We are not the reason for lags

FatherDelve

So,the first week of the AOE Test we had no lags, some lag spikes, but nothing special if you remember that ESO never runs really smooth.
This evening, the first time Ballgroups/Ballzergs are back. It seems their old way of perma purge and heal spam is working again, and what can I say, Cyrodiil is unplayable in the past 3 hours again. I would even say its worse then before, because now you have aoe proc sets AND you have Ballzergs doing their thingy for hours.

First week was annoying with shared cooldowns, this week is annoying because its literally unplayable. And yes, the reason for those Lag Issues ARE Ballgroups. No one else, not that solo remaining Magplar spamming jabs, not that 1vsx Sorc trying to streak away from gankers, not that one Magblade bombing a Zerg and spamming Sap Essence.
It's the 3x 30 player Ballzerg, spamming Purge, Vigor, Mutagen, using 20 different Support Sets, and everyone has 30 Addons that are constant sending and receiving Data from the Server, and everything on a 10m radius.

[Title edit for Baiting.]

FatherDelve

P.S. There was barely any kind of Lagspikes, even with 2-3x 40 man random zerglings fighting at one keep. It IS and must be this Ballgroup Apocalypse again.

IAmIcehouse

The reason for lag is not ballgroups.

Ballgroups exacerbate the underlying problems which induce lag.

FatherDelve

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

The reason for lag is not ballgroups.

Ballgroups exacerbate the underlying problems which induce lag.

It is more likely that a massive AOE Nerf will fix that problem then hoping for the server ever being able to handle that.

Kaysha

FatherDelve wrote: »

So,the first week of the AOE Test we had no lags, some lag spikes, but nothing special if you remember that ESO never runs really smooth.
This evening, the first time Ballgroups/Ballzergs are back. It seems their old way of perma purge and heal spam is working again, and what can I say, Cyrodiil is unplayable in the past 3 hours again. I would even say its worse then before, because now you have aoe proc sets AND you have Ballzergs doing their thingy for hours.

First week was annoying with shared cooldowns, this week is annoying because its literally unplayable. And yes, the reason for those Lag Issues ARE Ballgroups. No one else, not that solo remaining Magplar spamming jabs, not that 1vsx Sorc trying to streak away from gankers, not that one Magblade bombing a Zerg and spamming Sap Essence.
It's the 3x 30 player Ballzerg, spamming Purge, Vigor, Mutagen, using 20 different Support Sets, and everyone has 30 Addons that are constant sending and receiving Data from the Server, and everything on a 10m radius.

[Title edit for Baiting.]

100% agree

Telel

Scrub groups that rely on numbers and or exploiting game issues have been purposely destroying the game since launch.

Whether it's been guys in skelly costumes spamming heals in the middle of nowhere, people using third party programs to 'perform' at the level they feel entitled to, or just PVdoor lords purposely stacking bodies for even the most mediocre objective.

All cause issues, and almost all of them were done with purposeful intent.

To say otherwise is, silly.

Actually it is another series of words. Sadly these forums do not let khajiit speak with such poetic eloquence.

Then there's performance issues that are entirely client side. Which are often blamed on everyone but the one most responsible for them. Which again requires poetry Telel shall refrain from performing.

RDMyers65b14_ESO

I am going to have to disagree with the title of the post. The problem is that the players are grouping up in groups of 30+ to zerg the map. The more players with skills and armor sets, the more calculations that is being made by the server and thus more lag. ZOS is on the right track with the group size limit in the last two weeks of the testing but it does NOT go far enough. When we have guilds bragging about getting 70+ players into one zerg, it is causing the problem. ZOS can fix the problem by limiting the AP earned by the players based on the size of the group they are using for PVP. But for some reason, ZOS is not listening. All that needs to be done is zero out the AP if there is more than a certain number of players on one side of the battle. ZOS supposedly knows how many players are in what battle. If you pvdoor Dragonclaw with maybe 2 or three defenders with 30 players, then you should not be gaining AP. It is player vs player, not player vs zerg.

Something else, ZOS, please look at the server populations. (I know the answer to this next question already). But, do you have one server that is nearly always poplocked during prime time while other servers have little to no populations? If so, that means that is the rules set that people want to play. (Here is a huge hint: Grayhost). Perhaps maybe open a second server with the very same rules set as the most populated server even if you have to close a less popular server to do it. It was shown at the last MYM that even if it is not the top server in the list that it was the most popular server. So it is not the position on the list that caused the popularity. It is the ruleset. If we have two identical rules on two different campaigns, maybe, just maybe, the population would spread out to the different campaigns and the performance of the servers would improve.

