Would the PVP community be willing to lower the population cap to what is currently 2 bars?

Sheuib

I use to play on Vivec until I finally just got so frustrated with the lag that I had to leave. I have been playing on shor now for about a month and it has been great. The best balance of performance and population seems to be right in the range of all factions having 2 bars. Still plenty of people to have large scale fights but all your abilities still work. It does take better coordination with everyone in your faction to make things happen but that turns out to be a good thing for the game. We could lower the cap and maybe open a second 30 day campaign.

Nerftheforums

Yes, lowering the population cap sounds like a good solution.

You lack some options here.

From my experience, cyro starts lagging around a 3-2-lock or 3-3-3 situation. Reducing the population cap to a current 3-3-2 situation (balancing it though the three alliances obviously) would be enough to avoid any kind of perma lag in cyrodiil. But hey, guess what?
D-E-V-S D-O N-O-T C-A-R-E. Stop hoping, it's just better for your mental sanity.

Recremen

No, I like the current population cap. Please do not take this away from me.

No, that's dumb. Lower pop caps would solve nothing and just make it harder to find fights, play the map, and have a decent variety of opponents.

Beardimus

I only go on Vivec to heal, as a DD / small scale etc both Shor and Sotha are a way better experience. ZOS have wanted players to spread out but they don't.

In the event people will prefer an hour queue than take than try the other campaigns. Perhaps they need to lower the cap, or perhaps they need to incentivise spreading out. But its a hard balance. Zerha just aren't fun

Durham

Yes, lowering the population cap sounds like a good solution.

Recremen wrote: »

No, that's dumb. Lower pop caps would solve nothing and just make it harder to find fights, play the map, and have a decent variety of opponents.

Solves lag

Ruckly

This could only possibly work if a player can home two campaigns and choose between the two and have a shared score between the two servers to avoid perpetual lines. Otherwise people would write scripts to log them into cyrodill hours before they get home and keep them in the game until they are ready to play to dodge lines. Half a faction would idle at the wayshrine.

There is also the problem of travel distance and strategic timing taking advantage of the time it takes an enemy to arrive at a lit keep from an unlit one. If you make the map smaller or mounts faster that diminishes. If you keep the map as is it can easily turn into a mount simulator or super blobs to lessen the chance of death and respawn run back. The blobs likely won't change so more pvd less battles. The map of cyrodill would have to be changed to accommodate a 2 bar lock.

Drdeath20

No, I like the current population cap. Please do not take this away from me.

Even with less lag and less ability to morning cap the pvp is still directionless, pointless and too easily gamed.

kyle.wilson

No, I like the current population cap. Please do not take this away from me.

ZOS needs to deliver the performance they promised in PVP. They described combat that would be multiple times larger than the largest fights that currently occur on a pop locked campaigns.

We should stop giving zos the easy way out when it comes to fixing the server performance.

idk

No, I like the current population cap. Please do not take this away from me.

If we lower the pop cap to what two bars is today then we might as well close Cyrodiil. There is a reason most of us choose to not play in Shor.

zyk

Meanwhile @ ZOS HQ: This is a great time for a PVP event!

Vapirko

Yes, lowering the population cap sounds like a good solution.

Im willing because I know PvP is dead on its feet anyway and that ZOS isn't coming in with a fix, ever. Might as well try to bandaid fix it for as long as we all still can play.

kyle.wilson wrote: »

ZOS needs to deliver the performance they promised in PVP. They described combat that would be multiple times larger than the largest fights that currently occur on a pop locked campaigns.

We should stop giving zos the easy way out when it comes to fixing the server performance.

You poor, sweet, naive child. Treasure you're innocence while it lasts.

Gilvoth

Yes, lowering the population cap sounds like a good solution.

.

zyk

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

lowering the cap will help

Except:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

On the other hand:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@Neoakropolis is correct in that the less CP you have, the less passives you have, therefore the less the server needs to calculate per combat action. This can also be said about armor set procs, player passives and active abilities that have to hit multiple players or sort through multiple players before firing off their abilities to a specific or sub-set of targets.

