The Cyrodiil plans = "yep"

OnnuK

I'm not a hardcore PvPer, but my main endgame goal in ESO has always been PvP. Having completed most of the PvE content, diving into PvP seems like the perfect next step for me. When I introduce ESO to someone, Cyrodiil PvP is one of the main features I highlight. It was truly fantastic, but now it's been left behind with no major updates for years. Look at what WoW did a few months ago—they introduced a battle royale mode with nearly a hundred players fighting for titles, in-game rewards, and more. It was incredibly fun.

To be honest, I was quite disappointed by something in this stream. When Gina talked about Cyrodiil, we all got excited. She was trying to tell us, "Yes, we hear you," and when she mentioned, "It's not the subject of today's stream," I felt a glimmer of hope. But then when Brian simply said, "Yep," that was it—no further details or discussion. Cyrodiil is the main PvP content in this game and it deserves more than just a casual "Yep."
Enjoy U44...

tsaescishoeshiner

It's too bad, but it makes sense if none of the fixes that were attempted for server performance worked. I think if there was new largescale PvP content, but with poor performance, people would be just asking to fix it and requesting small-scale PvP modes anyway.

JiubLeRepenti

Chat was driving crazy at that moment. This is why Gina had to react and speak about it.

The chat was spamming : "Cyro?", "What about Cyro?", etc.

In a normal game, we could expect ZOS members to take that kind of reaction into consideration and think "Oh it seems the community would be very hyped and excited with a new fresh PvP content in Cyro, let's work on that for next update".

But ZOS, I'm afraid, doesn't see things that way. I don't really thing the community's requests are taken under consideration.

JiubLeRepenti

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

It's too bad, but it makes sense if none of the fixes that were attempted for server performance worked. I think if there was new largescale PvP content, but with poor performance, people would be just asking to fix it and requesting small-scale PvP modes anyway.

Thing is, it's too easy to systematically hide behind the "technical limit" argument (I know it's not what you're saying, but I feel this is how ZOS justify its lack of action most of the time).

Same for cloaks, same for housing items limits, same for... Almost everything we are asking for and which is systematically categorized as "not feasable due to technical limits".

Then find solutions for lord' sake. Get new engine, get new servs... We're litterally paying you for this game. The least we should have is a decent PvP area that is working properly after ten years.

SkaraMinoc

Actually I think they are working on Cyrodiil updates or have them in the backlog. The reason is because I now have confidence that ZOS does listen to player feedback but it takes them years to get changes out to Production. We started heavily recommending 2-team BG changes and competitive arenas in 2022 and based on what Brian said on the live stream, it was late 2022 when they started working on competitive 4v4 arenas that are shipping with Update 44.

So they might release Cyrodiil updates in the next year or two.

Syiccal

I've said in another thread it's because cyro is broke and they can't fix it hence pop caps being lowered and it still being laggy asf. BG doesn't lagg, works and however you look at it it's still PVP, so I wouldn't be surprised to see cyro phased out and replaced with more.amd more bg content.

Einar_Hrafnarsson

They updated the pvp content only 10 people play... so saying that they "listened to us" just feels wrong. The more i hear about ESO's future, the more glad i am i canceled my ESO+ and skipped Gold Road.

Poss

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

Actually I think they are working on Cyrodiil updates or have them in the backlog. The reason is because I now have confidence that ZOS does listen to player feedback but it takes them years to get changes out to Production. We started heavily recommending 2-team BG changes and competitive arenas in 2022 and based on what Brian said on the live stream, it was late 2022 when they started working on competitive 4v4 arenas that are shipping with Update 44.

So they might release Cyrodiil updates in the next year or two.

Cyrodiil hasn’t gotten a large update since Volundrung and that was with Elsweyr back in 2019. Since then we’ve had a few tweaks like with the killfeed, keep notifications but nothing gamebreaking. So how many more years do we have to wait?

People keep claiming the devs are held back by technical limitations but back when the game launched, (speaking from console) we all played on older generation consoles with much MUCH higher population caps and the game was playable.

Elsonso

JiubLeRepenti wrote: »

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

It's too bad, but it makes sense if none of the fixes that were attempted for server performance worked. I think if there was new largescale PvP content, but with poor performance, people would be just asking to fix it and requesting small-scale PvP modes anyway.

