Update on Cyrodiil Performance

Muizer

PvP is not set up to support hundreds in one locality at a time. I do not mean the technical capacity to do that without lag. I mean the game rules. You want it to take ten times more players to take a keep? It would probably take a nerf of corresponding magnitude to player stats to justify such numbers.
Perhaps if cyrodiil were one gigantic keep. That might make our individual contributions insignificant enough to justify needing hundreds.

I'm just saying discuss lag......sure, but please in ways relevant to the game we've had from day one, and not some utterly vague marketing phrase. That's nice for ranting purposes but that's as far as it goes.

Balance

On the Mac/OSX side you can't really PvP at all. The client has been crashing since launch due to memory leaks and the somewhat artificial limit of a 32Bit client.

The Mac Development team is doing a great job of being frank and open about client issues which is comforting and refreshing (some quoted responses below) and the reason I keep playing.

Unfortunately a proper fix isn't coming any time soon and the development team appear to be under-resourced. While a 64 Bit client isn't an instant panacea for everything, it is clear that the client is approaching being two major OS X releases behind and some under hood elements are probably being deprecated.........

It would be great if the Zenimax organization put some priority and funding toward keeping the Mac client up to date. Noting that Microsoft is moving towards a yearly update cadence, this won't stay an OS X only issue.

Lead Mac Developer Quotes:

KhajitFurTrader,

64 bit port is a non trivial amount of work..
Would take efforts from 4 teams, plus an OpenGL re write and fully replacing some 3rd party middleware.

On a positive note the Console builds are all 64bit and the core ESO game engine is 64bit compatible already.

HI everyone,

64bit clients area dual PC/MAC issue.
There will never be just a Mac 64bit build without the PC 64bit client.

Anyhow Balance is correct, 64bit will not be on the radar till after console launch. It is a very complex set of upgrades.

As for PC/MAC client issues in general they are being worked on constantly and all game / engine changes are share between all platforms.

Generally speaking if we fix a game play bug on 1 platform it gets fixed on all of them.

Mac memory related tweaks we hope improves the stability of ESO on 10.10 will be pushed to PTS soon.

GreySix etc,
There is currently no timeline for when a 64bit mac client would be released.

We will work on tuning memory issues.

Hi Wookyenub18_ESO

Thank you for the beautiful report.
This was exactly what we needed.

Today we were able to locate the root cause of why 10.10 does not play nice with many 32bit games.

Basically the Apples IOKit Framework that handles communications between hardware and the application works differently in 10.10.

1. It uses up more RAM then past OS versions.
2. When data is pushed to the GPU and later deleted. IOKit does not free up ram and instead stays at the high-water mark.

ESO crashes a lot when teleporting inside a zone because ESO loads in new data for the location you are teleporting to before releasing unused data. Unused data from the old location times out 5 seconds later. Thus pushing the GPU / IOKIT high water mark higher then what is actually needed to run the game.

PVP uses a lot more RAM then PVE on average which is why it crashes more.

The current solution is to run the game on medium or lower settings.

Anything that saves ram.

Texture quality is a big one.
Shadow quality setting it lower or off will save RAM.
Running at lower screen resolutions will save RAM.
View distance can save RAM since less textures will need to be loaded.
Rolling back to an OS version before 10.10 would also help a lot.

On our end we are going to have to figure out how to free up hundreds of megs of additional ram.

frozywozy

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO wrote: »

Why release Tamriel Unchained (sic) if the PvP is so bugged?

Because at this point, they have no choice. With no working plan for fixing it any time soon, or indeed ever, there is no use delaying the launch. The console release was already delayed one year, and delaying it further will probably kill it.

They do have a choice to slow down the complaints and get the attention of a legion of players back.

You can find it here

onlinegamer1 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.

No offense, but this is ridiculous.

What are we supposed to do when an enemy pushes for a scroll? Go run a dolmen?
What are we supposed to do when an enemy pushes for Emperor? Fish in the central lake?

