Azura Star EU

T@rty

or uninstall windows 10............

Lava_Croft

I think Azura is great for seeing organized guilds get run over by groups of a randoms roughly the same size.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Lava_Croft wrote: »

I think Azura is great for seeing organized guilds get run over by groups of a randoms roughly the same size.

I don't think i've ever seen this on azura lol. Interesting how different the game looks on different sides.

Tors

I think Azura is great for watching 2 level 30 somethings kill entire raids of vr16s when they all crash at the same time.

Funny stuff (the first few times anyway)

Good proof the problem with the lag is nothing to do with the players or their rigs, but the cheap under-resourced servers that a B2P game can afford to rent.

Erondil

T@rty wrote: »

kkravaritieb17_ESO wrote: »

Decimation elite...small scale. The meteor spam is real when they see us.

That would be to counter your Steel Tornado train ;-)

As for the ping in Azura's EU at the moment, it is ridiculous to the point where people wander off to pve rather than play pvp. I know that's the case for both the girlfriend and I, when normally we would rather be running with Elite in Azura's

Rofl you know how many stamina builds we have in our usual 12-15 man raid? 3-4 not more, which I think isnt a number high enough to qualify us as "Steel tornado train".
Anyways, spamming steel tornado is a crappy gameplay sure, but its nothing comparable to meteor spam in order to intentionally exploit the fall damage bug.

prootch

Let's say both are crappy on Azurlag ^^

Cogo

Lag wasn't that bad compared to the past months. Loading screens was sometimes quicker then trying to GET INTO A DAMN KEEP DOOR!

Will be an interesting week!

kkravaritieb17_ESO

T@rty wrote: »

kkravaritieb17_ESO wrote: »

Decimation elite...small scale. The meteor spam is real when they see us.

That would be to counter your Steel Tornado train ;-)

As for the ping in Azura's EU at the moment, it is ridiculous to the point where people wander off to pve rather than play pvp. I know that's the case for both the girlfriend and I, when normally we would rather be running with Elite in Azura's

We barely have 1-2 guys playing stamina ... so if you re ignorant and have 0 clue what you re talking about please refrain from saying things that are not happening.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

@Turelus @T@rty
Perhaps you could convey to your esteemed leadership that running in groups of 40+ isn't a tremendous idea. This might reduce the performance issues you are battling with.

Note whether you have more than 24m in your group is another point. But training along with all the pugs between the main keeps is mainly what I'm referring to. (When 60 reds turn up at alessia for example)

Turelus

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

@Turelus @T@rty
Perhaps you could convey to your esteemed leadership that running in groups of 40+ isn't a tremendous idea. This might reduce the performance issues you are battling with.

Note whether you have more than 24m in your group is another point. But training along with all the pugs between the main keeps is mainly what I'm referring to. (When 60 reds turn up at alessia for example)

It's been done, in fact the very same night that you whispered me about it.

Problem is it's the natural way of uncapped/regulated sandbox PvP.
If you're not winning bring more numbers until you do win, no one is going to agree to saying "Actually let's not depose the AD Emperor because we shouldn't bring more than 24 people to this final keep and their 24 are better than ours."

Don't get me wrong blobbing or zerging or whatever you want to call it isn't exactly something I want to encourage and I much prefer having two or more raids of 24 max moving around the map doing different objectives (apart from lol guild night when we try to get 50+ into one channel/raid). There comes a time though when just bundling everything you have into one keep is the best tactic in this game if you're out matched.

WillhelmBlack

Think we need to spread out a bit, forward camps should help when they come back. At the moment it's huge blue zergs vs large red AoE spam groups vs yellow super spam groups. All whilst there's nothing going on on the rest of the map. It's literally asking for lag when we're all clashing together at the same, all the time.

Tankqull

WillhelmBlack wrote: »

Think we need to spread out a bit, forward camps should help when they come back. At the moment it's huge blue zergs vs large red AoE spam groups vs yellow super spam groups. All whilst there's nothing going on on the rest of the map. It's literally asking for lag when we're all clashing together at the same, all the time.

forward camps do not spread anything. never have nor ever will.

WillhelmBlack

Tankqull wrote: »

WillhelmBlack wrote: »

Think we need to spread out a bit, forward camps should help when they come back. At the moment it's huge blue zergs vs large red AoE spam groups vs yellow super spam groups. All whilst there's nothing going on on the rest of the map. It's literally asking for lag when we're all clashing together at the same, all the time.

forward camps do not spread anything. never have nor ever will.

