Why is the group cap 24? Perhaps it should be 12 like trials?

GoodFella146

Instead of having 24 people all going to the same location, wouldn't it help the server if this was capped at 12? I don't really see any reason why groups should be 24....

Also correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a bug on PC where players could not group in Cyrodiil and a lot of these issues went away?

J18696

Yes the bug stop people from grouping all together and the lag was very minimal

WoppaBoem

This 12 max players per group, get it done zeni

x48rph

I feel that's not going to do much to help cyrodil as people are still going to flock to where the action is. Larger guilds also use voice coms so it's easy to have multiple groups and still keep together. The only thing that will impact is pug groups and as I said , they'll still go where the action is so whether it's 2 - 12 man groups or 1- 24 man group, there will still be close to the same amount of people in the same places. It'll just make it easier for ball groups to roll over them.

Luckylancer

x48rph wrote: »

I feel that's not going to do much to help cyrodil as people are still going to flock to where the action is. Larger guilds also use voice coms so it's easy to have multiple groups and still keep together. The only thing that will impact is pug groups and as I said , they'll still go where the action is so whether it's 2 - 12 man groups or 1- 24 man group, there will still be close to the same amount of people in the same places. It'll just make it easier for ball groups to roll over them.

This guy is correct

ZoS can reduce group to 12 and implement oppresive group only rules for buffs and heals tho. It may be annoying too.

JinxxND

If they limited group size to 12 same as PvE and limited heals/buffs to group only this would fix so many problems. Large guilds could still coordinate numerous groups in voice comms but would have to structure them out a lil more with healers that is all.

Elsonso

Ultimately, while the groups help setup the situation, I got the impression that it really wasn't all about grouping. It was more about how many people are spamming AoEs in an area. So, if you had two groups of 24, or four groups of 12, with everyone spamming AoEs, the effect would be the same.

idk

I have seen other games also have larger open-world groups than what raids permit. In other words, limiting the group size to the limits of trials is not needed. Especially for a PvP instance designed and intended for groups.

Besides, it would be entirely pointless to limit groups to 12. Back in the day when we have much larger pop caps, there was one group working to fill up their fourth group. They have over 70 players running with them. So it would be another to have two groups of 12 running together

The real issue is when large numbers of players are at the same keep. It is less about the size of a group and more about the total numbers in one battle.

JinxxND

The whole point of limiting to 12 would be to limit heals only to group requiring less calculations with smart healing and set when you run a zerg, limit heals to only group and size to 12 and you will have less calculations the servers have to run

Recremen

Limiting group size to 12 mathematically accomplishes exactly zero things. There are no heals, buffs, or item sets that go past 12 players, and most are capped far far below that at 2-6. Thus, at 12 players you still have the AoE checks constantly going out at the same rate as before. It does nothing except make social people who have more than 11 friends have to do extra work just to play together.

If there was ever a bug where grouping was impossible, and you feel like lag issues "went away" as a result, the answer is obvious: none of the big coordinated groups were playing. If you have a bunch of pugs running around bow light attacking each other, then of course you're going to see less lag, there's no AoE checks going out. If you want big and interesting fights going on, though, then as mentioned above with the math, limiting to 12 players does exactly nothing.

Kadoin

Recremen wrote: »

Limiting group size to 12 mathematically accomplishes exactly zero things. There are no heals, buffs, or item sets that go past 12 players, and most are capped far far below that at 2-6. Thus, at 12 players you still have the AoE checks constantly going out at the same rate as before. It does nothing except make social people who have more than 11 friends have to do extra work just to play together.

If there was ever a bug where grouping was impossible, and you feel like lag issues "went away" as a result, the answer is obvious: none of the big coordinated groups were playing. If you have a bunch of pugs running around bow light attacking each other, then of course you're going to see less lag, there's no AoE checks going out. If you want big and interesting fights going on, though, then as mentioned above with the math, limiting to 12 players does exactly nothing.

There is one that does: Hiti. Doesn't it update ticks based on lowest health allies in an area and not based on a set number of players? That's how it worked in PTS and caused massive lag there, I am never surprised when it lags hard and a ball group is around. In fact if you search the forums, I even complained about the set before and when it was introduced...

That's one set they can adjust to fix the "check" problem...though it's possible all area heals function that way and/or proc sets, but that's apparently not a target for the dev team...