Its not PvP, its AvAvA. The entire point is large scale battle. If we wanted small scale battles, we'd ask for Arena's and Battlegrounds. Which, FYI, would kill off participation in Cyrodiil 100%.

If you can't figure out how to eliminate lag, find someone who can. But don't tell players not to group up, that is the entire point of AvA.

I don't think the Arenas and Battlegrounds would kill the participation in Cyrodiil. Proof is, during primetime, Thornblade is overloaded so it would help alot to decrease the pressure on the popular campaigns and improve the latency.

Also keep in mind that adding those features would bring a ton of players who have been asking for it, back in Teso, and it would bring also a ton of new players so it is a good project medium term.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that with the ressources they have at the moment, after seeing the amount of stuff they put in patch 1.6, they could easily put some devs to build 5maps for small scale pvp and ease the frustration of some pvpers in the mean time.

Grraauuggh wrote: »

Ok, so maybe this is a dumb question, but why not just make cyrodiil larger, with more stuff to lose? The more spread-out the map is, with more objectives to take that are also harder to travel to, the less likely it is that everyone would simply stack up on choke points for AP, assuming you combined this with a change to mechanics that would allow people to gain similar AP/XP gains in Cyrodiil from smaller encounters. This would also eliminate lag from simply being "near" a large battle, since you'd be more likely to be further away from it.

This seems like evidence of a larger issue to me, which is that there have been little to no new enhancements to PvP content since launch, aside from the combat balancing issues. While I am certainly appreciative of everything Zenimax has done to balance the combat, it certainly is striking that we don't even have the Imperial City unlocked yet. Imagine if each alliance had twice the number of keeps to defend!

I recognize that adding content is not a simple, easy undertaking, but given how big of a problem the lag issue is, it seems like adding more potential encounters, more diversity to the types of encounters, and just a larger map in general would be worth the effort in order to eliminate the lag issues. Am I missing something here?

G

Maybe add a double transit line around the emp inner keeps so people could have 4 fronts to push. For example, from the EP side, you could push :

- Arrius => Chalman => Bleakers => Aleswell
- Arrius => outpost north of Chalman => outpost north of Bleakers => Aleswell
- Arrius => Brk => Sejanus => Alessia
- Arrius => outpost east of Brk => outpost east of Sejanus => Alessia

That would surely help to spread out the battles and give more options to open the transit. They would have to increase the size of Cyrodiil to make sure that the ride back to defend a flagged keep isn't too short.

Recremen

While I hope the code itself is getting appropriately updated to fix some of these issues, behavior-based fixes are going to require an assessment of what players are actually looking for in AvAvA. Specifically, you should look at which guilds are causing the situation (the high-member, highly organized ones who have a solid hope of taking or defending a keep) and see if there are ways to incentivise their disperal versus their concentration.

As an example, it would be important to see why Havoc and IR run together, or Decibel and DIE, and to see why they feel the need to direct the pugs all to one location. Is it for an emp push? Is it just to farm AP? Does the answer to that change every few hours?

For one thing, and in my experience the most important thing, absolutely every player is out to get AP, big guilds even more so. So regardless of if someone's grabbing a resource or a keep to farm, the longer they are there the more incentive they have to stay and the more the absent members of the faction have to come. More player concentration means much, MUCH more AP potential! The absolute first thing you should look into is a way to make spreading out on the map more profitable than bunching up.

The other reason large groups bunch is for good fights. That's my guild's absolute #1 priority. Good fights are that sweet spot of large-enough player teams meeting up to be entertaining without causing server lag. So whatever you do to incentivise going to forlorn areas of the map, make sure there's a reason to resist as well! Maybe have better AP scaling for a smaller number of people in a resource/keep radius? If you were to do that, you'd want to make bridges and milegates have some kind of defense tic, because those are notoriously easy places to farm in large numbers (though actually I don't remember lag being too bad there, most of the time).

I hope that helps!

Rune_Relic

@ZOS_PaulSage
Thanks for being up front and honest about the situation.
In the spirit of trying to help with performance.