Not for EP then, my memory of them was great. Fights across the map.

Tankqull

Turelus wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

@Turelus @T@rty
Perhaps you could convey to your esteemed leadership that running in groups of 40+ isn't a tremendous idea. This might reduce the performance issues you are battling with.

Note whether you have more than 24m in your group is another point. But training along with all the pugs between the main keeps is mainly what I'm referring to. (When 60 reds turn up at alessia for example)

It's been done, in fact the very same night that you whispered me about it.

Problem is it's the natural way of uncapped/regulated sandbox PvP.
If you're not winning bring more numbers until you do win, no one is going to agree to saying "Actually let's not depose the AD Emperor because we shouldn't bring more than 24 people to this final keep and their 24 are better than ours."

Don't get me wrong blobbing or zerging or whatever you want to call it isn't exactly something I want to encourage and I much prefer having two or more raids of 24 max moving around the map doing different objectives (apart from lol guild night when we try to get 50+ into one channel/raid). There comes a time though when just bundling everything you have into one keep is the best tactic in this game if you're out matched.

no one is blaming unblobed zerglings their behaviour does not effect server issues at all. the blobs(and no i do not mention the char :P) do and they are actively initiated and not accidently by sandbox pvp behaviour

Jhunn

Tankqull wrote: »

forward camps do not spread anything. never have nor ever will.

Do you remember the days of the foward camps? Fights were actually spread across the map, because you could go somewhere far away and didn't have to horse simulate all the way back. What do we have now? 2 or 3 swords on map, always the same places - gates, bridge or Arrius f*cking lumber.

Turelus

I am worried this may only become worse with changes to make keeps harder to siege as well. At least right now with the "ninja" method you can make one group go across the map to steal something behind enemy lines.

They need reasons for different areas of the map to be worth attacking/holding.

Ring keeps: Emperor
Home keeps: Scroll defence/IC access
Quest Towns: AP buffs?
Outposts: Ability to use camps on that segment of the map?

Things which add more tactics to what you're attacking/defending and why and with worthwhile rewards so everyone no matter their play style is interested in defending those assets, and would need to retreat from a current attack to do so.

Currently on my side of things if EP has been pushed, we don't have one of our scrolls and are fighting to hold Arrius then everyone bundles up there as it's the best solution they see. However more than once Wabbajack has broken that siege by running a group away from everyone else to hit the keep holding our other scroll (assuming it's the same faction on the attack) giving them a reason to withdraw some of their forces to react to the new threat.

Right now there are not enough ways to cause those threats because unless you care about winning a campaign (very few do now) there isn't a desire to retreat and defend when you're on a push.

DeanTheCat

Jhunn wrote: »

Tankqull wrote: »

forward camps do not spread anything. never have nor ever will.

Do you remember the days of the foward camps? Fights were actually spread across the map, because you could go somewhere far away and didn't have to horse simulate all the way back. What do we have now? 2 or 3 swords on map, always the same places - gates, bridge or Arrius f*cking lumber.

Capture Arrius Lumbermill is the best quest in the game

Jhunn

DeanTheCat wrote: »

Capture Arrius Lumbermill is the best quest in the game

I'd like to see statistics of how often this thing has flipped

Turelus

Tankqull wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

@Turelus @T@rty
Perhaps you could convey to your esteemed leadership that running in groups of 40+ isn't a tremendous idea. This might reduce the performance issues you are battling with.

Note whether you have more than 24m in your group is another point. But training along with all the pugs between the main keeps is mainly what I'm referring to. (When 60 reds turn up at alessia for example)

It's been done, in fact the very same night that you whispered me about it.

Problem is it's the natural way of uncapped/regulated sandbox PvP.
If you're not winning bring more numbers until you do win, no one is going to agree to saying "Actually let's not depose the AD Emperor because we shouldn't bring more than 24 people to this final keep and their 24 are better than ours."

Don't get me wrong blobbing or zerging or whatever you want to call it isn't exactly something I want to encourage and I much prefer having two or more raids of 24 max moving around the map doing different objectives (apart from lol guild night when we try to get 50+ into one channel/raid). There comes a time though when just bundling everything you have into one keep is the best tactic in this game if you're out matched.

no one is blaming unblobed zerglings their behaviour does not effect server issues at all. the blobs(and no i do not mention the char :P) do and they are actively initiated and not accidently by sandbox pvp behaviour

This is sandbox behaviour however, because given the current tools and mechanics the player base has adapted into this tactic. We saw the same with EVE Online when Remote Repair Carriers were an unbreakable tank and a massive DPS from sentry drones. It became the most effective tactic in the game and worked whilst under crippling lag and time dilation. As such every alliance in the game moved towards that doctrine. This only changed when they were nerfed to no longer have the damage projection they used to, thus keeping their tank but making it pointless.

