We need a new Cyro Server for large groups

Earthewen

I would like to see us have a new cyro server for large group play. Since the only group size on the other servers is only going to be up to 12, we need our own server that will allow up to 24 for those of us who like that kind of playing.

oXI_Viper_IXo

If they were willing to invest in their servers then we never would've had these tests in the first place.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

You can just make 2 groups if you want to run 24.

Earthewen

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

You can just make 2 groups if you want to run 24.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

You can just make 2 groups if you want to run 24.

We shouldn't have to. That isn't what the game was sold as.

relentless_turnip

Earthewen wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

You can just make 2 groups if you want to run 24.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

You can just make 2 groups if you want to run 24.

We shouldn't have to. That isn't what the game was sold as.

It wasn't sold on the premise of group size... Just large scale PvP.

I am totally on the fence about this change, but I am just pointing out they haven't changed the scale of PvP. Just the group sizes and the mechanics in and out of them.

techyeshic

I'd rather it be reduced to 8 if they're going to do it at all. I don't think 12 changes much function and only adds a slight annoyance of having to follow without a crown; and zerg surfing.

Soul_Demon

"Elder Scrolls Online: How PVP allow players total control
Part II of our exclusive interview with game director Matt Firor focuses on player v player battles"

"PVP takes place in the huge central zone of Cyrodiil, and the obvious question is how many players can get involved. "We're planning on having 2,000 people at once in Cyrodiil," says Firor. "In a particular fight our client is optimised to have 200 players on-screen at one time, which means you'll have very large battles within an even larger battlefield."

This is what players were sold when the game came out......Not what you suggest now. Maybe take a few minutes and ask yourself where it all went off the rails here and lets get back to what the game was tested, designed for and figure out why its not working as well as it used to work to those ends. This very much feels as though the ZOS team simply is giving up on the game as a whole and trying to sell the game again to us with different parameters due to difficulties. If its not, I would really appreciate (as I am sure others in the game) some explanations as to how that is not the case.

deleted221106-002999

Soul_Demon wrote: »

"Elder Scrolls Online: How PVP allow players total control
Part II of our exclusive interview with game director Matt Firor focuses on player v player battles"

"PVP takes place in the huge central zone of Cyrodiil, and the obvious question is how many players can get involved. "We're planning on having 2,000 people at once in Cyrodiil," says Firor. "In a particular fight our client is optimised to have 200 players on-screen at one time, which means you'll have very large battles within an even larger battlefield."

....

Thanks for the interesting quote @Soul_Demon - here is link to original article for anyone else who is curious.

It's a fair point and request. Unfortunately, so is this and, sadly, a likely reflection of development priority:

oXI_Viper_IXo wrote: »

If they were willing to invest in their servers then we never would've had these tests in the first place.

csparks1

Wow, I remember when our guild left their last game to come here - every one of us original 60 pre-ordered the game...

I am one of the last, all others have moved on, because "this game is not what they said it would be"

Now it is even more so. Very Sad.

Grimlok_S

Make this 24-squad minimum server light attacks only, let the arrows rain!!

Dunning_Kruger

Grimlok_S wrote: »

Make this 24-squad minimum server light attacks only, let the arrows rain!!

People in 24 man groups generally only light attack anyways; restriction not needed.

etchedpixels

oXI_Viper_IXo wrote: »

If they were willing to invest in their servers then we never would've had these tests in the first place.

Large scale pieces of software processing a lot of complex interactions don't tend to scale linearly unfortunately. Putting a load more computing power behind it often has minimal effect, in fact if it means more computers clustered it can even make it far worse.

IAmIcehouse

etchedpixels wrote: »

oXI_Viper_IXo wrote: »

If they were willing to invest in their servers then we never would've had these tests in the first place.

Large scale pieces of software processing a lot of complex interactions don't tend to scale linearly unfortunately. Putting a load more computing power behind it often has minimal effect, in fact if it means more computers clustered it can even make it far worse.

Sssh. Big boy servers fix all problems.

Raammzzaa

Outside of Gray Host, most of the servers that we have are underpopulated already. I can't see adding any more servers being justifiable.

Sephyr

csparks1 wrote: »

Wow, I remember when our guild left their last game to come here - every one of us original 60 pre-ordered the game...

I am one of the last, all others have moved on, because "this game is not what they said it would be"

Now it is even more so. Very Sad.

Similar situation. It's why I joined the forum late, hoping to find some folks that'd be fun to run with. Boy was that a mistake.

Dunning_Kruger

No

AllegraLionheart

Raammzzaa wrote: »

Outside of Gray Host, most of the servers that we have are underpopulated already. I can't see adding any more servers being justifiable.

Echoing this.