Recremen

Kadoin wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Limiting group size to 12 mathematically accomplishes exactly zero things. There are no heals, buffs, or item sets that go past 12 players, and most are capped far far below that at 2-6. Thus, at 12 players you still have the AoE checks constantly going out at the same rate as before. It does nothing except make social people who have more than 11 friends have to do extra work just to play together.

If there was ever a bug where grouping was impossible, and you feel like lag issues "went away" as a result, the answer is obvious: none of the big coordinated groups were playing. If you have a bunch of pugs running around bow light attacking each other, then of course you're going to see less lag, there's no AoE checks going out. If you want big and interesting fights going on, though, then as mentioned above with the math, limiting to 12 players does exactly nothing.

There is one that does: Hiti. Doesn't it update ticks based on lowest health allies in an area and not based on a set number of players? That's how it worked in PTS and caused massive lag there, I am never surprised when it lags hard and a ball group is around. In fact if you search the forums, I even complained about the set before and when it was introduced...

That's one set they can adjust to fix the "check" problem...though it's possible all area heals function that way and/or proc sets, but that's apparently not a target for the dev team...

@Kadoin

AoE heal cap is 6 targets, so unless they changed something just for this set, that should still be the case. If Hiti's IS a special case, then the fix would be "change Hiti" not "limit group size. With that said, as I commented on the main thread about the AoE tests we're about to do, all of these constant aura skills and sets could easily be reworked to not do constant AoE checks, thus freeing up a lot of server computation.

Masel

The group cap would help a lot if it is done in conjunction with additional penalties, such as limiting healing to group members only and having aoe cost increase with group size.

The major cause of lag are ballgroups, and making them smaller definitely helps (stacking on crown becomes harder that way and that is a big deal for them).

Qbiken

/signed

Daviiid_ESO

Reduce group size to 12 and keep AOE healing and buffs in-group only. Ez fix for lag.

Ghostbane

Smaller group cap = more group instances.

The problem, is the game is incapable of handling a large amount of players in one area, playing the game.

Lowering group size, removing the ability to group, will not change this.

JinxxND

Recremen wrote: »

Limiting group size to 12 mathematically accomplishes exactly zero things. There are no heals, buffs, or item sets that go past 12 players, and most are capped far far below that at 2-6. Thus, at 12 players you still have the AoE checks constantly going out at the same rate as before. It does nothing except make social people who have more than 11 friends have to do extra work just to play together.

If there was ever a bug where grouping was impossible, and you feel like lag issues "went away" as a result, the answer is obvious: none of the big coordinated groups were playing. If you have a bunch of pugs running around bow light attacking each other, then of course you're going to see less lag, there's no AoE checks going out. If you want big and interesting fights going on, though, then as mentioned above with the math, limiting to 12 players does exactly nothing.

You clearly do not understand smart healing, no the point is that smaller group and limiting heals to only group the server when you hit rapid regen or use a proc like earthgore no longer has to look at people outside your group or within a large 12+ man and within a split second decide thru all its checks who gets the heal due to there their health. It no longer has to check everyone within the huge radius and see who needs the heal then fire off to them, its just to take that much work off of the servers without changing core mechanics of the game that have been in place for years like they proposed

Recremen

JinxxND wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Limiting group size to 12 mathematically accomplishes exactly zero things. There are no heals, buffs, or item sets that go past 12 players, and most are capped far far below that at 2-6. Thus, at 12 players you still have the AoE checks constantly going out at the same rate as before. It does nothing except make social people who have more than 11 friends have to do extra work just to play together.

If there was ever a bug where grouping was impossible, and you feel like lag issues "went away" as a result, the answer is obvious: none of the big coordinated groups were playing. If you have a bunch of pugs running around bow light attacking each other, then of course you're going to see less lag, there's no AoE checks going out. If you want big and interesting fights going on, though, then as mentioned above with the math, limiting to 12 players does exactly nothing.

