Update on Cyrodiil Performance

ZOS_PaulSage

Hello everyone,

Our Cyrodiil performance is something we are very aware of. Performance drags when there are numerous players in the same place at the same time. This is why performance in Cyrodiil is fine for much of the day, but gets worse during more popular times. We are currently investigating ways in which we can reduce the spike of performance loss. We added in some features for Update 6 which we hoped would help, but ultimately did not. This is not a situation where we can just add more hardware. Player population in a given area hurts the performance and the more people that are in one area, the more performance is going to be hurt.

Actively, we are looking at changing the behavior of the players to remove incentives for large groups to stay in the same area. We want to do this by providing larger incentives for Alliances to split up and take on multiple-challenges in Cyrodiil. We’ll continue to work on this. We are also asked by players if there is anything they can do to help. In this situation, the best thing you can do is split off to different objectives when you notice performance going down. Cyrodiil is a big place with lots of different things to do. And thank you for asking.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Hi @ZOS_PaulSage thanks for commenting on this issue.

I have a few questions with the above statement.

1) by saying 'Cyrodiil is a big place with lots of different things to do." are you refering to daily quests and dungeons as well as pvp or purely varied PVP objectives?

I would say that for those who like to play PVP there are only 2 things to do, wait for defense or attack a keep. Aside from Bridge fights or Horse simulator to get to a keep your attacking there aren't really any varied things to do for PVP because there are no objectives other than taking keeps and fighting at the lines between the keeps.

Even if we spread out to separate keeps (which harms our alliances chance of taking the keep) the lag persists because of a fight somewhere else on the map

2) Which features were added to help performance in Update 6? The last PTS event the server crashed 5 times and there wasn't a second event so I wasn't aware of what was added. Can you elaborate?

3) Other than resolving performance issues what is coming up for PVP aside from Imperial City

Edit: 4) As has been commented numerous times by players performance seemed a lot better during the start of the game and got noticably worse as the patches were applied. I think it was something like 1.2.4? (someone else can correct me here) where performance started going drastically down hill. Would/Could there ever be plans to try and roll back to this version and host it on another PTS server to let us test and see if our assumptions are true?

Thanks

Elsonso

Show areas on the map that are overpopulated.

While, to many this will be the place to go, to others it will mean that other places might be less defended. This might encourage battle on multiple fronts. That, in turn, could serve to divert resources away from crowded areas.

Edit: close down the wayshrine into a fort if the population gets too large.

Beldorr

Does this mean we are going to lose our crossed swords on the map to stop people from going to the area looking for fights?

AllPlayAndNoWork

Yep..... Blame the PvPers for PvPing...... Sorry this feels like a cop out.

DHale

I am glad one of the leaders is engaged in fixing this. We all love this game and I certainly do. I have invested many hundreds of hours into the game so I have a few thoughts:

There was better performance before around 1.2 and 1.3 and I think your security measures (bots and exploiters) and the patch with "improved lighting" messed things up. There were more ppl in Cyrodil and yet better performance at the time.

The Zergers have way more AP than non zergers. If you do not change that the incentive is to be where the biggest population of players are at. The zergers help you within your faction or to kill other faction players then it won’t be addressed any time soon. If you can’t fix the lag then you need to give incentive to spread out as you say. Also it take a lot of AP to level alliance rank and therefore Assault and Support ranks so the incentive is to farm AP any way you can. Let us level assault and support like any other skill. I for one won’t chase AP as I am chasing AP to get vigor and combat frenzy and the combat medic.

You have reduced damage for siege significantly which used to be the best way to get groups to scatter. This needs to be reversed and buffed up. Neither I nor other ppl in my guild even bother with personnel siege since the update.

Imminent destruction is not the not the zerg buster I was hoping for. The channel time gets lagged out and 2 seconds become 10 and sometimes it does not fire at all and makes it look like I am perma hitchhiking. It should do way more damage like when 6 enemy are near or something like that. It will discourage grouping and zerging. The other ability is soul shatter when you are about to die. It does min damage and should really level the playing field as in really doing tremendous damage but your death is imminent so it’s not ever going to be spammed. Maybe it does min damage when one person is there and scales as more ppl are within 5 meters for example. Players that have this passive are ticking time bombs and if multiple ppl have this then zergs will hesitate running into other groups that all are ticking time bombs that would stack on one another.