FatherDelve

RDMyers65b14_ESO wrote: »

I am going to have to disagree with the title of the post. The problem is that the players are grouping up in groups of 30+ to zerg the map. The more players with skills and armor sets, the more calculations that is being made by the server and thus more lag. ZOS is on the right track with the group size limit in the last two weeks of the testing but it does NOT go far enough. When we have guilds bragging about getting 70+ players into one zerg, it is causing the problem. ZOS can fix the problem by limiting the AP earned by the players based on the size of the group they are using for PVP. But for some reason, ZOS is not listening. All that needs to be done is zero out the AP if there is more than a certain number of players on one side of the battle. ZOS supposedly knows how many players are in what battle. If you pvdoor Dragonclaw with maybe 2 or three defenders with 30 players, then you should not be gaining AP. It is player vs player, not player vs zerg.

Something else, ZOS, please look at the server populations. (I know the answer to this next question already). But, do you have one server that is nearly always poplocked during prime time while other servers have little to no populations? If so, that means that is the rules set that people want to play. (Here is a huge hint: Grayhost). Perhaps maybe open a second server with the very same rules set as the most populated server even if you have to close a less popular server to do it. It was shown at the last MYM that even if it is not the top server in the list that it was the most popular server. So it is not the position on the list that caused the popularity. It is the ruleset. If we have two identical rules on two different campaigns, maybe, just maybe, the population would spread out to the different campaigns and the performance of the servers would improve.

It is NOT the 30 man /lfg zerg causing the issues, it is the on 5m multiple aoe spamming, perma purging safespace pvp group, that drags a) alot of aoes into and onto them and b) alot of aoes themselves, that is causing this *** night over night over night. A small part of the population is destroying the performance for everyone else, if its solos, smallscales or even /lfg zergbois.

And yes, fixing the server or upgrading or whatever you need to fix that would be a great solution. But we know that wont happen, so this AOE Changes need to happen.

Crispen_Longbow

FatherDelve wrote: »

RDMyers65b14_ESO wrote: »

I am going to have to disagree with the title of the post. The problem is that the players are grouping up in groups of 30+ to zerg the map. The more players with skills and armor sets, the more calculations that is being made by the server and thus more lag. ZOS is on the right track with the group size limit in the last two weeks of the testing but it does NOT go far enough. When we have guilds bragging about getting 70+ players into one zerg, it is causing the problem. ZOS can fix the problem by limiting the AP earned by the players based on the size of the group they are using for PVP. But for some reason, ZOS is not listening. All that needs to be done is zero out the AP if there is more than a certain number of players on one side of the battle. ZOS supposedly knows how many players are in what battle. If you pvdoor Dragonclaw with maybe 2 or three defenders with 30 players, then you should not be gaining AP. It is player vs player, not player vs zerg.

Something else, ZOS, please look at the server populations. (I know the answer to this next question already). But, do you have one server that is nearly always poplocked during prime time while other servers have little to no populations? If so, that means that is the rules set that people want to play. (Here is a huge hint: Grayhost). Perhaps maybe open a second server with the very same rules set as the most populated server even if you have to close a less popular server to do it. It was shown at the last MYM that even if it is not the top server in the list that it was the most popular server. So it is not the position on the list that caused the popularity. It is the ruleset. If we have two identical rules on two different campaigns, maybe, just maybe, the population would spread out to the different campaigns and the performance of the servers would improve.

It is NOT the 30 man /lfg zerg causing the issues, it is the on 5m multiple aoe spamming, perma purging safespace pvp group, that drags a) alot of aoes into and onto them and b) alot of aoes themselves, that is causing this *** night over night over night. A small part of the population is destroying the performance for everyone else, if its solos, smallscales or even /lfg zergbois.

And yes, fixing the server or upgrading or whatever you need to fix that would be a great solution. But we know that wont happen, so this AOE Changes need to happen.

All those same ball groups were fighting each other in IC last week just fine with no lag. The difference is you didn't have 70 people stacking in IC to take out the ball groups.

Make it so that fights end and the lag ends, by introducing rez sickness, killing camps or remove rezzing. Endless fights just build more lag. When too many people are in the same location everyone coming into that render area will crash. When fights never end because of endless rez's and camps this builds up lag.