Performance is worse in 1.6 with large groups to me.
The difference is partly the revamped skills I guess..but the major difference is how those skills are cached.

Before you used to stack power.
Now the power remains the same with the major/minor buffs...BUT the duration is stacked instead.
This gives the situation where the higher the player density, the bigger and bigger queue of buffs/debuffs every player gets attached to them. All of which is coded to "run on server".

My solution....

• Stop stacking skills into a queue. If major/minor buff/debuff is already active...ignore any repeat requests that are incoming or outgoing.
• Have a queue limit on HoT/DoT stacks for every player and be as brutal as necessary to improve performance dropping any surplus skills that are incoming or outgoing.

At the end of the day if I have 10 lethal arrows incoming I am going to die.
No point stacking all the incoming jesus beams + glyphs + aoe + .....you get the picture.

I understand some skills will not hit everyone all the time in a massive battle (would I know ?).
But at least there will be a massive battle...and that is the priority no ?

Basically implement a damage priority system...dropping damage/heals as load increases.
If the player queue can accept more damage..it will take the next incoming one...dropping the rest.
Server drops skills if there is no queue to place them.
UI addonds can report "X skill is dropped" in such situations and the cost to stamina/magicka get refunded unless its aoe.
Tune the queue length to throttle performance in Cyrodiil.

eventide03b14a_ESO

That's great in theory but there is no tactical advantage to splitting up especially when you are severely outnumbered by your opponent. Likewise if you have an advantage in numbers why wouldn't you take it? You are asking us to voluntarily not help our own forces because it will cause lag even if it means losing resources and keeps. I understand why you said that, but I just don't see it happening unless your provide some sort of incentive.

TehMagnus wrote: »

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...

I see a lot less zerging now than before 1.6. I don't think this still the issue.

WebBull wrote: »

All spell effects should be removed. Casting/bow/weapon animations OK but get rid of all spell effects.

I think they actually provide a useful visual aid, not to mention it would be a lot more boring without them.

Armitas wrote: »

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

Hello everyone,



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.

Respectfully, this is not a long term solution.

I cannot stress how important it is to have large scale pvp as a selling point of your game. Large scale PvP is a title that will continually attract new PvPers, but subdued pvp will only retain current pvpers. Of those retained many will leave once an MMO comes out with large scale PvP. You will also divide guilds so that they cannot all play together in the same place.

Losing this title is a very big deal, I urge you to find a long term solution. You have 2 console editions coming out with a brand new audience, do not lose this selling point.

I agree, however lag free PvP is better than large scale PvP that can't be effectively played. It's not a long term solution but it's better than nothing. Again, nobody is going to voluntarily allow a keep to be overrun because it will cause lag to go help defend it though.

bloodenragedb14_ESO wrote: »

i think it might help by added a non-pvp instance of cyrodiil for roleplayers, explorers, and people who generally dont like pvp. that might help illeviate traffic on some servers

The problem really only happens when people cluster together though, so this is probably not even a solution to the problem.

WebBull

With the removal of FC's players are less spread out. If you want players to spread out more, implement some sort of transport to farther out areas. Perhaps put a wayshrine for each alliance in the center of the map (until IC is implemented or something along these lines.

Jando

Hmmm.maybe if they released the Imperial City it would disperse the player hordes.

s7732425ub17_ESO

Was removal of the AOE caps a major cause of the increased lag?

Jargo

I feel like handling Cyrodiil in a similar way to the way to how DAoC handled the frontiers may be a solution. PVE in Cyrodiil should be more rewarding due to the danger involved. This creates small groups of players doing things around Cyrodiil, and incentivizes small groups or stealthers to go hunt them. Perhaps further incentivizing this by making the cities offering daily quests sending resources/bonuses to whatever faction is doing the most quests for them. Maybe reinforcements of guards or better equipped guards.

Right now the resource nodes in Cyrodiil seem flat, they seem to have little effect outside from cutting off teleports. It'd be interesting if you could literally starve out a keep or slow/stop repairs. Maybe adding some resource nodes that don't belong to any keeps that benefit all keeps for its controlling faction. You could do things like a very large mine, a smuggling routes from outside of Cyrodiil in, or out of the imperial city to the rest of the country.