Those two abilities should be the hardest hitting abilities in the game and generate min damage alone but more ppl near the damage goes up dramatically but really close proximity say again 5 meters. I put 2 points into soul shatter when close to death but currently this does minimum damage... buff this up considerably. ppl should fear being close to you when you die. Currently, zerging maximizes damage and increase survivability and lowers risk you must address these variables or nothing will change.

Those are my thoughts,

ItsGlaive

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of Cyrodiil is large-scale PVP. You guys boasted about this no end in the run up to release. Now you're saying large groups are to be discouraged? Seriously this isn't on. Rather than splitting up large scale PVP, please invest more in your PVP server architecture or in redoing the code. Use some of the upcoming cash from the impending box sales on console.

You should be fixing the problem, not giving up with it and asking us to do something else.

AllPlayAndNoWork

Even the art work during load screens is of "armies" fighting each other........

DHale

Sorry it just occured to me if you had a formal duel area it will bleed a lot of the best players to there and reduce population especially the zerging inclined players. I wont miss Germantrocity killing me a dozen times or whatever you made him rename himself cause he is OP.

ItsGlaive

If large scale PVP is the problem, then can ZOS please change all PVP descriptions to say it supports 'tens of players' instead of 'hundreds'? It's misleading advertising.

frozywozy

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

Hello everyone,

Our Cyrodiil performance is something we are very aware of. Performance drags when there are numerous players in the same place at the same time. This is why performance in Cyrodiil is fine for much of the day, but gets worse during more popular times. We are currently investigating ways in which we can reduce the spike of performance loss. We added in some features for Update 6 which we hoped would help, but ultimately did not. This is not a situation where we can just add more hardware. Player population in a given area hurts the performance and the more people that are in one area, the more performance is going to be hurt.

Actively, we are looking at changing the behavior of the players to remove incentives for large groups to stay in the same area. We want to do this by providing larger incentives for Alliances to split up and take on multiple-challenges in Cyrodiil. We’ll continue to work on this. We are also asked by players if there is anything they can do to help. In this situation, the best thing you can do is split off to different objectives when you notice performance going down. Cyrodiil is a big place with lots of different things to do. And thank you for asking.

Thank you for the update Paul, very appreciated.

As some people mentionned in this thread, I though that the first objective of Cyrodiil was to introduce large scale PvP. I understand that this could be only a temporary solution to try to split people appart while you guys figure out a better way to solve performance issues, but I don't think this is going in the right direction anyway.

I think that engineers spent more than enough time to try to figure out the way to fix the performance issues in Cyrodiil. It is now time to accept that it isn't going to get better and try to focus on different aspects of PvP that could bring alot of customers / subscribers back.

Yes, I am indeed reffering to Arenas and Battleground. Those small scales instances of PvP would be perfect to suite the desire of battle of many folks and would be lag free.

Before you lose even more players, I think it is time to start considering small scale instances of PvP and spend more time developping those than you spend to fix performance issues in Cyrodiil. I think most will agree that we waited long enough.

tinythinker

Always good to see more communication on such issues. I am sure there have been countless internal discussions on ways to help alleviate the bunching problem in Cyrodiil. Trying to get players to choose a particular way of playing and organizing sounds particularly hard. I am sure there are many factors I am missing, but a few thoughts that occur to me:

1. Make taking and holding enemy strongholds progressively harder so that an Alliance that is dominating has to spend more time on defense. This might aid in lessening the whole "one faction dominating a campaign" trend and force players to decide what is worth holding. Alliances would be spread more thinly the more they captured.

2. Add content that may be unique to particular campaign or campaign cycle, such as a special rules/special event campaign (cycle). This might aid in getting people onto different campaigns.

3. Add achievements that encourage players to spread out and try different things within a campaign. Some that I've suggested in the past might help a little with this but if the goal is to get people to disperse I am sure other achievements could be thought of to help with this.

4. Introduce more abilities to discourage zerging/bunching.

No one thing or set of changes is going to be a "fix" and the crowding issue for PvP will be a continual challenge, but even modest improvements in performance will be greatly appreciated.

5. More instanced/partitioned content (like PoW camps). I am guessing there will be such separation with Imperial City.

Edited to add another idea someone proposed:

6. Make Cyrodiil bigger to have room for more content and to make controlling strategic locations more of a challenge.

c0rp

So every time EP assaults a keep we should not defend and go somewhere else. Got it.

