Brian's Comment in Last Live Stream - "Supposed to be a war"

Area51Visitor

This has been driving me nuts since I heard him say it. He hinted to increased siege damage to break up groups; and noted that PVP wasn't supposed to be one giant open battlefield, it was "supposed to be a war". This confuses the crap out of me. What have we been doing all this time? And ESO skills are specifically designed for group play so if their working to break up groups, wth is the point. My guess, peeps will quit the game before they stop stacking. His comment made me just wonder if the attempt to break up group is simply because they can't solve the lag; their engineers aren't qualified and so they look to battle tactics to mitigate design flaw, realizing they can't produce the PVP they set out to create.

Well...that's my rant, but I actually wrote because this question has been driving me nuts: if what we are doing isn't considered a "war", then what the heck did he envision the battles to be like?

Xjcon

You claim it's their tech that's the sole issue but I hate to break it to you. the network throughout the world is not perfect either. If everyone was close to the server I think you could say it's their hardware that's the sole issue, but you have people all over the world in AVA.

phairdon

Always thought the map was too big.
Let's face it, zergs & blobs can be a very efficient way to take anything down (my experience from gw2), or smaller highly skilled groups.
Gotta say though, skill lag could be seriously bad at times in gw2 world vs world, when two gigantic zergs were squaring off. Not surprised lag is an issue in ESO pvp.

Wing

I think he was referring to the fact that most times the entire population of either side(s) is engaged in a single fight in a single area, instead of fighting several smaller battles across the entire map.

phairdon

Wing wrote: »

I think he was referring to the fact that most times the entire population of either side(s) is engaged in a single fight in a single area, instead of fighting several smaller battles across the entire map.

Same thing happens in gw2. Zerg goes from point to point attacking. Other side/sides stay in keeps & towers defending.

Area51Visitor

Wing wrote: »

I think he was referring to the fact that most times the entire population of either side(s) is engaged in a single fight in a single area, instead of fighting several smaller battles across the entire map.

I might agree, though the game gives no incentive to. Had they produced random events, rotating objectives, etc. maybe...but I can't imagine designers thinking people would not follow and collect in large groups; it's human nature and honestly taught in many intro courses.

Area51Visitor

Xjcon wrote: »

You claim it's their tech that's the sole issue but I hate to break it to you. the network throughout the world is not perfect either. If everyone was close to the server I think you could say it's their hardware that's the sole issue, but you have people all over the world in AVA.

Actually I didn't speak about the hardware really.

Merlin13KAGL

Here's an alternative idea - make the NPC AI actually worth a damn and fewer defenders would be required. It's irritating when all hell's breaking loose in the courtyard and the NPC's are just standing about or tethering back. Completely eliminates certain areas of threat for the attacker.

The more drawn out it became, the more defense would be automatically put up. Have visual bonuses from the resources, not just the stronger walls, etc.

Likewise, when you take a resource, and seige from that resource, why wouldn't NPC's join in? I'm not talking mercenary level, but something... The occasional auto-negate or heal from mage guards could go miles towards breaking up zergs.

golfer.dub17_ESO

You don't need a giant zerg of thirty people for skill synergies to work...

They aren't trying to break up groups, they're trying to divert that incoming tidal wave that looks like it's composed of enemy players.

Vizier

I'm not finding anything wrong with Brian's statement.

Group up. Blob up if you want. There is inherent advantage in that but there should also be vulnerability in that too. Fact is siege weaponry, previous to the damage buff WAS A JOKE. Now? Not so much. It is absolutely doing what is should with regard to it's effect on the enemy.

IMO this is really an non-issue.

They do really need to provide other pertinent objectives throughout the map though to spread the populations out and give incentives for small group play.

Attorneyatlawl

Vizier wrote: »

I'm not finding anything wrong with Brian's statement.

Group up. Blob up if you want. There is inherent advantage in that but there should also be vulnerability in that too. Fact is siege weaponry, previous to the damage buff WAS A JOKE. Now? Not so much. It is absolutely doing what is should with regard to it's effect on the enemy.