You clearly do not understand smart healing, no the point is that smaller group and limiting heals to only group the server when you hit rapid regen or use a proc like earthgore no longer has to look at people outside your group or within a large 12+ man and within a split second decide thru all its checks who gets the heal due to there their health. It no longer has to check everyone within the huge radius and see who needs the heal then fire off to them, its just to take that much work off of the servers without changing core mechanics of the game that have been in place for years like they proposed

Big oof on your part trying to argue that smart heals with a lower group size are going to significantly impact the lag. Smart heals are giant AoEs whose only saving grace is that they prefer group members first, meaning the first pass of AoE targeting will pull from a smaller pool. However! It will still hit people outside your group. My testing indicates that as long as people in your group have the buff, you will then start hitting people outside the group. That means, contrary to your initial statement, that having a smaller group is more risky for server lag than having a larger group because it's more likely that your group all has the HoT already, thus making the server start checking everyone other valid target. I'm sure generating the actual probability table would be horrendously complicated, but at any rate, you appear to be completely wrong about smart heals and group size, at least for values of 12 versus 24.

Also, having 24 friends in a group together is just as much of a core mechanic of the game as spammable AoEs. Have some empathy for people that want to play together. And please advocate for ideas that would actually work to reduce lag instead of jumping on this tired old mathematically-disproven concept. I really doubt I'm the first one to point out that this suggestion would not actually do anything.

Chilly-McFreeze

So I am forced to throw out group invites if I‘m about to defend a keep on my healers? Sounds like this incentives grouping up even more.

Cinbri

It will fix nothing.

Recremen

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So I am forced to throw out group invites if I‘m about to defend a keep on my healers? Sounds like this incentives grouping up even more.

No, "smart heals" are already in the game. I found that Rushed Ceremony and Regeneration both work this way already, and there may be more. But they already can hit people outside your group, it's not mandatory for you to group in order to use those skills.

VaranisArano

Recremen wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So I am forced to throw out group invites if I‘m about to defend a keep on my healers? Sounds like this incentives grouping up even more.

No, "smart heals" are already in the game. I found that Rushed Ceremony and Regeneration both work this way already, and there may be more. But they already can hit people outside your group, it's not mandatory for you to group in order to use those skills.

Yes, but if some people get their way and group-only heals are implemented, my raid healer will get a slight buff when running with my PVP guild...and be forced to group up in order to heal anyone if I'm not running with guildmates.

Group-only heals do two things:
1. They benefit groups that actually have healers because everyone else missing out on the healing is weaker in comparison.
2. They remove all benefits from playing as a non-grouped support player.

With the latter, I like to farm AP on my healer in Cyrodiil ungrouped, because then I have the freedom to go where and when I please without waiting on a PUG leader, but still play a support role that I enjoy in fights. Group-only heals means I'd be forced to PUG or not play support.

Recremen

VaranisArano wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So I am forced to throw out group invites if I‘m about to defend a keep on my healers? Sounds like this incentives grouping up even more.

No, "smart heals" are already in the game. I found that Rushed Ceremony and Regeneration both work this way already, and there may be more. But they already can hit people outside your group, it's not mandatory for you to group in order to use those skills.

Yes, but if some people get their way and group-only heals are implemented, my raid healer will get a slight buff when running with my PVP guild...and be forced to group up in order to heal anyone if I'm not running with guildmates.

Group-only heals do two things:
1. They benefit groups that actually have healers because everyone else missing out on the healing is weaker in comparison.
2. They remove all benefits from playing as a non-grouped support player.

With the latter, I like to farm AP on my healer in Cyrodiil ungrouped, because then I have the freedom to go where and when I please without waiting on a PUG leader, but still play a support role that I enjoy in fights. Group-only heals means I'd be forced to PUG or not play support.

Sure, but I don't think group-only heals were on the table in this discussion. Someone just tried to counter my arguments about how reducing max group size does nothing for lag with "BUT SMART HEALS" so there was a brief tangent about that, is all.

VaranisArano

Recremen wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So I am forced to throw out group invites if I‘m about to defend a keep on my healers? Sounds like this incentives grouping up even more.

No, "smart heals" are already in the game. I found that Rushed Ceremony and Regeneration both work this way already, and there may be more. But they already can hit people outside your group, it's not mandatory for you to group in order to use those skills.

Yes, but if some people get their way and group-only heals are implemented, my raid healer will get a slight buff when running with my PVP guild...and be forced to group up in order to heal anyone if I'm not running with guildmates.

Group-only heals do two things:
1. They benefit groups that actually have healers because everyone else missing out on the healing is weaker in comparison.
2. They remove all benefits from playing as a non-grouped support player.

With the latter, I like to farm AP on my healer in Cyrodiil ungrouped, because then I have the freedom to go where and when I please without waiting on a PUG leader, but still play a support role that I enjoy in fights. Group-only heals means I'd be forced to PUG or not play support.