Darklord_Tiberius

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

Hello everyone,

Our Cyrodiil performance is something we are very aware of. Performance drags when there are numerous players in the same place at the same time. This is why performance in Cyrodiil is fine for much of the day, but gets worse during more popular times. We are currently investigating ways in which we can reduce the spike of performance loss. We added in some features for Update 6 which we hoped would help, but ultimately did not. This is not a situation where we can just add more hardware. Player population in a given area hurts the performance and the more people that are in one area, the more performance is going to be hurt.

Actively, we are looking at changing the behavior of the players to remove incentives for large groups to stay in the same area. We want to do this by providing larger incentives for Alliances to split up and take on multiple-challenges in Cyrodiil. We’ll continue to work on this. We are also asked by players if there is anything they can do to help. In this situation, the best thing you can do is split off to different objectives when you notice performance going down. Cyrodiil is a big place with lots of different things to do. And thank you for asking.

@ZOS_PaulSage Have you guys at ZOS talked about revamping the PvP structure? I have posted about this many times already and will continue to post about it until someone from ZOS answers me.

Cyrodiil is stale sorry to say. It really has no affect on the entire world other than these passive buffs that are garbage and break your entire idea of PvP interactions. Not sure where the PvP server idea came from, but from all the downsides to it; has there been any legitimate thought of changing how Cyrodiil works?

I feel ZOS you would have more success with PvP if you did away with PvP servers and just made one Cyrodiil and split it into 3-4 different maps and increased their size. If you connected those maps in a way that required certain objectives were needed to open up the Imperial city, it would spread the player population around better than what you have in place now. The way this games PvP structure is set up with "servers" it will always have performance issues.

I do not think this is to much to ask, especially seeing what you guys did in 1.6 and completely revamped the game. PvP also needs a reboot and a restructure and honestly Cyrodiil feels like it has nothing to do with the rest of the zones. Which is odd because isn't this games idea based around an Alliance War? Incorporating Cyrodiil into the rest of the game would be nice to see, other than those garbage "buffs". Two posts on this idea I already talk about. What are you going to do ZOS? http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/1620087#Comment_1620087
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/156803/future-idea-for-cyrodiil-and-a-more-stable-pvp-experience#latest

NukeAllTheThings

So basically our battles should never look like this?

https://youtu.be/MQFxE4AESn4?t=50s

MASSIVE, EPIC BATTLES

The Elder Scrolls Online features the largest PvP battles seen in a major online RPG. The game supports hundreds of onscreen players in epic battles. Swords and axes collide, spells and powers illuminate the ground and sky, and fires rage on embattled stronghold walls. Will you survive these epic battles? Can your overwhelming force take the keep, or will you be forced to retreat?

The Elder Scrolls Online is built to accommodate hundreds of players onscreen at once.

Might want to change that in the game guide on this site

tinythinker

Darklord_Tiberius wrote: »

I feel ZOS you would have more success with PvP if you did away with PvP servers and just made one Cyrodiil and split it into 3-4 different maps and increased their size. If you connected those maps in a way that required certain objectives were needed to open up the Imperial city, it would spread the player population around better than what you have in place now. The way this games PvP structure is set up with "servers" it will always have performance issues.

I like this, as it would also create more room for the kind of new Cyrodiil content and achievements I've been hoping to see.

ItsGlaive

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

So basically our battles should never look like this?

https://youtu.be/MQFxE4AESn4?t=50s

Apparently not, but that's what their marketing still promises.

Darklord_Tiberius

frozywozy wrote: »

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

Hello everyone,

Our Cyrodiil performance is something we are very aware of. Performance drags when there are numerous players in the same place at the same time. This is why performance in Cyrodiil is fine for much of the day, but gets worse during more popular times. We are currently investigating ways in which we can reduce the spike of performance loss. We added in some features for Update 6 which we hoped would help, but ultimately did not. This is not a situation where we can just add more hardware. Player population in a given area hurts the performance and the more people that are in one area, the more performance is going to be hurt.

Actively, we are looking at changing the behavior of the players to remove incentives for large groups to stay in the same area. We want to do this by providing larger incentives for Alliances to split up and take on multiple-challenges in Cyrodiil. We’ll continue to work on this. We are also asked by players if there is anything they can do to help. In this situation, the best thing you can do is split off to different objectives when you notice performance going down. Cyrodiil is a big place with lots of different things to do. And thank you for asking.