Break Cyro up into instance sections like IC is. There is no reason that a faction stack fight at BRK should lag out fights at Ash.

IAmIcehouse

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Make it so that fights end and the lag ends, by introducing rez sickness, killing camps or remove rezzing. Endless fights just build more lag. When too many people are in the same location everyone coming into that render area will crash. When fights never end because of endless rez's and camps this builds up lag.

Or make it so healing buffs refresh existing healing buffs rather than stacking. No one should be able to have 4 rapid regens and 4 echoing vigors running on them.

Crispen_Longbow

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Make it so that fights end and the lag ends, by introducing rez sickness, killing camps or remove rezzing. Endless fights just build more lag. When too many people are in the same location everyone coming into that render area will crash. When fights never end because of endless rez's and camps this builds up lag.

Or make it so healing buffs refresh existing healing buffs rather than stacking. No one should be able to have 4 rapid regens and 4 echoing vigors running on them.

Agreed, same concept as Major and Minor buffs. But that isn't reason for the lag. Drawn out faction stack fights where there is pvp causes lag.

IAmIcehouse

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Make it so that fights end and the lag ends, by introducing rez sickness, killing camps or remove rezzing. Endless fights just build more lag. When too many people are in the same location everyone coming into that render area will crash. When fights never end because of endless rez's and camps this builds up lag.

Or make it so healing buffs refresh existing healing buffs rather than stacking. No one should be able to have 4 rapid regens and 4 echoing vigors running on them.

Agreed, same concept as Major and Minor buffs. But that isn't reason for the lag.

It does and it doesn't. We have groups, including the ones I run with, who all run echoing vigor. When we run in, we keep our vigors rolling the whole time. It's not the sole reason, but it 1) adds to it and 2) more importantly, makes the group extremely difficult to kill and creating much longer fights, which mean just more AOEs because they last.

Crispen_Longbow

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Make it so that fights end and the lag ends, by introducing rez sickness, killing camps or remove rezzing. Endless fights just build more lag. When too many people are in the same location everyone coming into that render area will crash. When fights never end because of endless rez's and camps this builds up lag.

Or make it so healing buffs refresh existing healing buffs rather than stacking. No one should be able to have 4 rapid regens and 4 echoing vigors running on them.

Agreed, same concept as Major and Minor buffs. But that isn't reason for the lag.

It does and it doesn't. We have groups, including the ones I run with, who all run echoing vigor. When we run in, we keep our vigors rolling the whole time. It's not the sole reason, but it 1) adds to it and 2) more importantly, makes the group extremely difficult to kill and creating much longer fights, which mean just more AOEs because they last.

It makes your group harder to kill to solos, it doesn't make your group harder to kill against other groups. If rezzing and camps are gone you don't have to kill the same people over and over and the fight ends much faster. Same goes for your group. If you lose one player you can't rez them and that fight will be over sooner as well. If you make a mistake and a bomber takes out half your group you can't instantly drop a camp and have them back up. Fight ends faster. This would make faster paced engagements and not build up lag.

Instancing Cyro like IC would also load of sections of extra lag to their own areas.

IAmIcehouse

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

Firstmep

FatherDelve wrote: »

P.S. There was barely any kind of Lagspikes, even with 2-3x 40 man random zerglings fighting at one keep. It IS and must be this Ballgroup Apocalypse again.

Thats why i said that none of these test bar the last 2 makes any sense.

I get that Eso is an MMO, but its time to make a lot of skills only affect the caster, absolutely no reason to have 67 different spammable raidwide heals and buffs, whatever needs to affect the whole group should get a nice long duration and cooldown so it cant be spammed, period.
That is if they ever want playable largescale pvp in this game.
Sadly as per usual, the devs are doing all the wrong things.

Xarc

FatherDelve wrote: »

So,the first week of the AOE Test we had no lags, some lag spikes, but nothing special if you remember that ESO never runs really smooth.
This evening, the first time Ballgroups/Ballzergs are back. It seems their old way of perma purge and heal spam is working again, and what can I say, Cyrodiil is unplayable in the past 3 hours again. I would even say its worse then before, because now you have aoe proc sets AND you have Ballzergs doing their thingy for hours.

