Campaign Performance

bottleofsyrup

Haderus is like Trueflame now, as much lag with half the people...

Fix your damn servers.

Meetre

Not sure what you "changed" to fix lag in the latest patch (12/13), but it made it worse imo.

LegacyDM

@ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Still not fixed. Both trueflame, haderus, and IC campaigns unplayable for me. Ping is fine at 120-150 and then people just freeze In place and my ping shoots up to 999+ and then they fast forward and my ping goes back down to 150. This happens every 5-10 minutes Happens on both servers during non peak hours now. Sometimes everything just freezes and I get disconnected. I reinstalled windows 10, reset the router, and deleted all my addons. Didn't fix it. I have a 300mbps broadband connection and ran multiple bandwidth speed tests to Texas. When I run a speed test I get 100ping and 200-300mbps download depending on time of day and 20 upload (which is normal for me from my location to Texas). No lag, latency, or issues when I play other online games. My ping on overwatch is 60 and I never freeze or get disconnected. I have an i3770k 16gigs of ram and a 1070 nvidia card. Never had this issue until the last maintenance earlier this month. I'm also getting severe delays in pve areas. Wrothgar last night my ping was shooting to 999+.

Anyone else still experiencing this?

frozywozy

Since 3weeks ago, me and several friends noticed a significant fps drop. My performances are terrible, even if I disable all my addons. As soon as I get close to 20 or more players casting abilities, my fps instantly drop from a stable 60 (with v-sync on) to 25-30 and it really feels laggy performance wise. Not sure what changed but something went wrong with the adjustments.

My frames have always been high and solid since the old fps drop bug back in 1.5. This is the first time I experience problems with client performances ever since.

Jolter

I've been playing a lot on Haderus lately, and I've been having lots of issues with crashing. About every 2 hours, the sound will get weird and then I get sent to dashboard. Also about every 3 hours everything will freeze for awhile and then I'll get sent back to the intro screen saying connection timed out. On top of that, if I die in Cyrodiil, when I log back in, I will be dead somewhere else in Cyrodiil. While I am dead I am unable to revive, as it wants me to revive in Cyrodiil, but since I'm not in Cyrodiil I can't revive. If I use the help I'm Stuck feature, it will send me to a wayshrine still dead and still unable to respawn. The lag has been worse that it was previously as well.

Skagsmasha

XB1 NA.... ^^^ Agreed!!! Have been experiencing the same issues.

LegacyDM

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Honest question no trolling. Why don't you guys lower the population cap on rrueflame? Wouldn't that force more people to play haderus and balance out the two campaigns? Wouldn't getting more people to play on haderus alleviate the lag? Or if this not desirable why not just make haderus a 30 day campaign? I guess the point is, wouldnt spreading more people out between the two campaigns lessen the lag and stress of the servers? Cause, haderus pop is usually significantly lower than trueflame. I know you guys have thought about this but I'm puzzled why you haven't implemented it? Sounds like an easy thing to do that would help.

lappas

Yesterday , pc eu trueflame had 380 ping in homegate. When i went to alessia i crashed after 1 minute.

ZOS_BrianWheeler

Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

We have some changes going into the next update to help with server performance regarding how much the server needs to keep track of in a given area that we will be monitoring. As Rich has also noted, we are looking into Client performance issues regarding FPS/client lag. This is not just an issue in PvP but also in PvE zones where you may have noticed some FPS drops where many, many, many players are gathered.

SwaminoNowlino

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

We have some changes going into the next update to help with server performance regarding how much the server needs to keep track of in a given area that we will be monitoring. As Rich has also noted, we are looking into Client performance issues regarding FPS/client lag. This is not just an issue in PvP but also in PvE zones where you may have noticed some FPS drops where many, many, many players are gathered.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Thanks for the update Brian.

Your point about campaign populations and how you can still hit a critical mass is great.

Do you all have any data or insight regarding how lowering campaign populations in the past may have had the inverse effect because people have to cluster in order to find fights? Like on a campaign 2 years ago with a much higher population, perhaps the chance of finding someone out at Chedyenhal was much higher, so people spread out a bit more? Additionally, is there any plans or has any thought been given to how to more effectively spread people out? Instead of having the entire population of all three factions just going around the emp ring time and again, leaving 70% + of the map totally empty? Same kind of goes for IC, people look at the map to see what district the fight is going on, then the whole IC population goes to the same flag, because their chance of finding action elsewhere is much lower.