Thing is, it's too easy to systematically hide behind the "technical limit" argument (I know it's not what you're saying, but I feel this is how ZOS justify its lack of action most of the time).

Same for cloaks, same for housing items limits, same for... Almost everything we are asking for and which is systematically categorized as "not feasable due to technical limits".

Then find solutions for lord' sake.

Optimistically, if they really want to do something, they will devote the attention to it. They may choose not to do it because of time to develop, or cost, or it conflicts with something they want to do more, or even the lack of maturity of some new bleeding edge technology, but it is still largely a choice.

I don't see this all of these "technical limitations" as a "can't do" but more of a "don't want to do". Why? Reasons.

loosej

JiubLeRepenti wrote: »

Chat was driving crazy at that moment. This is why Gina had to react and speak about it.

The chat was spamming : "Cyro?", "What about Cyro?", etc.

In a normal game, we could expect ZOS members to take that kind of reaction into consideration and think "Oh it seems the community would be very hyped and excited with a new fresh PvP content in Cyro, let's work on that for next update".

But ZOS, I'm afraid, doesn't see things that way. I don't really thing the community's requests are taken under consideration.

Well they can't just implement things the community is requesting can they, that would set a precedent which causes players to expect, not hope, that they listen to feedback. They always have to put their own twist on things so players feel like they're being thrown a bone, without creating any future expectations.

licenturion

JiubLeRepenti wrote: »

Then find solutions for lord' sake. Get new engine, get new servs... We're litterally paying you for this game. The least we should have is a decent PvP area that is working properly after ten years.

They tried new servers. Didn't help much

And 'getting a new engine' is basically starting over. Even games that switched to another version number of Unity or Unreal Engine had massive issues and delays. They are stuck on hero engine. And given the teams have build up a lot of knowledge during the years working with this engine, I am pretty sure the next project will also with this engine. They keep upgrading it with every update too: HDR, DLSS, FSR, etc.

So I wouldn't expect much if you are being a realist about it.

Muizer

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

Actually I think they are working on Cyrodiil updates or have them in the backlog. The reason is because I now have confidence that ZOS does listen to player feedback but it takes them years to get changes out to Production. We started heavily recommending 2-team BG changes and competitive arenas in 2022 and based on what Brian said on the live stream, it was late 2022 when they started working on competitive 4v4 arenas that are shipping with Update 44.

So they might release Cyrodiil updates in the next year or two.

I wish you were right, but actually the opposite is much more likely. Wishes for changes to Cyrodiil or other forms of open world pvp go back much farther than 2020. If anything, the fact that they focused for two years on something that has only been asked for since 2022 seems a solid indicator work on Cyrodiil has been deprioritised further and possibly abandoned (aka 'no plans'). I guess there's nothing for it but to accept that Cyrodiil and IC are legacy content.

And yes, I do think part of that is based on the risk analysis that they would rather invest time in something with a smaller audience, but where they are confident they can deliver rather than double down on something they've been unable to get right for a decade. So they build what they can build and we can expect more of the same: instanced content on small maps with lots of 'fun' mechanics. They can't help it. It's what they do.

Lags

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

It's too bad, but it makes sense if none of the fixes that were attempted for server performance worked. I think if there was new largescale PvP content, but with poor performance, people would be just asking to fix it and requesting small-scale PvP modes anyway.

Wdym? According to zos they have fixed the performance issue. Or at least made things a lot better. Go look at the thread about the hardware restructure or rich lamberts interviews. They just never go into cyrodiil so they think they made it better. They did not.

loosej

Lags wrote: »

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

It's too bad, but it makes sense if none of the fixes that were attempted for server performance worked. I think if there was new largescale PvP content, but with poor performance, people would be just asking to fix it and requesting small-scale PvP modes anyway.

Wdym? According to zos they have fixed the performance issue. Or at least made things a lot better. Go look at the thread about the hardware restructure or rich lamberts interviews. They just never go into cyrodiil so they think they made it better. They did not.

To be fair, they have made things better. Pretty much the same way a car manufacturer would increase a car's reliability by limiting it to a top speed of 50 kmph. After they sold it to you with a top speed of 180.