Lionxoft

Muizer wrote: »

PvP is not set up to support hundreds in one locality at a time.

Funny thing about that is the marketing explicitly states that it can.

Featuring three-sided Player vs. Player (PvP) gameplay, The Elder Scrolls Online supports hundreds of players on screen at once in an open world fight for control of Cyrodiil.

Source:
http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/game-guide/the-alliance-war

o_0

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

Just to clarify. There seemed to be a misunderstanding that I was saying we are "giving up" or "blaming this on players." Absolutely not. We are looking at the issue from many angles. I certainly didn't mean to imply we couldn't or wouldn't change code to improve performance, but rather that the answer wasn't more hardware. (It is often suggested this is the best way to fix problems.) I also wasn't implying you shouldn't play naturally, but unfortunately it is true that more players right now in a smaller area causes the performance problems. I say this not to discourage behavior or try push off the issue, but rather to give completely frank information about the root cause.

Thank you, not for the info....but open, honest communication with the players. I'd rather have information told to me bluntly then be told nothing at all, or have it be sugar coated or lacking info. To me, and I think a lot of players, this is all we really want. If you keep this kind of open communication up, I will support you, and this game to the bitter end.

PeggymoeXD

so dont try to pull the "people dont play on other servers" card or "the best PvPers are on Thornblade"

especially since your ability to gain AP, unfortunately, has absolutely nothing to do with how skilled you are in PvP and rather how skilled you are at sitting in the right place at the right time. The best players in PvP look for opportunities to actually use their skills. Which DOES NOT involve zerg-blobbing and spamming aoe's.

o_0

I do like all of the suggestions being posted, it at least shows the players will to want this game to succeed. Unfortunately we do not know the exact cause of the lag. Whether is be code limitations, processing limitation, hardware limitation,or a combination of the 3.

It may not be as simple as a code fix, or increasing the processing power to handle all of the calculations if the bottleneck is caused by the inherent limits of the engine the game is designed on. If that is the case, i do not see a way of fixing it without redesigning the game. Can't simply copy/paste onto a new engine, and i highly doubt the money is available for any sort major overhaul.

timidobserver

I like it when Paul Sage posts stuff. I appreciate an real response teling us what is really going on, even if it isn't what we want to hear, rather than the usual canned stuff that we get from other ZOS staff.

asneakybanana

Okay so you dont want us to zerg yet EVERY patch youve introduced since 1.0 has encouraged zerging more and more. We had very little lag back when ground oils and necrotic orbs and frag shields were around because people were afraid to clump up due to a massive damage spike. I realize you dont want this game to be AoE focused but having everyone running single target and focusing one player at a time. If you give us ways to do more damage vs the zergs whether thats buffing AoE damage, giving us more damage based on the number of targets hit, or buffing siege damage such as making the snare from oil catapults unpurgable and oil pots being a one shot unless purged. This will force people to actually think rather than just saying oh look we have 100 people lets just charge the flags and spam heals, if they do that they will be killed before the lag.

frozywozy

asneakybanana wrote: »

Okay so you dont want us to zerg yet EVERY patch youve introduced since 1.0 has encouraged zerging more and more. We had very little lag back when ground oils and necrotic orbs and frag shields were around because people were afraid to clump up due to a massive damage spike. I realize you dont want this game to be AoE focused but having everyone running single target and focusing one player at a time. If you give us ways to do more damage vs the zergs whether thats buffing AoE damage, giving us more damage based on the number of targets hit, or buffing siege damage such as making the snare from oil catapults unpurgable and oil pots being a one shot unless purged. This will force people to actually think rather than just saying oh look we have 100 people lets just charge the flags and spam heals, if they do that they will be killed before the lag.