ManDraKE

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

We have some changes going into the next update to help with server performance regarding how much the server needs to keep track of in a given area that we will be monitoring. As Rich has also noted, we are looking into Client performance issues regarding FPS/client lag. This is not just an issue in PvP but also in PvE zones where you may have noticed some FPS drops where many, many, many players are gathered.

Please take a look at the input lag, there is a huge delay (particularly on pvp, but also in pve trails too) beetwen keypress and the UI showing the ability icon as being pressed, even when the framerate is not that low.

Docmandu

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

We have some changes going into the next update to help with server performance regarding how much the server needs to keep track of in a given area that we will be monitoring. As Rich has also noted, we are looking into Client performance issues regarding FPS/client lag. This is not just an issue in PvP but also in PvE zones where you may have noticed some FPS drops where many, many, many players are gathered.

Just before Update 12, performance was pretty acceptable.. then Update 12 hit and it's been aweful on most days. Any insight if this is due to new skills generating more load on the servers, or due to more people clumping up since U12?! (which would also be caused by the skill design imho... *cough* destro ulti balls *cough* ).
There doesn't go a day by with at least a couple of groups camping the top of a tower with destro ultis (hence many people stacked on a very tight spot). Maybe some more internal design discussions with the combat design team is in order.

Junipus

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

We have some changes going into the next update to help with server performance regarding how much the server needs to keep track of in a given area that we will be monitoring. As Rich has also noted, we are looking into Client performance issues regarding FPS/client lag. This is not just an issue in PvP but also in PvE zones where you may have noticed some FPS drops where many, many, many players are gathered.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler I might just be a lowly carebear these days, but would removing all the extra lighting calculations; particle effects and damage cap changes not solve the issue by greatly reducing the calculations needed from the server? Also, is there a separate physical server bank for PvP that might be configured to prioritise things separately from PvE that could also improve performance?

Given that the player cap has been reduced in Cyrodiil since you introduced a lot of the cosmetic changes to the game's appearance and the player cap was previously a good indicator of lag, perhaps the above changes combined with the current player cap might help things.

Komma

We should know by now that what needs to be done wont happen. The proc sets need to be disabled in pvp, aoe caps removed and zergballs need to be penalized. The server ping was much better before last update. The game enjoyment was much better before last update. We no longer run groups in cyrodiil as a guild and most of our active pvpers have been either taking a break or just dont play at all. Really sad to see it get to this state. =(

Thelon

We're coming out of the worst meta in the history of Cyrodiil, coupled with an atrocious downgrade in performance with Update 12, and you come in here with the status quo of "incremental fixes, be patient"

How about taking bold action and using innovative ideas to encourage people to spread out in Cyrodiil? But I guess that would require a PvP lead who does more than stick a flag in the ground and call it a day.

Joy_Division

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server. This is evident in cases where populations are equal, if not higher than regular campaigns, such as Black Water Blade on Xbox, and perform just fine.

We have some changes going into the next update to help with server performance regarding how much the server needs to keep track of in a given area that we will be monitoring. As Rich has also noted, we are looking into Client performance issues regarding FPS/client lag. This is not just an issue in PvP but also in PvE zones where you may have noticed some FPS drops where many, many, many players are gathered.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler -

I agree with you that lowering the population will not make a difference. In fact, it probably will make things worse as a big map with a small number of people trends toward a consolidation of players just so we can actually find fights.

But can we stop with the "we're checking this," "we're working on that," "we're making some server adjustments," routine? No doubt ZoS is. But, none of it is going to make a difference. We've been at this for coming on three years. There are no more deer. I can't purge PuGs standing in oil. It's still the same. You must be as tired saying it as we are hearing it.

The upcoming AoE cap adjustment. OK, now we are talking. Finally some actual abusable mechanics are being addressed. We'll see what happens. I appreciate the effort.