Trains/Blobs are encouraged because the current mechanics make it the most effective tactic within lag for survival and a very strong defence outside of lag. The issue comes from the lack of change to discourage this (we do now have the AoE cap thread from Wrobel however) or changes in the meta at all. Most changes over the last months have only empowered or encouraged tighter balls as a tactic.

Additionally these are not the only cause of crippling lag. I have been at BRK more than once when the entire (or what seemed the entire) of both the EP and AD factions decided that was the place to be. There were no trains on either side, but just the shear number of players in the same area crippled that entire segment of the map and had more than one player crashing to desktop.

DeanTheCat

Jhunn wrote: »

DeanTheCat wrote: »

Capture Arrius Lumbermill is the best quest in the game

I'd like to see statistics of how often this thing has flipped

It flips enough for me to turn in that quest 5-10 times a day

Easy AP, Gold and Experience.

Tankqull

Jhunn wrote: »

Tankqull wrote: »

forward camps do not spread anything. never have nor ever will.

Do you remember the days of the foward camps? Fights were actually spread across the map, because you could go somewhere far away and didn't have to horse simulate all the way back. What do we have now? 2 or 3 swords on map, always the same places - gates, bridge or Arrius f*cking lumber.

yes i do, and no fights were not spread.
you had a few small groups trying to go places with competetive amounts of players - with a camp as backup option if things turn bad wich was most of the times gone thx to some gankers not replacing them - while beeing blamed for blocking tents for a contested keep quite often. those groups are long gone.
and the other usage of tends was to reduce riding times to a contested keep significantly increasing stacking everyone and their mother within one keep - while the third alliance was searching for the respawn tents outside...

so no i cant remember any efficent spreading of forces while tents were purchasable.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Tankqull wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

@Turelus @T@rty
Perhaps you could convey to your esteemed leadership that running in groups of 40+ isn't a tremendous idea. This might reduce the performance issues you are battling with.

Note whether you have more than 24m in your group is another point. But training along with all the pugs between the main keeps is mainly what I'm referring to. (When 60 reds turn up at alessia for example)

It's been done, in fact the very same night that you whispered me about it.

Problem is it's the natural way of uncapped/regulated sandbox PvP.
If you're not winning bring more numbers until you do win, no one is going to agree to saying "Actually let's not depose the AD Emperor because we shouldn't bring more than 24 people to this final keep and their 24 are better than ours."

Don't get me wrong blobbing or zerging or whatever you want to call it isn't exactly something I want to encourage and I much prefer having two or more raids of 24 max moving around the map doing different objectives (apart from lol guild night when we try to get 50+ into one channel/raid). There comes a time though when just bundling everything you have into one keep is the best tactic in this game if you're out matched.

no one is blaming unblobed zerglings their behaviour does not effect server issues at all. the blobs(and no i do not mention the char :P) do and they are actively initiated and not accidently by sandbox pvp behaviour

I completely disagree with you. Do you really think that if a 24m group spread out there wouldn't be lag when fighting 60+ pugs?

It's the fight which causes the lag. Not the 'group'. The reason you blame the group is because the fight goes on for so long due to them being strong the lag builds and builds. You can say that groups perhaps shouldn't be so strong and zos seems to think this too but imo coordination and group play should seperate players from pugs and make them stronger. If you stopped all player resing in cyro you would find an equally valid solution to lag.

@Turelus I know you did but the reply I got back wasn't encouraging calling 40+ normal

Tankqull

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Tankqull wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

@Turelus @T@rty
Perhaps you could convey to your esteemed leadership that running in groups of 40+ isn't a tremendous idea. This might reduce the performance issues you are battling with.

Note whether you have more than 24m in your group is another point. But training along with all the pugs between the main keeps is mainly what I'm referring to. (When 60 reds turn up at alessia for example)

It's been done, in fact the very same night that you whispered me about it.

Problem is it's the natural way of uncapped/regulated sandbox PvP.
If you're not winning bring more numbers until you do win, no one is going to agree to saying "Actually let's not depose the AD Emperor because we shouldn't bring more than 24 people to this final keep and their 24 are better than ours."

