PC\MAC US and EU Realms: Chillrend Campaign closing on November 9th

Celas_Dranacea

Ty for your work Brian

kevlarto_ESO

Thanks for the info.

Docmandu

MisterBigglesworth wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler What about phasing/sharding Cyrodiil the same way it's done for all other zones.

Then, when you get close to a keep, a prompt appears: "Do you want to join this battle?"

• Click Yes and you get put in the same phase as everyone else seiging that keep.
• Click No you stay in your own phase but that keep is non-interactive.

I hope not serious.. and hope Brian Wheeler is thinking the same.. that would be AWEFUL!

Lucky28

Orchish wrote: »

It's a good start but we need more than just Chillrend closed. Two of the 30 day campaigns being shut down would also help a lot. i rarely ever see more than 1 poplocked an another with medium to high. The other two never get over medium on barely 1 faction.

No, why does everyone want every PvPer in one campaign? Lag in Azura is so bad already. maybe some time down the road that would be great, but for now we do need two 30 day.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

There are some specific ability changes coming up very soon that reduce physics calls by either restructuring them or adjusting the amount of times they hit a Line of sight or other physics check.

We're looking into other methods of spreading players out as well regarding town capture and adding other activities to do in Cyrodiil. There is no ETA on that yet as we're still going to keep pushing for further ability optimizations and more back-end work to get the performance better.

As far as not shutting down more Campaigns, we need the tech (which is in progress by the way) to allow players to un-assign themselves as well as removing the restriction that you can't have cross alliance characters on a single account assigned to the same Campaign. That being said however, we will be measuring the value of condensed campaigns vs. total population vs. performance and making the call as to how many Campaigns are running at that time.

That would be really great. some of the most fun fights i've had in Cyrodiil have been in those towns.

Starshadw

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We will be removing Chillrend as a Campaign during the regular maintenance on November 9th on PC/Mac US and EU realms. We will continue to look at population across the board, and merge campaigns as necessary to provide a more competitive environment for PVP in Cyrodiil.

Oh gods, what a horrible idea.

There's a reason some of us are staying on the lower population servers - it's because we are deliberately trying to avoid the lag-fests that are Azura's and Trueflame. The game is nigh unplayable on those servers, with it basically being a toss-up as to which side wins because all anyone can do is spam AOEs and hope that some of them are making it through the lag.

Compressing your population when you have yet to solve the horrendous lag is only going to make things worse.

Please, please reconsider this. Solve the lag issue - then contemplate compressing population.

Rust_in_Peace

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@spenc_cathb16_ESO The short answer is no, there is no easy way to split keeps off into their own instances or even the three portions of Cyrodiil at this time.

There's already three instances in Cyrodiil though. Overland, Sewers, IC Districts.
Why not split overland Cyrodiil even further? See image below for an example.




Edit: Thanks in advance for the reply, much appreciated.

This design won't fix anything. They tried it in Guild Wars 2 and it didn't work. The zergs just hopped from 1 zone to the other and brought the lag with them.

_Chaos

Rust_in_Peace wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@spenc_cathb16_ESO The short answer is no, there is no easy way to split keeps off into their own instances or even the three portions of Cyrodiil at this time.

There's already three instances in Cyrodiil though. Overland, Sewers, IC Districts.
Why not split overland Cyrodiil even further? See image below for an example.




Edit: Thanks in advance for the reply, much appreciated.

This design won't fix anything. They tried it in Guild Wars 2 and it didn't work. The zergs just hopped from 1 zone to the other and brought the lag with them.

But why must the population at Aleswell suffer because zergs are fighting at Alessia?
This is a cheap quick fix while they iron out backend server issues.

Let's not compare apples (GW2) to oranges (ESO) and write it off as a no-go before even trying it ourselves

Rust_in_Peace

It's not apples and oranges; it's a lesson that's already been learned from a game that's very similar to ESO and would be a huge waste of time to just "try it out" only to repeat the same mistake.

Psilent

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Rust_in_Peace wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@spenc_cathb16_ESO The short answer is no, there is no easy way to split keeps off into their own instances or even the three portions of Cyrodiil at this time.

There's already three instances in Cyrodiil though. Overland, Sewers, IC Districts.
Why not split overland Cyrodiil even further? See image below for an example.




Edit: Thanks in advance for the reply, much appreciated.

This design won't fix anything. They tried it in Guild Wars 2 and it didn't work. The zergs just hopped from 1 zone to the other and brought the lag with them.

But why must the population at Aleswell suffer because zergs are fighting at Alessia?
This is a cheap quick fix while they iron out backend server issues.