But in the end it all comes down to the map. We keep saying this and we keep getting ignored: there is no PvP or AvAvA reason to go to 85% of Cyrodiil. None. Nada. Nil Zilch. Zero. I am going to spawn at Sejanus and head to the Alessia bridge or Chalman toward the milegate because there is nothing else to do. Apparently this idea in development was that I am supposed to spawn in Drakelowe, ride 5 minutes off the beaten path just take capture Bloodmayne Lumbermill (by the way ... how useless are the NPCs in this game if a single player can so casually eliminate all of them), just so eventually the dozen or so AD just as bored as am I waiting for action come to the Lumbermill to zerg me down. Nope. Sorry. Not my cup of tea. I'm heading to the bridge where I can get immediate satisfaction and a lot more AP dumping oil on AD.

Can you please tell us why the only thing that has been done to the map in nearly three years is to add flags in three towns just so I can blow millions of AP for a training restoration staff of a random Stamina set?

Is it because ZoS wants us to play musical chairs around the Emp ring in pointless zerg battles? Is it because ZoS philosophically believes that having 85% of a PvP map with nothing to PvP over is enhancing the game? Is it because ZoS considers Cyrodiil a hopeless cause and will not devote resources there?

It;s really hard for me to reconcile that ZoS acknowledges a critical mass of players in one area is the primary cause for lag and yet does nothing to the map that would work to disperse the players in the first place. It's mind-boggling.

ZOS_BrianWheeler

As a sneak peak to patch notes coming in a later version of PTS, we are increasing the value of base AP for capturing & defending resources and keeps to 1,500 per resource and 6,000 per keep.

This means there are 54 locations that can give much AP as a single kill for flipping it, or killing a player in defense of it, that most (if not all players) can solo. This should/could entice battles to occur in other locations besides the usual areas of Chalman mine, Alessia Bridge, Nikel fields, etc.

We are aware the capture/defense patterns that can occur with a change like this, and will be monitoring the campaign trends carefully.

Blackfyre20

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

As a sneak peak to patch notes coming in a later version of PTS, we are increasing the value of base AP for capturing & defending resources and keeps to 1,500 per resource and 6,000 per keep.

This means there are 54 locations that can give much AP as a single kill for flipping it, or killing a player in defense of it, that most (if not all players) can solo. This should/could entice battles to occur in other locations besides the usual areas of Chalman mine, Alessia Bridge, Nikel fields, etc.

We are aware the capture/defense patterns that can occur with a change like this, and will be monitoring the campaign trends carefully.

This is great to hear

UppGRAYxDD

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

As a sneak peak to patch notes coming in a later version of PTS, we are increasing the value of base AP for capturing & defending resources and keeps to 1,500 per resource and 6,000 per keep.

This means there are 54 locations that can give much AP as a single kill for flipping it, or killing a player in defense of it, that most (if not all players) can solo. This should/could entice battles to occur in other locations besides the usual areas of Chalman mine, Alessia Bridge, Nikel fields, etc.

We are aware the capture/defense patterns that can occur with a change like this, and will be monitoring the campaign trends carefully.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Thanks for the info! Will this include flags in Imperial City?

ZOS_BrianWheeler

Imperial City districts and Towns will only award 1500.

Ghost-Shot

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

As a sneak peak to patch notes coming in a later version of PTS, we are increasing the value of base AP for capturing & defending resources and keeps to 1,500 per resource and 6,000 per keep.

This means there are 54 locations that can give much AP as a single kill for flipping it, or killing a player in defense of it, that most (if not all players) can solo. This should/could entice battles to occur in other locations besides the usual areas of Chalman mine, Alessia Bridge, Nikel fields, etc.

We are aware the capture/defense patterns that can occur with a change like this, and will be monitoring the campaign trends carefully.

This could be an interesting change, I'd like to see how it plays out. Have you given thought to changing point values of different locations and increasing rewards for winning a campaign to encourage groups to move off the emp ring? As long as back line keeps aren't valuable people aren't going to go out of there way for them unless they present an ap farming opportunity.

SwaminoNowlino

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Additionally, has any thought been given to how quickly players receive the offensive and defensive "ticks?" I've been in many a battle at BRK where we defended the keep 3 or 4 times and had the whole faction sitting in the keep waiting for the defense award. Interrupts the natural flow of combat when you can't drive the enemy away from the keep without risking losing the defensive tick.

Edit to ask the following: Has there been any analysis done at the diminishing returns for player kills that was implemented a few patches ago? Especially with the implementation of forward camps, I am finding that there is just way too little AP available for killing anyone anymore. I'm more used to seeing AP ticks from kills of 25-50 than 1500. I feel this pushes people more into farming defensive ticks than fighting open world, because there's just no AP in it.