Sure, but I don't think group-only heals were on the table in this discussion. Someone just tried to counter my arguments about how reducing max group size does nothing for lag with "BUT SMART HEALS" so there was a brief tangent about that, is all.

Group-only heals aren't in the OP, but it comes up pretty early in the thread. I guess its also a tangent?

Recremen

VaranisArano wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So I am forced to throw out group invites if I‘m about to defend a keep on my healers? Sounds like this incentives grouping up even more.

No, "smart heals" are already in the game. I found that Rushed Ceremony and Regeneration both work this way already, and there may be more. But they already can hit people outside your group, it's not mandatory for you to group in order to use those skills.

Yes, but if some people get their way and group-only heals are implemented, my raid healer will get a slight buff when running with my PVP guild...and be forced to group up in order to heal anyone if I'm not running with guildmates.

Group-only heals do two things:
1. They benefit groups that actually have healers because everyone else missing out on the healing is weaker in comparison.
2. They remove all benefits from playing as a non-grouped support player.

With the latter, I like to farm AP on my healer in Cyrodiil ungrouped, because then I have the freedom to go where and when I please without waiting on a PUG leader, but still play a support role that I enjoy in fights. Group-only heals means I'd be forced to PUG or not play support.

Sure, but I don't think group-only heals were on the table in this discussion. Someone just tried to counter my arguments about how reducing max group size does nothing for lag with "BUT SMART HEALS" so there was a brief tangent about that, is all.

Group-only heals aren't in the OP, but it comes up pretty early in the thread. I guess its also a tangent?

Oh I see it now, and by the same person as well. I didn't read any comment besides the OP when making my first comment, so that's my bad. And you quoted me instead of said comment, hence my confusion.

VaranisArano

Recremen wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So I am forced to throw out group invites if I‘m about to defend a keep on my healers? Sounds like this incentives grouping up even more.

No, "smart heals" are already in the game. I found that Rushed Ceremony and Regeneration both work this way already, and there may be more. But they already can hit people outside your group, it's not mandatory for you to group in order to use those skills.

Yes, but if some people get their way and group-only heals are implemented, my raid healer will get a slight buff when running with my PVP guild...and be forced to group up in order to heal anyone if I'm not running with guildmates.

Group-only heals do two things:
1. They benefit groups that actually have healers because everyone else missing out on the healing is weaker in comparison.
2. They remove all benefits from playing as a non-grouped support player.

With the latter, I like to farm AP on my healer in Cyrodiil ungrouped, because then I have the freedom to go where and when I please without waiting on a PUG leader, but still play a support role that I enjoy in fights. Group-only heals means I'd be forced to PUG or not play support.

Sure, but I don't think group-only heals were on the table in this discussion. Someone just tried to counter my arguments about how reducing max group size does nothing for lag with "BUT SMART HEALS" so there was a brief tangent about that, is all.

Group-only heals aren't in the OP, but it comes up pretty early in the thread. I guess its also a tangent?

Oh I see it now, and by the same person as well. I didn't read any comment besides the OP when making my first comment, so that's my bad. And you quoted me instead of said comment, hence my confusion.

I can see where I was confusing. Sorry!
I was trying to say that I agreed with you as far as the status quo goes where group-only heals don't exist, but also agreed with Chilly-McFreeze about the likely effects in Cyrodiil if group-only heals are implemented.

karekiz

If you limit to heals to group only it will still make a check per player in area if they are in a group correct?.

So instead of:

AoE heal - X lowest players <Regardless of group or not>.
It would look like
AoE Heal - Check Group - If Yes - X Lowest Players - If no Pass.

Joy_Division

I don;t think 12 would solve anything, but I'd be willing to try it over ZoS's attempting to redesign the game in a couple of updates.

idk

Daviiid_ESO wrote: »

Reduce group size to 12 and keep AOE healing and buffs in-group only. Ez fix for lag.

It is easy to suggest such things are easy fixes. Since we know the issue has more to do with the number of skills being used at a specific location the idea does little, if anything, to resolve the issue.

I agree with Joy, that it would be worth a try though it is not expected to solve anything. Heck, performance today is worse than it was back when we had larger populations in Cyrodiil.

Ahtu

If anything the group size should be increased to 36 or even 48.

Recremen

Ahtu wrote: »

If anything the group size should be increased to 36 or even 48.

Sent jokingly, of course.