JiubLeRepenti

licenturion wrote: »

JiubLeRepenti wrote: »

Then find solutions for lord' sake. Get new engine, get new servs... We're litterally paying you for this game. The least we should have is a decent PvP area that is working properly after ten years.

They tried new servers. Didn't help much

And 'getting a new engine' is basically starting over. Even games that switched to another version number of Unity or Unreal Engine had massive issues and delays. They are stuck on hero engine. And given the teams have build up a lot of knowledge during the years working with this engine, I am pretty sure the next project will also with this engine. They keep upgrading it with every update too: HDR, DLSS, FSR, etc.

So I wouldn't expect much if you are being a realist about it.

This is probably my highest expectation indeed. To see ZOS use a new game engine, and to finally be able to bring us a huge part of QOL requests the community has made for many years.

But yea I'm realistic, I know there is 99% that this will never happen. The game has ten years old, and despite of what people may think, I personally see the game slowly dying and it doesn't seem like ZOS is really trying to revive the game or, at least, to reverse the current trend.

Regarding the engine change, I've heard some engines like the UE5 were facilitating the transposition. It would likely detect the assets from the old engine and automatically make a significant part of the job in transferring them from the old version to the new one. But of course I'm not a dev so I can't say much more about it. Which means they wouldn't restart from scratch. Beyond that, I still can't figure out why ZOS made the choice to base its engine on Hero Engine, which was designed in... 2005.

CrazyKitty

OnnuK wrote: »

I'm not a hardcore PvPer, but my main endgame goal in ESO has always been PvP. Having completed most of the PvE content, diving into PvP seems like the perfect next step for me. When I introduce ESO to someone, Cyrodiil PvP is one of the main features I highlight. It was truly fantastic, but now it's been left behind with no major updates for years. Look at what WoW did a few months ago—they introduced a battle royale mode with nearly a hundred players fighting for titles, in-game rewards, and more. It was incredibly fun.

To be honest, I was quite disappointed by something in this stream. When Gina talked about Cyrodiil, we all got excited. She was trying to tell us, "Yes, we hear you," and when she mentioned, "It's not the subject of today's stream," I felt a glimmer of hope. But then when Brian simply said, "Yep," that was it—no further details or discussion. Cyrodiil is the main PvP content in this game and it deserves more than just a casual "Yep."
Enjoy U44...

Yep. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

CrazyKitty

The problem ZOS has now after neglecting Cyrodiil so blatantly for so many years is that they've done permanent harm to their reputation. I can only speak for myself here, but if ZOS never revives Cyrodiil to it's former glory as ZOS stated they would do so many times, it's highly unlikely I will ever spend money with ZOS again. Even if the product they're selling next starts out awesome, it will still have the same bean counters and customer service they've always had, so it will end up just like Cyrodiil no matter what it starts out as.

LadyGP

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

Actually I think they are working on Cyrodiil updates or have them in the backlog. The reason is because I now have confidence that ZOS does listen to player feedback but it takes them years to get changes out to Production. We started heavily recommending 2-team BG changes and competitive arenas in 2022 and based on what Brian said on the live stream, it was late 2022 when they started working on competitive 4v4 arenas that are shipping with Update 44.

So they might release Cyrodiil updates in the next year or two.

It takes the Halo Infinite team a few months - maybe 6 max - to push out new modes and maps and they had a very public issue around their engine and how... difficult... it is to use.

When was the last time BGs got a map, 5 years ago? Ouch.

I've got zero confidence that a cyro update is coming. They knew (or should have known) that the community has been requesting cyro content for many many years. I find it infuriating that no one in ZOS had a response planned or... a tease... or anything to help with the outrage for lack of Cyro in this PvP update.

They shouldn't have spent a year saying PvP update they should have just said New Features for BGs or something - manage expectations. Thats something ZOS does a terrible job at and I think if they tried to manage expectations a bit better it would help everyone out - them and us.

LadyGP

Muizer wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

Actually I think they are working on Cyrodiil updates or have them in the backlog. The reason is because I now have confidence that ZOS does listen to player feedback but it takes them years to get changes out to Production. We started heavily recommending 2-team BG changes and competitive arenas in 2022 and based on what Brian said on the live stream, it was late 2022 when they started working on competitive 4v4 arenas that are shipping with Update 44.