IMO this is really an non-issue.

They do really need to provide other pertinent objectives throughout the map though to spread the populations out and give incentives for small group play.

My name is Attorneyatlawl and I approve this message.

mikedirtbike

You think it's laggy now just wait until imperial city comes.

Obscure

Clearly the best way to optimise server architecture and remove lag is to increase siege weapon damage, add drops from dolmens that do even more siege damage, and give an AP boost to players for killing delve bosses. I mean that's how Google optimised their server architecture and removed lag right?

Seriously it's not even bad design, it's too lazy to be bad. One must actually try in the first place for something to be considered a failure. It's not even a fail, it's a cop out.

Lord_Kreegan

Brian obviously never studied military history or tactics; "mass" is one of the fundamental principles of warfare.

In any case, if they want a war maybe they should remove all buffs so we won't have any more "buff campaigns", and remove player ladders; see how many players then support the "war" out of loyalty to their alliance/faction, or loyalty to their race, or loyalty to their guild, or loyalty to their family, or loyalty to ... I don't know... anything?

I don't think they're technically incompetent, but their engine is a piece of crap. They're stuck with it at this point so they're rationalizing its faults rather than throwing in the towel.

Just remember to reboot your router every couple of hours... and your modem... and your PC... and, oh, make sure to reboot your mouse and keyboard, too... and your wrist watch; that could be causing problems.

Attorneyatlawl

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

Brian obviously never studied military history or tactics; "mass" is one of the fundamental principles of warfare.

In any case, if they want a war maybe they should remove all buffs so we won't have any more "buff campaigns", and remove player ladders; see how many players then support the "war" out of loyalty to their alliance/faction, or loyalty to their race, or loyalty to their guild, or loyalty to their family, or loyalty to ... I don't know... anything?

I don't think they're technically incompetent, but their engine is a piece of crap. They're stuck with it at this point so they're rationalizing its faults rather than throwing in the towel.

Just remember to reboot your router every couple of hours... and your modem... and your PC... and, oh, make sure to reboot your mouse and keyboard, too... and your wrist watch; that could be causing problems.

I'm not sure if this is meant satirically or not, but let's remove rewards from vet dungeons, dsa, trials, and quests too! We can see how loyal people are to saving Tamriel from evil then! Just to note also, a new client engine wouldn't help anything, as it is server latency not your local machine being discussed here as far as "lag". If you're having framerate problems, that's indeed your computer. ESO has a rather good client graphically at least as far as visual fidelity vs performance onvarious hhardware configuration my testing. Beyond that there's precious little anyone not a ZOS employee or contact would know such as how their netcode is structured, so it's hard to not assume you're joking with this post, but hey, if you're not then now you know!

Area51Visitor

Suppose saying unqualified or incompetent was wrong, but if a system doesn't work simply admit your inability to solve it, that you didn't properly check before implementing it, and design something that does. Unfortunately Cyrodil is strategic to the architecture and story of the game; they might be screwed. Perhaps some sort of story line could break Cyr into multiple zones, perhaps coldharbor could invade, allowing more than the 3 main quadrants; placing EP camps/bases in DC zones, AD camps/bases in EP zones; this might spread peeps throughout the region and allow groups to meander about more, rather than concentrating the entire population on the one objective holding them back from the next.

Varicite

Area51Visitor wrote: »

Wing wrote: »

I think he was referring to the fact that most times the entire population of either side(s) is engaged in a single fight in a single area, instead of fighting several smaller battles across the entire map.

I might agree, though the game gives no incentive to. Had they produced random events, rotating objectives, etc. maybe...but I can't imagine designers thinking people would not follow and collect in large groups; it's human nature and honestly taught in many intro courses.

They're trying to do exactly that; give incentives to players to spread out.

Of course, the PvP community is unhappy w/ this being part of the solution. Everyone wants to do exactly what they've always done and just have ZOS "fix it".

To be fair, though, ZOS was also the company that encouraged players to do exactly what they've been doing from the start, so it's not really the players' fault.