First week was annoying with shared cooldowns, this week is annoying because its literally unplayable. And yes, the reason for those Lag Issues ARE Ballgroups. No one else, not that solo remaining Magplar spamming jabs, not that 1vsx Sorc trying to streak away from gankers, not that one Magblade bombing a Zerg and spamming Sap Essence.
It's the 3x 30 player Ballzerg, spamming Purge, Vigor, Mutagen, using 20 different Support Sets, and everyone has 30 Addons that are constant sending and receiving Data from the Server, and everything on a 10m radius.

[Title edit for Baiting.]

it's annoying because Aoe proc sets+Ballzerg+LAG+COOLDOWN.

Really the worst time ever to play.

Crispen_Longbow

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

There are natural break points all over the map where each section could be on their own servers instead of a global server running everything.

IAmIcehouse

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

There are natural break points all over the map where each section could be on their own servers instead of a global server running everything.

And when you are running scrolls or chasing squirrels? It would also destroy the open world feel. It is a crappy quality of life change that would have to be last resort. I would take current lag over an instanced Cyrodil.

Crispen_Longbow

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

There are natural break points all over the map where each section could be on their own servers instead of a global server running everything.

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

There are natural break points all over the map where each section could be on their own servers instead of a global server running everything.

And when you are running scrolls or chasing squirrels? It would also destroy the open world feel. It is a crappy quality of life change that would have to be last resort. I would take current lag over an instanced Cyrodil.

You could turn all the mile gates into doors like IC and would improve the quality of life for all sections that weren't at a faction stack. Scroll runs are over as soon as it's out of enemy territory. They would be fine to follow the same gate logic.

Chasing squirrels, do you really need to chase a player across the map?

FatherDelve

There is an easy solution. Make Heals Purge and Support Set just affect 4 people, a normal groupsize. You still can build a "zerg" out of more then 4 people, but every heal, purge and support set stays inside that group.

Actually it does not look like ZOS is able to fix the servers, so you have to change something else. First week of tests was fine, because the former perma purging, heal spamming PvE Ballgroup was not immortal anymore. Fights where over faster, you never created that abomniation of a keep fight, that 3 ballgroups met in the same keep, including the usual /lfg zerglings.

FatherDelve

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

There are natural break points all over the map where each section could be on their own servers instead of a global server running everything.

And when you are running scrolls or chasing squirrels? It would also destroy the open world feel. It is a crappy quality of life change that would have to be last resort. I would take current lag over an instanced Cyrodil.

Of course you prefer the lag over the changes, because you are part of the problem And you can handle it with the way you choose to pvp.

Crispen_Longbow

FatherDelve wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

There are natural break points all over the map where each section could be on their own servers instead of a global server running everything.

And when you are running scrolls or chasing squirrels? It would also destroy the open world feel. It is a crappy quality of life change that would have to be last resort. I would take current lag over an instanced Cyrodil.

Of course you prefer the lag over the changes, because you are part of the problem And you can handle it with the way you choose to pvp.

Those same groups can fight in IC just fine without lag. That is what they did all of last week. So if they can fight just fine in IC why can't they do the same in Cryo? Mainly because a fight in IC doesn't turn into an entire faction stack like Cyro does. Cyro can't handle faction stack pvp fights.

FatherDelve

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

FatherDelve wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

There are natural break points all over the map where each section could be on their own servers instead of a global server running everything.

And when you are running scrolls or chasing squirrels? It would also destroy the open world feel. It is a crappy quality of life change that would have to be last resort. I would take current lag over an instanced Cyrodil.

Of course you prefer the lag over the changes, because you are part of the problem And you can handle it with the way you choose to pvp.

Those same groups can fight in IC just fine without lag. That is what they did all of last week. So if they can fight just fine in IC why can't they do the same in Cryo? Mainly because a fight in IC doesn't turn into an entire faction stack like Cyro does. Cyro can't handle faction stack pvp fights.

They moved to IC because they could do their safespace pvp there totally fine. But their main targets are not other ballgroups, they are aiming for the big "fat stacks" of /lfg zerglings. So again, if ZOS cant fix it on another way, there has to be a drastic AOE Nerf, or something else that forces them to go into IC again.

I dont care about where they are going, if they are staying in Cyrodiil, me and 90% of the remaining population dont wanna suffer another year of unplayable 4-5 hours every evening. Because its maybe possible under the healing of 20 vigors, 10 purges and 20 support sets to survive alot of stuff, every other person cant.

Crash427

Anyone else notice how many people are just stacking 40 deep and spamming things like poison inject now? I'm willing to bet these are the same people that complain about the aoes and think the game would be better without them.