So they might release Cyrodiil updates in the next year or two.

I wish you were right, but actually the opposite is much more likely. Wishes for changes to Cyrodiil or other forms of open world pvp go back much farther than 2020. If anything, the fact that they focused for two years on something that has only been asked for since 2022 seems a solid indicator work on Cyrodiil has been deprioritised further and possibly abandoned (aka 'no plans'). I guess there's nothing for it but to accept that Cyrodiil and IC are legacy content.

And yes, I do think part of that is based on the risk analysis that they would rather invest time in something with a smaller audience, but where they are confident they can deliver rather than double down on something they've been unable to get right for a decade. So they build what they can build and we can expect more of the same: instanced content on small maps with lots of 'fun' mechanics. They can't help it. It's what they do.

THIS.

If IC and Cyro are "Legacy Content" just come out and say it. Like I just said, manage expectations. If I know this is legacy content I will stop having hopes of it getting better and just play "well it is what it is".

ragnarok6644b14_ESO

People ask for "updates to Cyrodiil" but I'm not sure what they mean...

... what can you update? I mean yes, you can update performance, but I think that "improve performance" is both at the top of their docket and is ongoing across PVE, PVP, housing... it's so vague and broad as to be meaningless. Hardware upgrades would help, sure - but they help more than Cyrodiil.

What do people who bemoan the lack of updates to Cyrodiil want to see? What sort of update?

Not that I'm a dev (probably for the best) but other than changing the map around (how would you guys like another outpost to fight over? huh!? Yeah!), or fiddling with balance, or the aformentioned "make ESO have better performance", what are some specific action items we can call upon the devs to make?

Necrotech_Master

ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »

People ask for "updates to Cyrodiil" but I'm not sure what they mean...

... what can you update? I mean yes, you can update performance, but I think that "improve performance" is both at the top of their docket and is ongoing across PVE, PVP, housing... it's so vague and broad as to be meaningless. Hardware upgrades would help, sure - but they help more than Cyrodiil.

What do people who bemoan the lack of updates to Cyrodiil want to see? What sort of update?

Not that I'm a dev (probably for the best) but other than changing the map around (how would you guys like another outpost to fight over? huh!? Yeah!), or fiddling with balance, or the aformentioned "make ESO have better performance", what are some specific action items we can call upon the devs to make?

performance is like 80% of the problem of why new stuff isnt added to cyro

they were intending originally to add in more artifacts like volendrung (such as auriels bow), but they noted that in their testing, these things ended up further degrading cyrodiil performance

i remember some other post they gave which was saying that they have tried to do many different things to improve performance, but a lot of these things either had no effect, or a negative effect and further degraded performance

so i think they are really trying to push stuff to cyro, but whatever mess of the code that cyro is running on seems to be like a jenga tower of instability, and trying to change or alter it causes further problems

in terms of what people have asked for is mainly limits to heal stacking to try to weaken ball groups

i also see requests for higher pop caps, or larger group sizes

Ocelot9x

ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »

People ask for "updates to Cyrodiil" but I'm not sure what they mean...

... what can you update? I mean yes, you can update performance, but I think that "improve performance" is both at the top of their docket and is ongoing across PVE, PVP, housing... it's so vague and broad as to be meaningless. Hardware upgrades would help, sure - but they help more than Cyrodiil.

What do people who bemoan the lack of updates to Cyrodiil want to see? What sort of update?

Not that I'm a dev (probably for the best) but other than changing the map around (how would you guys like another outpost to fight over? huh!? Yeah!), or fiddling with balance, or the aformentioned "make ESO have better performance", what are some specific action items we can call upon the devs to make?

Maybe some new content? Some better rewards? Im not a dev and im taking a dump atm and i can already think of:
-Faction caravans to attack/defend/ambush
-Guild controlled zones that generate some sort of passive income (in cyro)
-Revamp of the siege mechanics
-Balancing the meta

loosej

CrazyKitty wrote: »

The problem ZOS has now after neglecting Cyrodiil so blatantly for so many years is that they've done permanent harm to their reputation. I can only speak for myself here, but if ZOS never revives Cyrodiil to it's former glory as ZOS stated they would do so many times, it's highly unlikely I will ever spend money with ZOS again. Even if the product they're selling next starts out awesome, it will still have the same bean counters and customer service they've always had, so it will end up just like Cyrodiil no matter what it starts out as.