What makes me laugh even more if when I see people ANTI-GUILD, ANTI-GROUP, ANTI everything that involve group play ask for an ability to destroy and annihilate any "zerg" in their way. Then once Zenimax brings out that new ability and all those specific groups, guilds or zergs start spamming that ability, everyone start freaking out even more. hahahaha

GorraShatan

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

Just to clarify. There seemed to be a misunderstanding that I was saying we are "giving up" or "blaming this on players." Absolutely not. We are looking at the issue from many angles. I certainly didn't mean to imply we couldn't or wouldn't change code to improve performance, but rather that the answer wasn't more hardware. (It is often suggested this is the best way to fix problems.) I also wasn't implying you shouldn't play naturally, but unfortunately it is true that more players right now in a smaller area causes the performance problems. I say this not to discourage behavior or try push off the issue, but rather to give completely frank information about the root cause.

I think it's more frustration that the situation is getting worse rather than better, and that the communication from ZOS is vague at best. Which is better than no communication (and thanks for both yourself and @ZOS_BrianWheeler taking the time to comment).

Something like "we're going to try change X next week, but don't want to get everyone's hopes up yet" even would be good.

BTW, if you want to break up the zergs a bit, try shortening the casting time (but maybe lengthening the detonation timer) for the Magicka Detonation skill. It's pretty good but takes way too long to cast as is, and it should deter zergs.

Also, players seem to think it's all the meteor spam gimping things.

Any communication and transparency at all is greatly appreciated, so please keep the information coming.

Gyudan

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

Just to clarify. There seemed to be a misunderstanding that I was saying we are "giving up" or "blaming this on players." Absolutely not. We are looking at the issue from many angles. I certainly didn't mean to imply we couldn't or wouldn't change code to improve performance, but rather that the answer wasn't more hardware. (It is often suggested this is the best way to fix problems.) I also wasn't implying you shouldn't play naturally, but unfortunately it is true that more players right now in a smaller area causes the performance problems. I say this not to discourage behavior or try push off the issue, but rather to give completely frank information about the root cause.

Maybe it would be the right time to add small arenas and the Imperial City in order to reduce the scale of battles in the rest of Cyrodiil.

#bringbackthedeers

Yolokin_Swagonborn

PvP worked before the lighting patch. Yes there was still bugs and occasional lag but nothing like this.

It worked with massive keep battles and sieges and everything going on at once.

I shudder to think of what will happen if 100s of players return in a few days and try to PvP.

ItsRejectz

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. 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 basically what you are saying is, you can't provide the stable large scale battles in PvP that you promised.

Zabania

I will just leave it here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohOUU_fI14E&feature=youtu.be

PainfulFAFA

I think it's more frustration that the situation is getting worse rather than better, and that the communication from ZOS is vague at best. Which is better than no communication (and thanks for both yourself and @ZOS_BrianWheeler taking the time to comment).

Something like "we're going to try change X next week, but don't want to get everyone's hopes up yet" even would be good.

BTW, if you want to break up the zergs a bit, try shortening the casting time (but maybe lengthening the detonation timer) for the Magicka Detonation skill. It's pretty good but takes way too long to cast as is, and it should deter zergs.

Also, players seem to think it's all the meteor spam gimping things.

Any communication and transparency at all is greatly appreciated, so please keep the information coming.[/quote]

That bolded part is key because I also believe the meteor spamming has something to do with the lag.
The other day AD was taking BRK when I noticed a well-organized red group of about 20 suddenly SPAM meteor on a group of about 20-30 yellows. All of a sudden there was a huge lag spike and we ended up wiping.

You have to think about the animation of meteor+ knock back effects+DOT to consider the possibility that casting 20-30 meteors simultaneously might cause SOME lag.

tplink3r1

Well, it seems latency wont be fixed.

Kupoking

Its pretty simple, Zenimax

Come in thornblade during primetime, when EP pushes for scrolls and emperor and at what is really happening there

Yolokin_Swagonborn

houimetub17_ESO wrote: »

Its pretty simple, Zenimax

Come in thornblade during primetime, when EP pushes for scrolls and emperor and at what is really happening there

It is kinda funny how the lag magically stops right after EP gets emperor on thorn. There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from this:

EP emperors reduce lag

If we just kept an EP Emp at all times we would have no more lag.