Thank you for the update Paul, very appreciated.

As some people mentionned in this thread, I though that the first objective of Cyrodiil was to introduce large scale PvP. I understand that this could be only a temporary solution to try to split people appart while you guys figure out a better way to solve performance issues, but I don't think this is going in the right direction anyway.

I think that engineers spent more than enough time to try to figure out the way to fix the performance issues in Cyrodiil. It is now time to accept that it isn't going to get better and try to focus on different aspects of PvP that could bring alot of customers / subscribers back.

Yes, I am indeed reffering to Arenas and Battleground. Those small scales instances of PvP would be perfect to suite the desire of battle of many folks and would be lag free.

Before you lose even more players, I think it is time to start considering small scale instances of PvP and spend more time developping those than you spend to fix performance issues in Cyrodiil. I think most will agree that we waited long enough.

That is a bad idea. To have them abandon world PvP to cater to instance PvP is just bad. If I want to play swtor I would go back to it.

Phoenix Rising has been playing on Haderus/Chillrend the past 4 months and many times have had locked pops across the board and amazingly enough without much "performance" issues. The problem with Thornblade is the people on that server. Until they spread the population out like it is supposed to work, that server will always have performance issues. I have hundreds of videos I will gladly load of up of epic large battles over the past 4 months, so dont try to pull the "people dont play on other servers" card or "the best PvPers are on Thornblade" because all those are, are excuses.

They need to develop instance PvP alongside open world PvP, not pick one over the other.

Turelus

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

Actively, we are looking at changing the behavior of the players to remove incentives for large groups to stay in the same area.

From someone who has played EVE Online for many years I wish you the best of luck in this, because sadly as long "bring more people means we win" is an effective strategy it's going to happen.

Here is an image that explains it.

JTorus

Xabien wrote: »

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

So basically our battles should never look like this?

https://youtu.be/MQFxE4AESn4?t=50s

Apparently not, but that's what their marketing still promises.

The difference between that video and what goes on in Thorn, is the amount of spammed abilities. We've all been there, stacked on the flag, mountains of abilities going off and nothing happening. I do not think they anticipated that type of play style.

You know what does work though? While everyone's spamming talons, bats, atronachs and heals use a light attack. Try it. Next time there's that big push for a flag, tab target someone and light attack them. Goes right through.

Xnemesis

I think that Macros assigned to individual buttons that fire off combos of abilities, weapon attacks, animation canceling, and weapon swaps might be to blame. I know of players who will macro an ability then a reg attack, a weapon swap, a buff, and then another weapon swap all into one key press, and this all gets achieved in very quick succession. Not to mention when this specific button is mashed 3 or so times every second it starts to compound upon itself.... Now imagine 50 players doing this all in one location.... starting to see the issue? This is only one of many concerns I have. The lack of PvP content is also troubling, keep flipping, emp flipping, and some balance issues were among my greatest concerns. I haven't played 1.6 yet and I am not sure if I will so I apologize if these issues have already been addressed.

umagon

Not a hardware issue makes me think the back end server code is not 64 bit.

frozywozy

Darklord_Tiberius wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

Hello everyone,

Our Cyrodiil performance is something we are very aware of. Performance drags when there are numerous players in the same place at the same time. This is why performance in Cyrodiil is fine for much of the day, but gets worse during more popular times. We are currently investigating ways in which we can reduce the spike of performance loss. We added in some features for Update 6 which we hoped would help, but ultimately did not. This is not a situation where we can just add more hardware. Player population in a given area hurts the performance and the more people that are in one area, the more performance is going to be hurt.

Actively, we are looking at changing the behavior of the players to remove incentives for large groups to stay in the same area. We want to do this by providing larger incentives for Alliances to split up and take on multiple-challenges in Cyrodiil. We’ll continue to work on this. We are also asked by players if there is anything they can do to help. In this situation, the best thing you can do is split off to different objectives when you notice performance going down. Cyrodiil is a big place with lots of different things to do. And thank you for asking.

Thank you for the update Paul, very appreciated.

As some people mentionned in this thread, I though that the first objective of Cyrodiil was to introduce large scale PvP. I understand that this could be only a temporary solution to try to split people appart while you guys figure out a better way to solve performance issues, but I don't think this is going in the right direction anyway.

I think that engineers spent more than enough time to try to figure out the way to fix the performance issues in Cyrodiil. It is now time to accept that it isn't going to get better and try to focus on different aspects of PvP that could bring alot of customers / subscribers back.