BigES

Brian -

Why don't you make each keep give a unique buff?

Your current system is binary. You either get emperor buffs, or you don't. Why don't you distribute these buffs (and even create a few new ones) among the keeps, and give people the incentive to incrementally take stuff?

For example, say Drakelowe gave my faction 500 health to every player. I now have a reason to take Dracklowe even though its not a emperor keep. Bruma might give me 1000 spell and 1000 armor resistance. Owning the interior keeps around Cyrodiil give small incremental buffs as well, and also crown the emperor.

You can incentivize people to travel to different places if you redistributed and tweaked the buffs.

SwaminoNowlino

BigES wrote: »

Brian -

Why don't you make each keep give a unique buff?

Your current system is binary. You either get emperor buffs, or you don't. Why don't you distribute these buffs (and even create a few new ones) among the keeps, and give people the incentive to incrementally take stuff?

For example, say Drakelowe gave my faction 500 health to every player. I now have a reason to take Dracklowe even though its not a emperor keep. Bruma might give me 1000 spell and 1000 armor resistance. Owning the interior keeps around Cyrodiil give small incremental buffs as well, and also crown the emperor.

You can incentivize people to travel to different places if you redistributed and tweaked the buffs.

This times 1,000,000. This would allow opponents to whittle down the emp buffs of a group and the emp defenders couldn't "turtle" in a single keep and rely on lag and numbers. This would likely be the single biggest boon to open world PVP!

BigES

BigES wrote: »

Brian -

Why don't you make each keep give a unique buff?

Your current system is binary. You either get emperor buffs, or you don't. Why don't you distribute these buffs (and even create a few new ones) among the keeps, and give people the incentive to incrementally take stuff?

For example, say Drakelowe gave my faction 500 health to every player. I now have a reason to take Dracklowe even though its not a emperor keep. Bruma might give me 1000 spell and 1000 armor resistance. Owning the interior keeps around Cyrodiil give small incremental buffs as well, and also crown the emperor.

You can incentivize people to travel to different places if you redistributed and tweaked the buffs.

To follow up, I think this would also incentivize people/groups to go different places depending on their character's build or group composition. A blazing shield templar might want to make sure he has the health buff. A squishy magicka character might want to make sure he has the 1000 armor buff to make sure he's not burned by a stamina class. Conversely, stam might want a 1000 spell resistance buff. Things like that.

Dracane

1500 AP for conquering an imperial city flag ? This must be a typo.
That would be ridiculous, way too many AP for no effort. I thankfully take them, but I think that's too good.

SturgeHammer

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Lowering population will not resolve client or server performance as you can still hit a critical amount of players in an area which would results in lower performance for either the client or the server.

What would be a good estimate of the crital number players in an area that ends up being problematic? For example, would 100 players in a 10000sq meter area be considered over the critical number?

SwaminoNowlino

Dracane wrote: »

1500 AP for conquering an imperial city flag ? This must be a typo.
That would be ridiculous, way too many AP for no effort. I thankfully take them, but I think that's too good.

To take the flag means someone would actually have to be in IC , but this could potentially be another incentive. If you can get reliable AP and Tel Var...

Not sure I like the increased AP for defense though. It'll be that much more incentive for a zerg to watch the map for a keep to be flagged and run over their with their huge group. Think this may have the exact opposite effect they were going for.

ZOS_BrianWheeler

Remember to get a defense tick, you need to kill a player in the area, and that is distributed across the players in the area, not a flat bonus. That 1500 refers to the value of the player put into the pool when it comes to a defense tick, assuming that player is worth full value, so my apologies if that came out wrong.

SwaminoNowlino

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Remember to get a defense tick, you need to kill a player in the area, and that is distributed across the players in the area, not a flat bonus. That 1500 refers to the value of the player put into the pool when it comes to a defense tick, assuming that player is worth full value, so my apologies if that came out wrong.

Cool! Thanks for the info. So this kind of explains why it takes so long to get defensive ticks at big keep battles. Not only is the server calculating how many people died and how many people are present to reap the reward, its also calculating what % of that base value those dead folks were worth at the time they died. Right?