Crispen_Longbow

FatherDelve wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

FatherDelve wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

There are natural break points all over the map where each section could be on their own servers instead of a global server running everything.

And when you are running scrolls or chasing squirrels? It would also destroy the open world feel. It is a crappy quality of life change that would have to be last resort. I would take current lag over an instanced Cyrodil.

Of course you prefer the lag over the changes, because you are part of the problem And you can handle it with the way you choose to pvp.

Those same groups can fight in IC just fine without lag. That is what they did all of last week. So if they can fight just fine in IC why can't they do the same in Cryo? Mainly because a fight in IC doesn't turn into an entire faction stack like Cyro does. Cyro can't handle faction stack pvp fights.

They moved to IC because they could do their safespace pvp there totally fine. But their main targets are not other ballgroups, they are aiming for the big "fat stacks" of /lfg zerglings. So again, if ZOS cant fix it on another way, there has to be a drastic AOE Nerf, or something else that forces them to go into IC again.

I dont care about where they are going, if they are staying in Cyrodiil, me and 90% of the remaining population dont wanna suffer another year of unplayable 4-5 hours every evening. Because its maybe possible under the healing of 20 vigors, 10 purges and 20 support sets to survive alot of stuff, every other person cant.

I guess we are talking about different guilds and different servers then? I assume you are on the EU servers for this type of play? The top guilds on NA PC all prefer to fight other guilds then anything else. So when those guild are in IC or In Cyro they are seeking out other guilds to fight.

FatherDelve

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

FatherDelve wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

FatherDelve wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

There are natural break points all over the map where each section could be on their own servers instead of a global server running everything.

And when you are running scrolls or chasing squirrels? It would also destroy the open world feel. It is a crappy quality of life change that would have to be last resort. I would take current lag over an instanced Cyrodil.

Of course you prefer the lag over the changes, because you are part of the problem And you can handle it with the way you choose to pvp.

Those same groups can fight in IC just fine without lag. That is what they did all of last week. So if they can fight just fine in IC why can't they do the same in Cryo? Mainly because a fight in IC doesn't turn into an entire faction stack like Cyro does. Cyro can't handle faction stack pvp fights.

They moved to IC because they could do their safespace pvp there totally fine. But their main targets are not other ballgroups, they are aiming for the big "fat stacks" of /lfg zerglings. So again, if ZOS cant fix it on another way, there has to be a drastic AOE Nerf, or something else that forces them to go into IC again.

I dont care about where they are going, if they are staying in Cyrodiil, me and 90% of the remaining population dont wanna suffer another year of unplayable 4-5 hours every evening. Because its maybe possible under the healing of 20 vigors, 10 purges and 20 support sets to survive alot of stuff, every other person cant.

I guess we are talking about different guilds and different servers then? I assume you are on the EU servers for this type of play? The top guilds on NA PC all prefer to fight other guilds then anything else. So when those guild are in IC or In Cyro they are seeking out other guilds to fight.

And still they are causing lags. Again, I dont care how it get changed, I want it to be changed.

FatherDelve

Crash427 wrote: »

Anyone else notice how many people are just stacking 40 deep and spamming things like poison inject now? I'm willing to bet these are the same people that complain about the aoes and think the game would be better without them.

What is the difference between those poison inject spammers, and the fact that all you need to do is following the crown in a ballgroup ? You get your builds told, you get your skills told, and then you follow the crowns. And 30 Addons telling you what to do, when to purge, when your Ult is ready. And everything else you get told by your leader.

You can put any of those Poison Inject Spammers into a Ballzerg. If he is able to do the previous things i said, he's a decent member of it.

[snip]

[edited for baiting/profanity]

Crispen_Longbow

FatherDelve wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

FatherDelve wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

FatherDelve wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

There are natural break points all over the map where each section could be on their own servers instead of a global server running everything.

And when you are running scrolls or chasing squirrels? It would also destroy the open world feel. It is a crappy quality of life change that would have to be last resort. I would take current lag over an instanced Cyrodil.

Of course you prefer the lag over the changes, because you are part of the problem And you can handle it with the way you choose to pvp.

Those same groups can fight in IC just fine without lag. That is what they did all of last week. So if they can fight just fine in IC why can't they do the same in Cryo? Mainly because a fight in IC doesn't turn into an entire faction stack like Cyro does. Cyro can't handle faction stack pvp fights.