So ZOS could leave the server alone and still improve Cyrodiil via gameplay changes. If it's bad for Cyrodiil performance, disable it in Cyrodiil.

ZOS should drop its ideology of one ruleset for all game modes and create a subset of the rules optimized for AvA. This is totally achievable if they had the will to do it.

Beardimus

zyk wrote: »

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

lowering the cap will help

Except:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

On the other hand:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@Neoakropolis is correct in that the less CP you have, the less passives you have, therefore the less the server needs to calculate per combat action. This can also be said about armor set procs, player passives and active abilities that have to hit multiple players or sort through multiple players before firing off their abilities to a specific or sub-set of targets.

So ZOS could leave the server alone and still improve Cyrodiil via gameplay changes. If it's bad for Cyrodiil performance, disable it in Cyrodiil.

ZOS should drop its ideology of one ruleset for all game modes and create a subset of the rules optimized for AvA. This is totally achievable if they had the will to do it.

That second quite is interesting. As still proc sets are introduced and CP grows to get more passives...

So remove CP, remove proc sets?

idk

No, I like the current population cap. Please do not take this away from me.

@zyk

Thanks for sharing those comments from Zos. I understand the desire for performance improvements in Cyrodiil, however, I also understand acting guesses without understanding of what is actually occurring is not a wise path.

idk

No, I like the current population cap. Please do not take this away from me.

Beardimus wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

lowering the cap will help

Except:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

On the other hand:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@Neoakropolis is correct in that the less CP you have, the less passives you have, therefore the less the server needs to calculate per combat action. This can also be said about armor set procs, player passives and active abilities that have to hit multiple players or sort through multiple players before firing off their abilities to a specific or sub-set of targets.

So ZOS could leave the server alone and still improve Cyrodiil via gameplay changes. If it's bad for Cyrodiil performance, disable it in Cyrodiil.

ZOS should drop its ideology of one ruleset for all game modes and create a subset of the rules optimized for AvA. This is totally achievable if they had the will to do it.

That second quite is interesting. As still proc sets are introduced and CP grows to get more passives...

So remove CP, remove proc sets?

CP still has the same number of passives and slots to put points since the CP was launched.

But yes, they keep adding proc sets and have added buffs/debuffs as well.

frostz417

Yes, lowering the population cap sounds like a good solution.

This is by far the best solution to fix the campaigns.
Firstly, set a cap on the campaigns so people can’t just keep joining and joining, lower the cap from about 120 to 80
Remove vivec and implement 3 week long campaigns. So you’ll have shor, kastav, D’albei, sotha, and kyne. Make the rewards better for week long. I’d say maybe making it 15 gems instead of 10 gems for end of campaign rewards. Maybe even 20.
This way you won’t have everyone and their mom zergin down vivec to the point where. The campaign isn’t pathetically laggy.

Sacredx

It's interesting. We had 3 bar AD, 3 bar DC and locked EP a day ago. No lag issued at all. So the lag must escalate only right at the top end when the server is completely full all locked.

Maybe tuning the pop cap a bit, say 10% lower might do the trick.

Master_Kas

No, I like the current population cap. Please do not take this away from me.

Reduce pop cap to 10 per faction, that should solve the lag issues right, right?

I mean, it's not like we're fighting the same faces fighting in PvP day in and day out. We need even less players now!!

idk

No, I like the current population cap. Please do not take this away from me.

frostz417 wrote: »

This is by far the best solution to fix the campaigns.

I find it odd that people think this is the best solution when most of us have no idea how the servers work.

Zos has already reduced the pop caps several times since the game launched and our lag is as bad if not worse then before they reduced it the first time.


Further, as Zyk pointed out Zos has even stated reducing the population cap is not the answer as the issue is more relevant to the number of players in a given area.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »
Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

There is much more to this, as to why all this occurs but Zos has actually made it worse over the years. Better management of the combat systems is what is needed. Not a continued reduction of population and crossing our fingers it will eventually work. Heck, most avoid shore because they want to have enough players in a campaign to have actual PvP. We do not need to force Vivek to be like Shor.