Yes, I am indeed reffering to Arenas and Battleground. Those small scales instances of PvP would be perfect to suite the desire of battle of many folks and would be lag free.

Before you lose even more players, I think it is time to start considering small scale instances of PvP and spend more time developping those than you spend to fix performance issues in Cyrodiil. I think most will agree that we waited long enough.

That is a bad idea. To have them abandon world PvP to cater to instance PvP is just bad. If I want to play swtor I would go back to it.

Phoenix Rising has been playing on Haderus/Chillrend the past 4 months and many times have had locked pops across the board and amazingly enough without much "performance" issues. The problem with Thornblade is the people on that server. Until they spread the population out like it is supposed to work, that server will always have performance issues. I have hundreds of videos I will gladly load of up of epic large battles over the past 4 months, so dont try to pull the "people dont play on other servers" card or "the best PvPers are on Thornblade" because all those are, are excuses.

They need to develop instance PvP alongside open world PvP, not pick one over the other.

Not sure how you associate Arenas and Battlegrounds with strictly one game. Arenas and Battlegrounds have been part of most known mmos for almost a decade, nothing specific to SWTOR.

Also, I didn't say to ABANDON large scale PvP (Cyrodiil), I suggested to spend more time developping small scale PvP because it's been prouven that it would be lag free and would interest probably thousands of players.

I like your idea to to increase the size of Cyrodiil and to split the map in 3-4 different zones (servers) to increase performances. That would help for sure and personally I would rather have to wait for a loading screen when traveling between two zones rather than enduring the poor latency we've been going through.

TehMagnus

Idea to stop zergin: Change the new "Kamikaze" ability and increase it's damage depending on the # of players that are around the target. If there are more than 10 people in a 5m radius, then detonate for 100K AOE damage.

See if they keep zerging then...

Darlgon

Our guild constantly fights 24 man raids VS 40-60 players. While we can accumulate AP, pretty much with those numbers, we (most of the time) eventually get overwhelmed, sometimes after 1-2 hour keep fights. Basically, the only way to fight a zerg of 2-3 raids is to have two or more raids. What part of this is being missed? Getting more points on the scoreboard, for keeps you cant keep, is useless when you have one bar vs a cap locked Alliance.

Darklord_Tiberius

For some of you, here is a tip: Constructive criticism is much better received than you complaining. I have been playing since Beta and have experienced much much more of the problems in Cyrodiil than probably 98% of you. I am frustrated sure, but what this game has to offer is far better than anything else out currently. Help give solutions for the issues, rather than be part of the problem.

My solution was for them to revamp PvP structure, what is yours? Memes? yea...

AllPlayAndNoWork

ok...

1) Bridges are pretty strategic in any war.......... have them with a flag that they have to hold to keep the enemy from getting to the keep, that keeps it smaller scale and away from the keep... have so that you close a portcullis or gate and they have to break it to move on thru, and they have to hold it.
2) Have more smaller outposts/sentry points dotted near keeps with a flag also
3) Change the layout of the grounds around keeps and the keeps themselves (moats/mountain passes etc) funnel them into small groups so that is the only way to take a keep.
4) Make it so that you have to hold certain locations on the map or around a keep to be able to get to the keep in the 1st place.
you have three resources but they can be ignored with big groups atm.

Atm keeps are far to easy to siege. Make them impenetrable until certain conditions are met (bridge, resources, outposts, sentry points) and they have to be manned by the enemy or the keep gets much much harder to take.

This keeps a lot of players away from each other and adds strategy to the game rather than who zergs/lags the hardest.




Thank you i am here all week, job done.

Xupacabra

The new meteor damage spam, is making the lag that we also know from bomb groups, this time players dont need be all toghether to spam meteors, there is always that unplayable lag when meteor spam begins, just like bomb groups skill spaming. 10vs 10 spaming this is enought to make lag unplayable so dont start lock sonner even more the campaigns plz.

Robbmrp

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

Hello everyone,

Our Cyrodiil performance is something we are very aware of. Performance drags when there are numerous players in the same place at the same time. This is why performance in Cyrodiil is fine for much of the day, but gets worse during more popular times. We are currently investigating ways in which we can reduce the spike of performance loss. We added in some features for Update 6 which we hoped would help, but ultimately did not. This is not a situation where we can just add more hardware. Player population in a given area hurts the performance and the more people that are in one area, the more performance is going to be hurt.