They moved to IC because they could do their safespace pvp there totally fine. But their main targets are not other ballgroups, they are aiming for the big "fat stacks" of /lfg zerglings. So again, if ZOS cant fix it on another way, there has to be a drastic AOE Nerf, or something else that forces them to go into IC again.

I dont care about where they are going, if they are staying in Cyrodiil, me and 90% of the remaining population dont wanna suffer another year of unplayable 4-5 hours every evening. Because its maybe possible under the healing of 20 vigors, 10 purges and 20 support sets to survive alot of stuff, every other person cant.

I guess we are talking about different guilds and different servers then? I assume you are on the EU servers for this type of play? The top guilds on NA PC all prefer to fight other guilds then anything else. So when those guild are in IC or In Cyro they are seeking out other guilds to fight.

And still they are causing lags. Again, I dont care how it get changed, I want it to be changed.

Great! if you don't care how the lag stops, stop playing the game and that will stop the lag. Not caring about the "how" makes a difference.

IAmIcehouse

FatherDelve wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

IAmIcehouse wrote: »

Instancing cyro would be horrible for Cyrodil. I don't even know how that could possibly be implemented

There are natural break points all over the map where each section could be on their own servers instead of a global server running everything.

And when you are running scrolls or chasing squirrels? It would also destroy the open world feel. It is a crappy quality of life change that would have to be last resort. I would take current lag over an instanced Cyrodil.

Of course you prefer the lag over the changes, because you are part of the problem And you can handle it with the way you choose to pvp.

I mean, I for the most part play solo or with two-three others. Once a week I run in a ballgroups, which I don't enjoy as much. The lag is very frustrating. But the impact of multiple instances is not a good solution.


Edit: and for the record, I very much dislike ballgroups and think they are bad for PVP.

idk

FatherDelve wrote: »

And yes, the reason for those Lag Issues ARE Ballgroups.

In several weeks Zos will be able to get real information on the impact of groups. That will be much more reliable than the anecdotal information we tend to provide in the forums.

ecru

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

FatherDelve wrote: »

RDMyers65b14_ESO wrote: »

I am going to have to disagree with the title of the post. The problem is that the players are grouping up in groups of 30+ to zerg the map. The more players with skills and armor sets, the more calculations that is being made by the server and thus more lag. ZOS is on the right track with the group size limit in the last two weeks of the testing but it does NOT go far enough. When we have guilds bragging about getting 70+ players into one zerg, it is causing the problem. ZOS can fix the problem by limiting the AP earned by the players based on the size of the group they are using for PVP. But for some reason, ZOS is not listening. All that needs to be done is zero out the AP if there is more than a certain number of players on one side of the battle. ZOS supposedly knows how many players are in what battle. If you pvdoor Dragonclaw with maybe 2 or three defenders with 30 players, then you should not be gaining AP. It is player vs player, not player vs zerg.

Something else, ZOS, please look at the server populations. (I know the answer to this next question already). But, do you have one server that is nearly always poplocked during prime time while other servers have little to no populations? If so, that means that is the rules set that people want to play. (Here is a huge hint: Grayhost). Perhaps maybe open a second server with the very same rules set as the most populated server even if you have to close a less popular server to do it. It was shown at the last MYM that even if it is not the top server in the list that it was the most popular server. So it is not the position on the list that caused the popularity. It is the ruleset. If we have two identical rules on two different campaigns, maybe, just maybe, the population would spread out to the different campaigns and the performance of the servers would improve.

It is NOT the 30 man /lfg zerg causing the issues, it is the on 5m multiple aoe spamming, perma purging safespace pvp group, that drags a) alot of aoes into and onto them and b) alot of aoes themselves, that is causing this *** night over night over night. A small part of the population is destroying the performance for everyone else, if its solos, smallscales or even /lfg zergbois.

And yes, fixing the server or upgrading or whatever you need to fix that would be a great solution. But we know that wont happen, so this AOE Changes need to happen.

All those same ball groups were fighting each other in IC last week just fine with no lag. The difference is you didn't have 70 people stacking in IC to take out the ball groups.

Make it so that fights end and the lag ends, by introducing rez sickness, killing camps or remove rezzing. Endless fights just build more lag. When too many people are in the same location everyone coming into that render area will crash. When fights never end because of endless rez's and camps this builds up lag.

Break Cyro up into instance sections like IC is. There is no reason that a faction stack fight at BRK should lag out fights at Ash.

there was plenty of lag in IC when those groups were active. when they weren't, the lag went away. really makes you think.