"200 vs 200 onscreen w/ no lag", I believe was what was advertised, no?

timidobserver

Xjcon wrote: »

You claim it's their tech that's the sole issue but I hate to break it to you. the network throughout the world is not perfect either. If everyone was close to the server I think you could say it's their hardware that's the sole issue, but you have people all over the world in AVA.

It's like some people choose to ignore that the lag in Cyrodil has gotten worse over time. The world's internet didn't get slower.

MercyKilling

War...........


....war never changes.

Anoteros

A war that only has baring on the world in Cyrodil. Nowhere else.
I feel so immersed /sarcasm

stewart.leslie76b16_ESO

timidobserver wrote: »

Xjcon wrote: »

You claim it's their tech that's the sole issue but I hate to break it to you. the network throughout the world is not perfect either. If everyone was close to the server I think you could say it's their hardware that's the sole issue, but you have people all over the world in AVA.

It's like some people choose to ignore that the lag in Cyrodil has gotten worse over time. The world's internet didn't get slower.

I can't argue with that, but more and more items are now connecting to the internet and using up resources. Everything seems to be web based now and designed for the mobile user. I wondering though how companies are able to promise lag free service if you choose to connect to ESO through them, it still has to go through the same wires as my connection.

Zhoyzu

Anoteros wrote: »

A war that only has baring on the world in Cyrodil. Nowhere else.
I feel so immersed /sarcasm

and you're just gonna ignore the 15 zones stories about the war. ok go ahead

sadownik

stewart.leslie76b16_ESO wrote: »

timidobserver wrote: »

Xjcon wrote: »

You claim it's their tech that's the sole issue but I hate to break it to you. the network throughout the world is not perfect either. If everyone was close to the server I think you could say it's their hardware that's the sole issue, but you have people all over the world in AVA.

It's like some people choose to ignore that the lag in Cyrodil has gotten worse over time. The world's internet didn't get slower.

I can't argue with that, but more and more items are now connecting to the internet and using up resources. Everything seems to be web based now and designed for the mobile user. I wondering though how companies are able to promise lag free service if you choose to connect to ESO through them, it still has to go through the same wires as my connection.

And at the same time net infrastructure gets bigger, better and faster, "same wires as my connection"? Doubt it.

Hookgrin

Another thing they forget it how a large scale battle, even a full on zerg can run smoothly for quite some time, actually achieving the hundreds onscreen claim, then all of a sudden a 15 second freeze or a 999+ latency that we all experience.

Clearly that is not our computer's fault, not the internet's fault. What choked the server just then? How come the server could calculate all those interactions for seconds, even minutes before, but not just then? Could a buffer have overflowed? A matrix needs a larger index? Why do they not have the statistical analysis to find out? If it worked just before and just after, then the problem is not how many people are together. There is something going wrong in the system at that moment. Exacerbated by large numbers of players yes, or maybe intentionally caused by bug exploiting. But I have been in many very large battles where there were no problems.

And about their "fixes" to spread people out - 20% AP boost to kill a boss, Cold Siege for doing a Dolmen, really? What do you do after you kill that boss? Get back into battle to earn that AP! After that dolmen? Get back into battle to use that Cold Siege! How is that spreading people out? So a dozen from each zone are coming and going at any given time through out the evening to keep the AP buff going, compared to over a hundred in battle that is not going to make any difference. If anything, having a larger percentage of players coming and going from battle areas more often would put just as much load on the database, possibly even more.

I suggest they create an experimental new campaign. With no Home/Guest exclusions, all can join (up to the cap). In this campaign, strip all PVE, remove the dolmens, the delves, the quest hubs and all NPCs except for Guards. This would represent a large reduction in load on the server. For the client, when you enter this campaign, rain is disabled, particle effect distances are lowered and certain visual effects are lowered (things you would not notice, none of the major graphic settings). This is a Cyrodiil dedicated to that war that he talks about. More fluff for spreading out is , well, more fluff for the server to deal with and more adding and removing players from the area of effect matrices.