Don't get me wrong blobbing or zerging or whatever you want to call it isn't exactly something I want to encourage and I much prefer having two or more raids of 24 max moving around the map doing different objectives (apart from lol guild night when we try to get 50+ into one channel/raid). There comes a time though when just bundling everything you have into one keep is the best tactic in this game if you're out matched.

no one is blaming unblobed zerglings their behaviour does not effect server issues at all. the blobs(and no i do not mention the char :P) do and they are actively initiated and not accidently by sandbox pvp behaviour

I completely disagree with you. Do you really think that if a 24m group spread out there wouldn't be lag when fighting 60+ pugs?

It's the fight which causes the lag. Not the 'group'. The reason you blame the group is because the fight goes on for so long due to them being strong the lag builds and builds. You can say that groups perhaps shouldn't be so strong and zos seems to think this too but imo coordination and group play should seperate players from pugs and make them stronger. If you stopped all player resing in cyro you would find an equally valid solution to lag.

@Turelus I know you did but the reply I got back wasn't encouraging calling 40+ normal

yes - because ive seen it several times. the servers are not flooded by thausends of smart heal requests, thousends of aoe requests when you cast your abilities at 3-5players vs 24+ wich are doing the same aswell, if players are actually spread. every day i see fights wehere two realms without blobs face each other one side gets wiped with playable pings. just to be replaced by a blob from the 3rd alliance half the size of the wiped zerg with 4-5x++ the pings rates...

just a absolute simple computation.
lets say you have 24 players on each side one side spread out one side blobed having 10 healers on each side, 12 ae dds and 2 utility chars. every player is constantly casting his "shi-t". so every thing aimed at the 24 blob cluster is multiplied by 24 in terms of server requests while everything aimed at the spreaded player is only multipleid by the numbers within the aoe area wich is most of the time 3-5.
so while the spreaded players create extreamly simplified 24x5 = 120 server requests
the blob creates 24x24 = 576 server requests.
thats nearly 5x at much requests the server has to handle just because they are blobbed. add on top of that lingering effects with multiple requests and it gets worse and worse and worse...

prootch

Forward camps where the best tactics to repack the whole alliance in a keep
- set up a camp
- call for suicide reinforcement all over the map
- everyone release in the keep to be defended, even a contested keep
- respawn a new camp when needed

They were also use to teleport a group behind enemy lines without the horse ride (so no possibility to intercept it on it's way)
- send someone with a fast horse set up a camp
- suicide your warband and teleport
- attack a keep
- respawn a camp inside
- get the whole alliance in
- refresh when needed

Camp suppression has decreased the fight pace that's true, but camps did certainly not do anything to spread fights.
In the end we had a camp set up permanently on each keep while defending emp to be able to port in as soon as any keep was contest. Camps are a bad idea.

Then...
Tonight on azura... 999+ ping on first figh... switch.
The main pb is the lag, not the camps.

AbraXuSeXile

prootch wrote: »

Forward camps where the best tactics to repack the whole alliance in a keep
- set up a camp
- call for suicide reinforcement all over the map
- everyone release in the keep to be defended, even a contested keep
- respawn a new camp when needed

They were also use to teleport a group behind enemy lines without the horse ride (so no possibility to intercept it on it's way)
- send someone with a fast horse set up a camp
- suicide your warband and teleport
- attack a keep
- respawn a camp inside
- get the whole alliance in
- refresh when needed

Camp suppression has decreased the fight pace that's true, but camps did certainly not do anything to spread fights.
In the end we had a camp set up permanently on each keep while defending emp to be able to port in as soon as any keep was contest. Camps are a bad idea.

Then...
Tonight on azura... 999+ ping on first figh... switch.
The main pb is the lag, not the camps.

We had timers on every keeps forward camp, then 30 secs to go id send someone to replace all.

Lava_Croft

Complain about nightcapping and large groups while nightcapping and running large groups.

Please never change!

AbraXuSeXile

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Complain about nightcapping and large groups while nightcapping and running large groups.

Please never change!

Who you referring to?

Lava_Croft

AbraXuSeXile wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Complain about nightcapping and large groups while nightcapping and running large groups.

Please never change!

Who you referring to?

Read thread.
Play Azura's Star.
Question answered.

Turelus

I think we should start a guild member exchange program where we all let someone and go and play with the other factions guilds. Then we can all experience how we're all doing the exact same thing.

- Playing the tactics needed to win.
- Blaming the other factions for all our loses because of their "cheap tactics"
- Not realising the focus should be on ZOS

prootch

The focus -is- on zos aoe lagfest actually. The rest is pure forum bickering.