Draehl

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. 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.

Paul,

Anything to improve upon small scale pvp! Adding more objectives in the towns, delves, bridges, ruins, ayleid wells, etc. If I might offer just some general ideas how to both achieve this and add to the fun of Cyrodiil:

• Let delve bosses drop items to assist in crafting higher quality siege engines, forward camp alternatives such as single use instant rez-stones or other items useful to the overall war effort. Then add a Cyrodiil specific trading post to sell these items to them. We could act as mercenaries of a sort for our own alliance- acquire these items either during PvP down-times or simply as a play preference for people who like Cyrodiil, but not necessarily the keep warfare aspect.
• Capturing/controlling a town might allow us to do their quests and as a reward get an item to deploy temportary npc scouts that report enemy movement on an area of the map or extra guards that help secure the defenses of a nearby keep.
• Holding a bridge or junction might speed the movement on nearby roads for allies. Also, add a movement speed bonus for roads (baseline) this would give players the option to move more quickly around cyrodiil while also bringing players not necessarily a part of a zerg in more frequent contact with each other via the road system.
• Extend the bounty system to add quests to hunt a specific player. Have it give the general area of the map they are currently in, and provide a nice bonus for killing said player! Tie into this more bountiful PvE quests in Cyrodiil and you'll see players start splitting up and then going after one another.
• Make Cyrodiil the most bountiful gathering area in the game. Implement actual mines/lumber mills/fields that can be controlled for access to higher quality nodes. This could be tied into the current resource incarnations or implemented separately, further out in the wilds. Also, add smaller "events" (similar to daedric rifts) where a temporary rich resource node spawns and some mechanic announces this to nearby players. Add a control mechanic to that area, and voila, instant small scale PvP.

KeplerMG

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

We are currently investigating ways in which we can reduce the spike of performance loss.

Many players believe that the changes made to how AOE works have made the problem worse. I would also like to make sure you are aware that Thornblade has the most problems. This was not well known until recently; everyone always assumed it was because Thornblade is the most populated server. Other servers have become more popular recently, due to players running from Thornblade lag. Those servers seem to do much better under stress.

ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »

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.

It feels as though the hardware or software is not optimized. If this is not the case, then it feels like the server is being attacked. At least thats how it feels on Thornblade. It is one or the other. If it is niether, then ZOS must ask themselves is this content is worthy of the finished and polished feel of a console box release.

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. 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.

Finishing the Imperial City would help. This feels so long overdue. I sometimes wonder if the game will live long enough to see the day.

Much of what I've had to say may or may not be a result of widely accepted and widely popular belief that a certain group of EP players on Thornblade have found a way to attack the server to turn battles in their favor. They can be detected a mile away by their signature and stylistic 999 server latency bomb gift then send before them.

Please be aware of this possibility. Were not experts, but we play the game and we know how it feels, and we see the patterns. Treat our explanations of these symptoms as if you were doctors.

Kevinmon

Just GET RID OF THE *** LIGHTING PATCH IN CYRODIIL!!!!! THIS WILL SOLVE ALL YOUR PROBLEMS!!!

STICK PVP ON PTS SERVER BEFORE LIGHTING PATCH, AND HOST AN EVENT AND SEE IF IT CRASHES

Or actually PLAY on Thornblade NA during prime time with EP, AND FOLLOW AROUND HAVOC AND IR AND SEE HOW THEY ARE CAUSING THE LAG

KeplerMG

Kevinmon wrote: »

Just GET RID OF THE *** LIGHTING PATCH IN CYRODIIL!!!!! THIS WILL SOLVE ALL YOUR PROBLEMS!!!

STICK PVP ON PTS SERVER BEFORE LIGHTING PATCH, AND HOST AN EVENT AND SEE IF IT CRASHES

Or actually PLAY on Thornblade NA during prime time with EP, AND FOLLOW AROUND HAVOC AND IR AND SEE HOW THEY ARE CAUSING THE LAG

Agree.