And keep digging deep into that code, there is a problem in there. And consider re-coding recent changes. Some added features need to be implemented more efficiently. Don't waste your time on ways to spread people out.

j3crow

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

Brian obviously never studied military history or tactics; "mass" is one of the fundamental principles of warfare.

Just to add a little more to the above quote.

Mass, Offensive, Objective, Surprise, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Security, Simplicity..

These are the basic principles of maneuver warfare.

In a limited, 3D simulation, that is going to boil down to large blobs of toons, moving on point objectives, with the occasional guerrilla action (ganking follow-on forces) in rear areas. Spreading groups out tactically with AOE is ok, but overall there are still going to be large masses.

His statement makes me think that ZoS is thinking in the terms of creating an 'atmosphere' instead understanding that when you create large scale RVR, you're creating a tactical/strategic simulation. They keep trying to 'blend in' different PVP play styles into one environment. That's not gong to work.

The majority of folks who will continue to play in a large battle field, are folks who care about 'winning the war'.

They would have been better served by also including small scale instanced scenarios like CTF that would serve folks who prefer that kind of play. That and arenas for the guys that like to do that. But trying to combine it all and literally go backwards from the original intent is a failed idea.

j3crow

Hookgrin wrote: »

suggest they create an experimental new campaign. With no Home/Guest exclusions, all can join (up to the cap). In this campaign, strip all PVE, remove the dolmens, the delves, the quest hubs and all NPCs except for Guards. This would represent a large reduction in load on the server. For the client, when you enter this campaign, rain is disabled, particle effect distances are lowered and certain visual effects are lowered (things you would not notice, none of the major graphic settings). This is a Cyrodiil dedicated to that war that he talks about. More fluff for spreading out is , well, more fluff for the server to deal with and more adding and removing players from the area of effect matrices.

And keep digging deep into that code, there is a problem in there. And consider re-coding recent changes. Some added features need to be implemented more efficiently. Don't waste your time on ways to spread people out.

Also an excellent idea. I would add to that a floating soft-cap on population so that the largest faction could never be more than X larger than the smallest faction in the campaign. I'm sure that's a technical nightmare. However, it's a nightmare worth pursuing

AngryNord

j3crow wrote: »

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

Brian obviously never studied military history or tactics; "mass" is one of the fundamental principles of warfare.

Just to add a little more to the above quote.

Mass, Offensive, Objective, Surprise, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Security, Simplicity..

These are the basic principles of maneuver warfare.

In a limited, 3D simulation, that is going to boil down to large blobs of toons, moving on point objectives, with the occasional guerrilla action (ganking follow-on forces) in rear areas. Spreading groups out tactically with AOE is ok, but overall there are still going to be large masses.

His statement makes me think that ZoS is thinking in the terms of creating an 'atmosphere' instead understanding that when you create large scale RVR, you're creating a tactical/strategic simulation. They keep trying to 'blend in' different PVP play styles into one environment. That's not gong to work.

The majority of folks who will continue to play in a large battle field, are folks who care about 'winning the war'.

They would have been better served by also including small scale instanced scenarios like CTF that would serve folks who prefer that kind of play. That and arenas for the guys that like to do that. But trying to combine it all and literally go backwards from the original intent is a failed idea.

This is medieval warfare though... Not too much strategy back then, mostly a couple of hundred men charging in one long row... Heck, they even kept on doing that until well into the firearms era...

stewart.leslie76b16_ESO

sadownik wrote: »

stewart.leslie76b16_ESO wrote: »

timidobserver wrote: »

Xjcon wrote: »

You claim it's their tech that's the sole issue but I hate to break it to you. the network throughout the world is not perfect either. If everyone was close to the server I think you could say it's their hardware that's the sole issue, but you have people all over the world in AVA.

It's like some people choose to ignore that the lag in Cyrodil has gotten worse over time. The world's internet didn't get slower.

I can't argue with that, but more and more items are now connecting to the internet and using up resources. Everything seems to be web based now and designed for the mobile user. I wondering though how companies are able to promise lag free service if you choose to connect to ESO through them, it still has to go through the same wires as my connection.