So much this.

I sincerely hope that the next project they plan to release isn't an mmorpg, because trying to draw from their existing/former customer pool will be very hard without something like the elder scrolls franchise to back it up. I think if you'd make a list of the words customers associate with their company, "quality" would be near the bottom. Definitely below the fold.

ragnarok6644b14_ESO

Ocelot9x wrote: »

Maybe some new content? Some better rewards? Im not a dev and im taking a dump atm and i can already think of:
-Faction caravans to attack/defend/ambush
-Guild controlled zones that generate some sort of passive income (in cyro)
-Revamp of the siege mechanics
-Balancing the meta

-Faction caravans is a cool idea - I could see this I suppose. Would it reduce the 'destination keep's' health or capability the way taking a resource does?
-Passive income for a guild will probably yield very awkward situations where guilds "pay" for land in cyrodiil with other guilds...
-Revamp how? Like, siege engines need crews now (like the battering ram) or?
- Balancing is ongoing and the Devs are doing this (even if they're not good at it, it's not something they aren't doing

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

performance is like 80% of the problem of why new stuff isnt added to cyro

they were intending originally to add in more artifacts like volendrung (such as auriels bow), but they noted that in their testing, these things ended up further degrading cyrodiil performance

i remember some other post they gave which was saying that they have tried to do many different things to improve performance, but a lot of these things either had no effect, or a negative effect and further degraded performance

so i think they are really trying to push stuff to cyro, but whatever mess of the code that cyro is running on seems to be like a jenga tower of instability, and trying to change or alter it causes further problems

in terms of what people have asked for is mainly limits to heal stacking to try to weaken ball groups

i also see requests for higher pop caps, or larger group sizes

"Better performance" is all well and good, but that's not likely to wink into existence as the result of a single update these days. It's likely a very complex issue that has to be untangled piece by piece - I doubt some coder is going to go "ah, geeze, if I just bound this list string instead of unbinding it, Cyrodiil Performance would've gone up 80%" *facepalms* "Update 45 PVP update yay!"

Larger groups and larger pop caps are reverting some of those software changes made to improve performance... I think they're pinned between:
1) something that can run on their servers
2) Something that can run on the world's coolest PC
3) something that can run on a toaster or ancient console

spartaxoxo

They announced weeks ahead of time that it wasn't Cyrodiil related and yet chat expected Cyrodiil updates anyway. Not much more they can say to that but "yup."

ragnarok6644b14_ESO

CrazyKitty wrote: »

The problem ZOS has now after neglecting Cyrodiil so blatantly for so many years is that they've done permanent harm to their reputation. I can only speak for myself here, but if ZOS never revives Cyrodiil to it's former glory as ZOS stated they would do so many times, it's highly unlikely I will ever spend money with ZOS again. Even if the product they're selling next starts out awesome, it will still have the same bean counters and customer service they've always had, so it will end up just like Cyrodiil no matter what it starts out as.

What "former glory" do you mean? I'm not sure Cyrodiil has ever satisfied everyone - I feel like "former glory" means back to infinite loadscreens, timeouts during big keep fights, etc. (which WERE worse than they are now!).

licenturion

JiubLeRepenti wrote: »

licenturion wrote: »

JiubLeRepenti wrote: »

Then find solutions for lord' sake. Get new engine, get new servs... We're litterally paying you for this game. The least we should have is a decent PvP area that is working properly after ten years.

They tried new servers. Didn't help much

And 'getting a new engine' is basically starting over. Even games that switched to another version number of Unity or Unreal Engine had massive issues and delays. They are stuck on hero engine. And given the teams have build up a lot of knowledge during the years working with this engine, I am pretty sure the next project will also with this engine. They keep upgrading it with every update too: HDR, DLSS, FSR, etc.

So I wouldn't expect much if you are being a realist about it.

This is probably my highest expectation indeed. To see ZOS use a new game engine, and to finally be able to bring us a huge part of QOL requests the community has made for many years.

But yea I'm realistic, I know there is 99% that this will never happen. The game has ten years old, and despite of what people may think, I personally see the game slowly dying and it doesn't seem like ZOS is really trying to revive the game or, at least, to reverse the current trend.

