Destroyed bridges and walls may spread us out some, but big battles will still be felt throughout the server in terms of lag =(

Irylia

VaranisArano wrote: »

So two thoughts:

One, there's already a population lock on campaigns. That pop lock used to be a lot higher and ZOS has lowered it because they can't fix performance issues. Frankly, lowering it further to force players out would do more harm than good. Low pop PVP is not healthy for campaigns in the long run, as you can see on the emptier campaigns that are often dominated by one faction.

Two, I play on PC/NA Vivec with my guild, the most competitive, and thus the laggiest, campaign. So why don't we just go to Shor?

Because we have gone to Shor.

If my guild, and just my guild, goes to Shor, we dominate Shor. No offense to the fine players over there, but one organized guild from Vivec can take much of the map. And very quickly, its no fun for us to dominate the map, and its no fun for the Shor regulars either.

So unless other enemy guilds from Vivec come over to fight us on Shor, well, we don't stay on Shor long. We head back to Vivec where we can find fun, if laggy, competition.

So if you want people to spread out, you have to spread them out equally and in enough numbers that you fet actual competition.

Or ZOS could simply fix the persistent performance issues with PVP.

Make vivec and shor share one scoring and both be 30 day campaigns.

If vivec gets lock the 100 some people in q for viv should just be sent to shor.
And by making the scoring synonymous guilds would have to coordinate more and spread forces to maximize point gain

Sacredx

Irylia wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

So two thoughts:

One, there's already a population lock on campaigns. That pop lock used to be a lot higher and ZOS has lowered it because they can't fix performance issues. Frankly, lowering it further to force players out would do more harm than good. Low pop PVP is not healthy for campaigns in the long run, as you can see on the emptier campaigns that are often dominated by one faction.

Two, I play on PC/NA Vivec with my guild, the most competitive, and thus the laggiest, campaign. So why don't we just go to Shor?

Because we have gone to Shor.

If my guild, and just my guild, goes to Shor, we dominate Shor. No offense to the fine players over there, but one organized guild from Vivec can take much of the map. And very quickly, its no fun for us to dominate the map, and its no fun for the Shor regulars either.

So unless other enemy guilds from Vivec come over to fight us on Shor, well, we don't stay on Shor long. We head back to Vivec where we can find fun, if laggy, competition.

So if you want people to spread out, you have to spread them out equally and in enough numbers that you fet actual competition.

Or ZOS could simply fix the persistent performance issues with PVP.

Make vivec and shor share one scoring and both be 30 day campaigns.

If vivec gets lock the 100 some people in q for viv should just be sent to shor.
And by making the scoring synonymous guilds would have to coordinate more and spread forces to maximize point gain

I think this is a good idea. Make 2x30 day CP campaign maps with the score added up for both maps every hour. The stress would be redistributed across both servers. Thumbs up from me.

Wizunas

That is not going to work well! What if there's only 2 people sent to another campaign?? What are they going to do over there if another alliance has 40 people around? Alliances population are so different at each time of day.

Sometimes some alliances are pop locked while others have only 2 bars. It might imbalance game even more i would say.

Also it can be exploitable by having cumulative points from 2 maps. In this case, they will have to make score calculations based on keeps owned divided by pop numbers, or idk LOL.... Like for example cant have Shor all Red or whatever while in Vivec is random.

Even on campaigns with really low pop on all alliances you see entire maps being taken over. Idk maybe dismiss Imperial City pop count and make it its own campaign with entrance from pve? Although its mostly empty but it might help. IC doesn't contribute co Cyrodiil scoring anyways.