And at the same time net infrastructure gets bigger, better and faster, "same wires as my connection"? Doubt it.

How so? I have to connect to their service through my internet supplier. Unless the company providing the service has their own dedicated pipes linking directly to the ESO servers, that company has to go through the same network that everyone else is using. And as most ISPs are companies who are answerable to shareholders, not much gets put into investment of the infrastructure. Even then, if the network is running smoothly, what about the lag caused server side, it will still be there.

Anoteros

Zhoyzu wrote: »

Anoteros wrote: »

A war that only has baring on the world in Cyrodil. Nowhere else.
I feel so immersed /sarcasm

and you're just gonna ignore the 15 zones stories about the war. ok go ahead

Where do we fight the opposing factions apart from PVP?
Where do we have open warfare in the world apart from Cyrodil?
Where are towns allied to your faction when you complete the quest line for that hub?
Where are faction armours?
Where IS this war in the WORLD?!

Vizier

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

Brian obviously never studied military history or tactics; "mass" is one of the fundamental principles of warfare.

In any case, if they want a war maybe they should remove all buffs so we won't have any more "buff campaigns", and remove player ladders; see how many players then support the "war" out of loyalty to their alliance/faction, or loyalty to their race, or loyalty to their guild, or loyalty to their family, or loyalty to ... I don't know... anything?

I don't think they're technically incompetent, but their engine is a piece of crap. They're stuck with it at this point so they're rationalizing its faults rather than throwing in the towel.

Just remember to reboot your router every couple of hours... and your modem... and your PC... and, oh, make sure to reboot your mouse and keyboard, too... and your wrist watch; that could be causing problems.

Umm...You're joking right? Mass is one of the fundamental principles of warfare? Perhaps you are referring to Mass and speed = force or impact? That is great and all but that's what grenades and things that go boom are for. Strength in numbers is nothing vs firepower and superior strategy and tactics.

Remember the early days after release? The engine was fine and battles with 200 plus ran smooth as silk on my machine. I remember being amazed. Then ZoS introduced the post processing lighting and effects update. THAT is when virtually everyone started crying about Cyrodiil being lagged out. So ya, technically it's the engine but it's not the engine. It's all the post processing eye candy they shoved down our throats while providing no means to actually toggle it all off.

sadownik

Vizier wrote: »

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

Brian obviously never studied military history or tactics; "mass" is one of the fundamental principles of warfare.

In any case, if they want a war maybe they should remove all buffs so we won't have any more "buff campaigns", and remove player ladders; see how many players then support the "war" out of loyalty to their alliance/faction, or loyalty to their race, or loyalty to their guild, or loyalty to their family, or loyalty to ... I don't know... anything?

I don't think they're technically incompetent, but their engine is a piece of crap. They're stuck with it at this point so they're rationalizing its faults rather than throwing in the towel.

Just remember to reboot your router every couple of hours... and your modem... and your PC... and, oh, make sure to reboot your mouse and keyboard, too... and your wrist watch; that could be causing problems.

Umm...You're joking right? Mass is one of the fundamental principles of warfare? Perhaps you are referring to Mass and speed = force or impact? That is great and all but that's what grenades and things that go boom are for. Strength in numbers is nothing vs firepower and superior strategy and tactics.

Remember the early days after release? The engine was fine and battles with 200 plus ran smooth as silk on my machine. I remember being amazed. Then ZoS introduced the post processing lighting and effects update. THAT is when virtually everyone started crying about Cyrodiil being lagged out. So ya, technically it's the engine but it's not the engine. It's all the post processing eye candy they shoved down our throats while providing no means to actually toggle it all off.

First - in semi medieval battleground mass is a principle. Gather up and storm the objective.

Second- im really not so sure about post procesing that lags the game. Mind you i have no technical knowlege, aparty from absoutly casual dealing with pc's, but for me lag=delay in data transmision betwen client and server. And although lighting patch could lower our fps i doubt its to blame for what we have now - most obvious lags.

If i had to speculate i would say that in the time of adding lighting effects they added something else, perhas some anti cheating code?