Regarding the engine change, I've heard some engines like the UE5 were facilitating the transposition. It would likely detect the assets from the old engine and automatically make a significant part of the job in transferring them from the old version to the new one. But of course I'm not a dev so I can't say much more about it. Which means they wouldn't restart from scratch. Beyond that, I still can't figure out why ZOS made the choice to base its engine on Hero Engine, which was designed in... 2005.

Conversion between the same engine is hard even when using conversion tools.
Conversion between other engines is extremely hard and especially if you use something old and niche engine like hero engine. Those conversion tools are probably non-existent.

I don't see them using a new engine for the next game honestly. The hundreds of people working at ZOS have years of experience and knowledge with this engine so switching to something else requires a lot of time, money and effort for the team. They also constantly update the current engine, which is probably because they are reusing this tech in a new upcoming game.

Also Bethesda and engines is always a weird story. Look at Starfield for example. That engine has still the underpinnings of Gamebryo from 1997. That is why they have this weird looking water and why a lot of stuff still has plenty of jank and didn't even have DLSS and HDR support for a flagship Xbox title released in 2023. Pretty sure the new single player elder scrolls will in that same engine.

Necrotech_Master

ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »

Ocelot9x wrote: »

Maybe some new content? Some better rewards? Im not a dev and im taking a dump atm and i can already think of:
-Faction caravans to attack/defend/ambush
-Guild controlled zones that generate some sort of passive income (in cyro)
-Revamp of the siege mechanics
-Balancing the meta

-Faction caravans is a cool idea - I could see this I suppose. Would it reduce the 'destination keep's' health or capability the way taking a resource does?
-Passive income for a guild will probably yield very awkward situations where guilds "pay" for land in cyrodiil with other guilds...
-Revamp how? Like, siege engines need crews now (like the battering ram) or?
- Balancing is ongoing and the Devs are doing this (even if they're not good at it, it's not something they aren't doing

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

performance is like 80% of the problem of why new stuff isnt added to cyro

they were intending originally to add in more artifacts like volendrung (such as auriels bow), but they noted that in their testing, these things ended up further degrading cyrodiil performance

i remember some other post they gave which was saying that they have tried to do many different things to improve performance, but a lot of these things either had no effect, or a negative effect and further degraded performance

so i think they are really trying to push stuff to cyro, but whatever mess of the code that cyro is running on seems to be like a jenga tower of instability, and trying to change or alter it causes further problems

in terms of what people have asked for is mainly limits to heal stacking to try to weaken ball groups

i also see requests for higher pop caps, or larger group sizes

"Better performance" is all well and good, but that's not likely to wink into existence as the result of a single update these days. It's likely a very complex issue that has to be untangled piece by piece - I doubt some coder is going to go "ah, geeze, if I just bound this list string instead of unbinding it, Cyrodiil Performance would've gone up 80%" *facepalms* "Update 45 PVP update yay!"

Larger groups and larger pop caps are reverting some of those software changes made to improve performance... I think they're pinned between:
1) something that can run on their servers
2) Something that can run on the world's coolest PC
3) something that can run on a toaster or ancient console

thats what i was implying with performance, we dont know the code complexities, and from what i seen even the devs themselves dont know how to fix those issues (ive seen various comments posted around that suggested that they dont even know how cyrodiil is still functioning with the way the code is and every time they tried to make changes, it only worsened performance, sometimes inexplicably or paradoxically)

im pretty sure a vast amount of the issue is the portion of the code running on their own servers, since a lot of these performance issues became significantly more noticeable after they moved pretty much all the calculations and processing serverside (primarily to combat cheating)

getting the new servers helped to some extent, but throwing hardware at a software problem wont fix any inherent problems within the software

thats why i dont think we have seen anything really significant for cyro in years is because they have to figure out how to add to it without further degrading performance

ragnarok6644b14_ESO

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »

Ocelot9x wrote: »

Maybe some new content? Some better rewards? Im not a dev and im taking a dump atm and i can already think of:
-Faction caravans to attack/defend/ambush
-Guild controlled zones that generate some sort of passive income (in cyro)
-Revamp of the siege mechanics
-Balancing the meta