Plus, pvp between multiple 12-mans on two or three sides (with pugs) is still very large scale, and just as thrilling--if not more so--as multiple 24-man raids duking it out. I say this as someone who has led and followed all raid sizes.

Our younger/larger groups will be adapting accordingly. It'll require more synchronicity and engagement on their part, but they'll be better players for it.

DaveMoeDee

Dunning_Kruger wrote: »

Grimlok_S wrote: »

Make this 24-squad minimum server light attacks only, let the arrows rain!!

People in 24 man groups generally only light attack anyways; restriction not needed.

That is to build up ult to drop 24 ults all at once.

StaticWave

Soul_Demon wrote: »

"Elder Scrolls Online: How PVP allow players total control
Part II of our exclusive interview with game director Matt Firor focuses on player v player battles"

"PVP takes place in the huge central zone of Cyrodiil, and the obvious question is how many players can get involved. "We're planning on having 2,000 people at once in Cyrodiil," says Firor. "In a particular fight our client is optimised to have 200 players on-screen at one time, which means you'll have very large battles within an even larger battlefield."

This is what players were sold when the game came out......Not what you suggest now. Maybe take a few minutes and ask yourself where it all went off the rails here and lets get back to what the game was tested, designed for and figure out why its not working as well as it used to work to those ends. This very much feels as though the ZOS team simply is giving up on the game as a whole and trying to sell the game again to us with different parameters due to difficulties. If its not, I would really appreciate (as I am sure others in the game) some explanations as to how that is not the case.

The game today is not the game 5 years ago. You're living in the past

oXI_Viper_IXo

StaticWave wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

"Elder Scrolls Online: How PVP allow players total control
Part II of our exclusive interview with game director Matt Firor focuses on player v player battles"

"PVP takes place in the huge central zone of Cyrodiil, and the obvious question is how many players can get involved. "We're planning on having 2,000 people at once in Cyrodiil," says Firor. "In a particular fight our client is optimised to have 200 players on-screen at one time, which means you'll have very large battles within an even larger battlefield."

This is what players were sold when the game came out......Not what you suggest now. Maybe take a few minutes and ask yourself where it all went off the rails here and lets get back to what the game was tested, designed for and figure out why its not working as well as it used to work to those ends. This very much feels as though the ZOS team simply is giving up on the game as a whole and trying to sell the game again to us with different parameters due to difficulties. If its not, I would really appreciate (as I am sure others in the game) some explanations as to how that is not the case.

The game today is not the game 5 years ago.

You're right, it's worse today.

vamp_emily

With the group reduction 70 AD still show up at the same keep and get demolished.

I just wish Zeni would fix the real problem, instead of running in circles nerfing this and that and then allowing players to stun you for 3 seconds then proc you to death.

Even with the 12 man groups PvP was unplayable.

idk

oXI_Viper_IXo wrote: »

If they were willing to invest in their servers then we never would've had these tests in the first place.

I think they are suggesting a new campaign and calling it a server. Just a guess.

Earthewen

csparks1 wrote: »

Wow, I remember when our guild left their last game to come here - every one of us original 60 pre-ordered the game...

I am one of the last, all others have moved on, because "this game is not what they said it would be"

Now it is even more so. Very Sad.

Indeed. My point in the OP was that small mans groups and solo players have a lot of options for them. They can gank to their hearts content in Imperial City. They can groupvgroup in Battlegrounds. One v one fans can duke it out in duels until the cows come home. AND they have the option of playing in Cyro all they want, hitting people from behind or on siege.

However, 24-man groups now have no place to go. Some of us really came to this game because of the group size in pvp. This was fun, addictive, and exciting. Those that weren't here back then, I'm sure have nothing to compare it to but what they know. However, those of us who remember the games beginning and have been here since beta remember the thrill of leading a 24-man group successfully through the enemy ranks when skill really mattered. It wasn't zerg on zerg with whoever throws ulties first wins. No, it was much more strategic than that. Meta builds weren't put up on pedestals, but people were a lot more creative instead.

It is a much different game, and a lot less fun now.

I'm still a little disturbed by the "behavioral changes" that ZOS has indicated was good. Have they answered what that even means?

NeillMcAttack

So people enjoy the crazy amounts of lag that occurs in these ball groups, winning through sheer amount of healing ticks going off every second?

Earthewen

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

So people enjoy the crazy amounts of lag that occurs in these ball groups, winning through sheer amount of healing ticks going off every second?

Unfortunately, I see the lag whether there are groups of 12 OR 24. I don't see much of a difference between the two. None of the tests (according to zOS) gave them much information in solving the lag issues. What they did say is they liked the behavioral change which I'm not really sure how that is making the game more fun. That being the case, why not have a campaign where the guilds could effectively play against guilds for the campaign win? All the small groups and solo players have places specifically geared for their favorite type of game play. Why not have one for the type of game play liked by the large groups can go?