Let's not compare apples (GW2) to oranges (ESO) and write it off as a no-go before even trying it ourselves

You just get done defending Aleswell and see Alessia is under attack. You head to Sejanus and go through the load screen at the bridge. Takes 40 seconds or so to load into Southern Cyrodiil and when you load Alessia has flipped. You then notice Aleswell is flagged with 20/20 siege, so you go back through the 40 second plus load screen. You load in and see Aleswell is flipped.

Sounds very frustrating and not fun to me.

Scyantific

The only reason I see them closing Chillrend is because they've gotten back data that shows them the truth: they are losing players with each patch and the amount of servers they have for PvP are too many for the dwindling amount of PvP players running around.

_Chaos

Psilent wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Rust_in_Peace wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@spenc_cathb16_ESO The short answer is no, there is no easy way to split keeps off into their own instances or even the three portions of Cyrodiil at this time.

There's already three instances in Cyrodiil though. Overland, Sewers, IC Districts.
Why not split overland Cyrodiil even further? See image below for an example.




Edit: Thanks in advance for the reply, much appreciated.

This design won't fix anything. They tried it in Guild Wars 2 and it didn't work. The zergs just hopped from 1 zone to the other and brought the lag with them.

But why must the population at Aleswell suffer because zergs are fighting at Alessia?
This is a cheap quick fix while they iron out backend server issues.

Let's not compare apples (GW2) to oranges (ESO) and write it off as a no-go before even trying it ourselves

You just get done defending Aleswell and see Alessia is under attack. You head to Sejanus and go through the load screen at the bridge. Takes 40 seconds or so to load into Southern Cyrodiil and when you load Alessia has flipped. You then notice Aleswell is flagged with 20/20 siege, so you go back through the 40 second plus load screen. You load in and see Aleswell is flipped.

Sounds very frustrating and not fun to me.

So you'd rather have constant lag throughout Cyrodiil for the duration of prime time, rather than TRYING something new, and reverting the change if it doesn't work?

lol.

Lorkhan

"town capture and adding other activities to do in Cyrodiil"
NO ETA

OrdainedFaun

Well I missed this little blip on the forums. My guild just switched to Chillrend for PVP within the past 10 days because it was so wonderfully lag free. No idea where we will go now

Nafirian

Scyantific wrote: »

The only reason I see them closing Chillrend is because they've gotten back data that shows them the truth: they are losing players with each patch and the amount of servers they have for PvP are too many for the dwindling amount of PvP players running around.

Because we have spoon fed them what they need to do to make the game better to have a good active community and they are all like NOPE NOPE NOPE WE DO WHAT WE WANT WE DONT EVEN PLAY THE GAME BUT WE DECIDE ROFL ROFL. Anyways Fallout 4 comes out today so i dont have to play this piece of crap game with Brain Dead Developers Brain seems to to be the only one who cares but everyone else at ZOS Couldn't care less i cant wait to to see where this game is in 8 months probably dead with 3 players on each faction for pvp -.-

olsborg

Lucky28 wrote: »

Orchish wrote: »

It's a good start but we need more than just Chillrend closed. Two of the 30 day campaigns being shut down would also help a lot. i rarely ever see more than 1 poplocked an another with medium to high. The other two never get over medium on barely 1 faction.

No, why does everyone want every PvPer in one campaign? Lag in Azura is so bad already. maybe some time down the road that would be great, but for now we do need two 30 day.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

There are some specific ability changes coming up very soon that reduce physics calls by either restructuring them or adjusting the amount of times they hit a Line of sight or other physics check.

We're looking into other methods of spreading players out as well regarding town capture and adding other activities to do in Cyrodiil. There is no ETA on that yet as we're still going to keep pushing for further ability optimizations and more back-end work to get the performance better.

As far as not shutting down more Campaigns, we need the tech (which is in progress by the way) to allow players to un-assign themselves as well as removing the restriction that you can't have cross alliance characters on a single account assigned to the same Campaign. That being said however, we will be measuring the value of condensed campaigns vs. total population vs. performance and making the call as to how many Campaigns are running at that time.

That would be really great. some of the most fun fights i've had in Cyrodiil have been in those towns.

Same here, the quest hubs (towns) in cyrodiil have been the source of some of my most enjoyable pvp encounters yet.

azoriangaming

@ZOS_BrianWheeler when are the other dead EU campaigns going to be removed the one's that was implemented when IC was released?

Ishammael

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We're looking into other methods of spreading players out as well regarding town capture and adding other activities to do in Cyrodiil. There is no ETA on that yet as we're still going to keep pushing for further ability optimizations and more back-end work to get the performance better.

Probably one of the top requested features for Cyro. We would love this!