-Faction caravans is a cool idea - I could see this I suppose. Would it reduce the 'destination keep's' health or capability the way taking a resource does?
-Passive income for a guild will probably yield very awkward situations where guilds "pay" for land in cyrodiil with other guilds...
-Revamp how? Like, siege engines need crews now (like the battering ram) or?
- Balancing is ongoing and the Devs are doing this (even if they're not good at it, it's not something they aren't doing

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

performance is like 80% of the problem of why new stuff isnt added to cyro

they were intending originally to add in more artifacts like volendrung (such as auriels bow), but they noted that in their testing, these things ended up further degrading cyrodiil performance

i remember some other post they gave which was saying that they have tried to do many different things to improve performance, but a lot of these things either had no effect, or a negative effect and further degraded performance

so i think they are really trying to push stuff to cyro, but whatever mess of the code that cyro is running on seems to be like a jenga tower of instability, and trying to change or alter it causes further problems

in terms of what people have asked for is mainly limits to heal stacking to try to weaken ball groups

i also see requests for higher pop caps, or larger group sizes

"Better performance" is all well and good, but that's not likely to wink into existence as the result of a single update these days. It's likely a very complex issue that has to be untangled piece by piece - I doubt some coder is going to go "ah, geeze, if I just bound this list string instead of unbinding it, Cyrodiil Performance would've gone up 80%" *facepalms* "Update 45 PVP update yay!"

Larger groups and larger pop caps are reverting some of those software changes made to improve performance... I think they're pinned between:
1) something that can run on their servers
2) Something that can run on the world's coolest PC
3) something that can run on a toaster or ancient console

thats what i was implying with performance, we dont know the code complexities, and from what i seen even the devs themselves dont know how to fix those issues (ive seen various comments posted around that suggested that they dont even know how cyrodiil is still functioning with the way the code is and every time they tried to make changes, it only worsened performance, sometimes inexplicably or paradoxically)

im pretty sure a vast amount of the issue is the portion of the code running on their own servers, since a lot of these performance issues became significantly more noticeable after they moved pretty much all the calculations and processing serverside (primarily to combat cheating)

getting the new servers helped to some extent, but throwing hardware at a software problem wont fix any inherent problems within the software

thats why i dont think we have seen anything really significant for cyro in years is because they have to figure out how to add to it without further degrading performance

Agreed - though I will say I wonder how much "being a flagship game for Google Stadia" affected their decision to move the calculations serverside (so it could be compatible with the stadia architecture), relative to "combating cheating". I'm sure they both played a role but would like to understand relative weight.

ZOS_Kevin

First, we do want to acknowledge folks sentiment here and know that we are providing the feedback of disappointment of no Cyrodiil content to the team. We understand many of you want new content for Cyrodiil and to address long standing issues. So we will continue to voice those concerns with the team. Gina and Brian mentioning Cyrodiil was not to raise hope and dash it, but to acknowledge the chat mentioning Cyrodiil during the stream.

The one thing we do want to note is that we have tried to make it clear for months now that this update would be Battlegrounds focused. We have noted that several times over the last few months here on the forum and on our social channels. We know this does not diminished the frustration. We just want to make it clear that we tried to set expectations accordingly to avoid disappointment. But we will take a look back and see how we can better set expectations next time to make sure we are being clear about the intention of the stream.

ForumSavant

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

First, we do want to acknowledge folks sentiment here and know that we are providing the feedback of disappointment of no Cyrodiil content to the team. We understand many of you want new content for Cyrodiil and to address long standing issues. So we will continue to voice those concerns with the team. Gina and Brian mentioning Cyrodiil was not to raise hope and dash it, but to acknowledge the chat mentioning Cyrodiil during the stream.

The one thing we do want to note is that we have tried to make it clear for months now that this update would be Battlegrounds focused. We have noted that several times over the last few months here on the forum and on our social channels. We know this does not diminished the frustration. We just want to make it clear that we tried to set expectations accordingly to avoid disappointment. But we will take a look back and see how we can better set expectations next time to make sure we are being clear about the intention of the stream.

I don't even mind the changes, I like the instanced 4v4 and 8v8, but where was it stated that it would be BG focused? All I had ever seen was that update 44 would be "PvP focused" with no real indication as to what that focus would be on.