Actively, we are looking at changing the behavior of the players to remove incentives for large groups to stay in the same area. We want to do this by providing larger incentives for Alliances to split up and take on multiple-challenges in Cyrodiil. We’ll continue to work on this. We are also asked by players if there is anything they can do to help. In this situation, the best thing you can do is split off to different objectives when you notice performance going down. Cyrodiil is a big place with lots of different things to do. And thank you for asking.

So why not add in Arena battles then. This will help to reduce the Cyrodil population while giving players more PVP options. Or better yet, why not open up all zones to world pvp making it possible for people to pvp anywhere. Or just part of zones.

Also, maybe it's time to start thinking about more than just two servers EU and NA. With larger populations coming into the game if you doubled the existing servers that would help spread out people to help with lag. If you don't have the hardware capacity to resolve the issue this may be the only viable option at some point.

Darklord_Tiberius

frozywozy wrote: »

Darklord_Tiberius wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

Hello everyone,

Our Cyrodiil performance is something we are very aware of. Performance drags when there are numerous players in the same place at the same time. This is why performance in Cyrodiil is fine for much of the day, but gets worse during more popular times. We are currently investigating ways in which we can reduce the spike of performance loss. We added in some features for Update 6 which we hoped would help, but ultimately did not. This is not a situation where we can just add more hardware. Player population in a given area hurts the performance and the more people that are in one area, the more performance is going to be hurt.

Actively, we are looking at changing the behavior of the players to remove incentives for large groups to stay in the same area. We want to do this by providing larger incentives for Alliances to split up and take on multiple-challenges in Cyrodiil. We’ll continue to work on this. We are also asked by players if there is anything they can do to help. In this situation, the best thing you can do is split off to different objectives when you notice performance going down. Cyrodiil is a big place with lots of different things to do. And thank you for asking.

Thank you for the update Paul, very appreciated.

As some people mentionned in this thread, I though that the first objective of Cyrodiil was to introduce large scale PvP. I understand that this could be only a temporary solution to try to split people appart while you guys figure out a better way to solve performance issues, but I don't think this is going in the right direction anyway.

I think that engineers spent more than enough time to try to figure out the way to fix the performance issues in Cyrodiil. It is now time to accept that it isn't going to get better and try to focus on different aspects of PvP that could bring alot of customers / subscribers back.

Yes, I am indeed reffering to Arenas and Battleground. Those small scales instances of PvP would be perfect to suite the desire of battle of many folks and would be lag free.

Before you lose even more players, I think it is time to start considering small scale instances of PvP and spend more time developping those than you spend to fix performance issues in Cyrodiil. I think most will agree that we waited long enough.

That is a bad idea. To have them abandon world PvP to cater to instance PvP is just bad. If I want to play swtor I would go back to it.

Phoenix Rising has been playing on Haderus/Chillrend the past 4 months and many times have had locked pops across the board and amazingly enough without much "performance" issues. The problem with Thornblade is the people on that server. Until they spread the population out like it is supposed to work, that server will always have performance issues. I have hundreds of videos I will gladly load of up of epic large battles over the past 4 months, so dont try to pull the "people dont play on other servers" card or "the best PvPers are on Thornblade" because all those are, are excuses.

They need to develop instance PvP alongside open world PvP, not pick one over the other.

Not sure how you associate Arenas and Battlegrounds with strictly one game. Arenas and Battlegrounds have been part of most known mmos for almost a decade, nothing specific to SWTOR.

Also, I didn't say to ABANDON large scale PvP (Cyrodiil), I suggested to spend more time developping small scale PvP because it's been prouven that it would be lag free and would interest probably thousands of players.

Guessing you never played swtor, so you obviously do not understand my reference.

You posted,

"I think that engineers spent more than enough time to try to figure out the way to fix the performance issues in Cyrodiil. It is now time to accept that it isn't going to get better and try to focus on different aspects of PvP that could bring alot of customers / subscribers back."

That all but screams abandon Cyrodiil and focus on Instance PvP. If that was not your intention, may I suggest word choice next time.

HeroOfNone

give smaller scale structured pvp. Maybe you don't like the lore premise or the wall of text, but if the server is lagging cause there are 200+ people in an area, then make a pvp mode where a map can only allow 72, or 36, or 12, etc.