Freakin_Hytte

Yes, lowering the population cap sounds like a good solution.

As the old saying is "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results is cray cray"

And as the earlier person said they have already done this several times and nothing have gotten any better. And to a point they can't lower it anymore and still call it big-scale PvP, it's not even close to what they told us it was going to be atm.

Just noted I woted wrong in the poll, since I'm obviously against it 👌

Minno

No, I like the current population cap. Please do not take this away from me.

nothing says "large scale pvp" like a server pop that is not much bigger than a BG but map size the size of a small city lol.

frostz417

Yes, lowering the population cap sounds like a good solution.

idk wrote: »

frostz417 wrote: »

This is by far the best solution to fix the campaigns.

I find it odd that people think this is the best solution when most of us have no idea how the servers work.

Zos has already reduced the pop caps several times since the game launched and our lag is as bad if not worse then before they reduced it the first time.


Further, as Zyk pointed out Zos has even stated reducing the population cap is not the answer as the issue is more relevant to the number of players in a given area.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »
Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

There is much more to this, as to why all this occurs but Zos has actually made it worse over the years. Better management of the combat systems is what is needed. Not a continued reduction of population and crossing our fingers it will eventually work. Heck, most avoid shore because they want to have enough players in a campaign to have actual PvP. We do not need to force Vivek to be like Shor.

Yea let’s not mention that the constant patches are the reasoning for the server so being so atrociously garbage. I guarantee if they had the servers from 3 years ago which were far better than they were now with the current cyro it would be almost impeccable. The population IS the issue because the more they just add in garbage buggy patches every quarter and fail to fix anything the worse the performance gets making it so having multiple people in a single spot lags up the game tremendously. Why do you think vivec is so laggy? Compared to shor.... hmmmmmm i dont know maybe because of all the zerglings always bunched together lagging the servers... it’s just comical how laggy it is. While shor has a lower population and far better performance. Seems pretty obvious to me.
People avoid shor because it’s stale. But shor peopel avoid vivec because it’s stupid laggy with the massive population.
Making the cap lower would make it less laggy since the game has to register less stuff going on etc. Removing vivec and making 2 week long campaigns while actually having a lock on population so 50 people aren’t in a que overloading the server.

VaranisArano

idk wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

lowering the cap will help

Except:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

On the other hand:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@Neoakropolis is correct in that the less CP you have, the less passives you have, therefore the less the server needs to calculate per combat action. This can also be said about armor set procs, player passives and active abilities that have to hit multiple players or sort through multiple players before firing off their abilities to a specific or sub-set of targets.

So ZOS could leave the server alone and still improve Cyrodiil via gameplay changes. If it's bad for Cyrodiil performance, disable it in Cyrodiil.

ZOS should drop its ideology of one ruleset for all game modes and create a subset of the rules optimized for AvA. This is totally achievable if they had the will to do it.

That second quite is interesting. As still proc sets are introduced and CP grows to get more passives...

So remove CP, remove proc sets?

CP still has the same number of passives and slots to put points since the CP was launched.

But yes, they keep adding proc sets and have added buffs/debuffs as well.

Right?

*Looks at the recent sets ZOS keeps adding to the game*

Someone at the Set Bonus Department hasn't gotten the memo about more proc sets creating more calculations creating issues in PVP.

Or maybe it doesnt make as big a difference as we suppose. Or maybe, ZOS just doesn't care. I don't know.

Galarthor

No.

Because ZOS is a profit maximizing company, which means it tries to minimize it's expenditures. Lowering the upper population limit will result in ZOS reducing the server capacity to a point were the game is just barely playable to save money - very much like what you currently see on vivec. ZOS could provide better performance in Vivec if they wanted by increasing the capacity of the server handling Cyro Vivec. The fact that they haven't done so over the past 4 years pretty much proves that they don't want to. So why should it be any different for lower population campaigns? Keep in mind, populations have already been significantly reduced in the past, but the lag has not significantly improved. Don't be naive!