Cyrodiil Performance and a Solution

Vercingetorix

I’ve seen a smattering of players claim that performance in Cyrodiil is better due to the lack of CP. Reports of improved performance are outliers. They are most likely in low-pop campaigns and/or avoiding the major fights (which is fine, but can't be used to describe the entire PvP experience). I can assure you that Cyrodiil performance has actually WORSENED this week (especially on XB1 and PS4). This week, however, has highlighted the real issue with Cyrodiil and it’s not CP, it’s zergs. The solution to the zerging problem is to de-incentivize it.

I propose “battle scaling” at keeps and resources when attacked by an excessive amount of players (this number can be determined by ZoS based on heat maps and crash reports). This scaling will give the attacked keep or resource the following bonuses*:
- Walls/doors gain SIGNIFICANT defenses (i.e. you would need 20 siege minimum and several repairs/replacement siege just to bust each wall/door down)
- Guards gain additional shields, armor, damage, and have reduced re-spawn timers
- AP gains for the enemy from taking the resource/keep as well as the enemy killing any players within the resource/keep’s radius are SIGNIFICANTLY reduced (yes, this means even solo players attacking other players at a zerged keep/resource, too)

*The penalties for walls, doors, and guards are slightly less severe if their corresponding resources are not owned by the attacked keep.

This solution will push for smaller, more organized groups of players and essentially dissuade players from having the entire faction knocking at a single keep’s door. I would like to hear some feedback from the community on this and if you feel this is a good solution (or at least a good start), please feel free to share this post.

cjthibs

Ok. First off, the populations in PvP right now are higher than they've been in a long time on PC...and the lag has become exponentially better.

I ran with a group of guildies (between 8 and 10 people in the US and also playing from Europe) last night for a significant amount of time (several hours) in a 3-way pop-locked campaign full of zergs, emperor pushes, scroll grabs, you name it...and guess what. Every one of us experienced less lag.

My ping was a steady 60ms the entire time. No lag spikes whatsoever. Everyone else in the group reported the same.

What I did notice is that there were graphical slowdowns. Which I imagine will be 100 times worse on that potato of hardware called the Xbox.

bulbousb16_ESO

Ok, wait, so the more people attacking a structure, the more damage it needs to be destroyed? I'm sorry, but this is just a non-starter.

Vercingetorix

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Ok, wait, so the more people attacking a structure, the more damage it needs to be destroyed? I'm sorry, but this is just a non-starter.

The concept is actually quite logical. If a fortress is attacked by a large force, then it prepares accordingly and puts more resources into fighting against it. If the enemy denies access to additional resources (farm, mine, lumbermill), then the fight is easier for the enemy, but not a guaranteed victory. This solution removes the problem of having 20+ simultaneous Destro-Ults being ran towards you and crashing you out of the game.

cjthibs

Vercingetorix wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Ok, wait, so the more people attacking a structure, the more damage it needs to be destroyed? I'm sorry, but this is just a non-starter.

The concept is actually quite logical. If a fortress is attacked by a large force, then it prepares accordingly and puts more resources into fighting against it. If the enemy denies access to additional resources (farm, mine, lumbermill), then the fight is easier for the enemy, but not a guaranteed victory. This solution removes the problem of having 20+ simultaneous Destro-Ults being ran towards you and crashing you out of the game.

So your solution to facing an overwhelming force is to have the game bend the laws of reality to help you win?

How about..I dunno...you are out-coordinated by a superior force you should just...lose?

Sigtric

Weeee more arm chair developing with out a complete understanding of what is happening.

IcyDeadPeople

I suspect it will never be possible to de-incentivize the big zerg guild groups in ESO, because they will almost always win against disorganized random players. It's a fundamental part of how the game is designed.

Even if you put a limit on groups, for example some have suggested reducing max from 24 to 12 players, etc - this would not have much impact on PC because the groups are run via third party voice comms, not in-game voice/text.

If you are proposing reduced AP and increased wall health at some crazy high level, for example 200 players in the vicinity, I think it would end up just dragging out those kind of battles to the benefit of the defenders and possibly straining the server with added calculations as people flow in and out of the area. Organized groups tend to research and exploit mechanics, so for example they might monitor the limit and move some players away to increase AP or reduce wall health, etc.

Vercingetorix

cjthibs wrote: »

Ok. First off, the populations in PvP right now are higher than they've been in a long time on PC...and the lag has become exponentially better.

I ran with a group of guildies (between 8 and 10 people in the US and also playing from Europe) last night for a significant amount of time (several hours) in a 3-way pop-locked campaign full of zergs, emperor pushes, scroll grabs, you name it...and guess what. Every one of us experienced less lag.

My ping was a steady 60ms the entire time. No lag spikes whatsoever. Everyone else in the group reported the same.

What I did notice is that there were graphical slowdowns. Which I imagine will be 100 times worse on that potato of hardware called the Xbox.

Again, anecdotal evidence is not a summation of the Cyrodiil experience - it is an outlier. I can argue that my guild of 60+, broken down into 3 smaller groups had intense lag the entire 6 hours we were on for the night. All of us, save for 4 people, were dc'd at least once during the night. Each time we were met with long loading screens and about a 15-20 min delay getting back into Cyrodiil. (Keep in mind this was after the supposed "fix" XB1 got on Mon afternoon.)

cjthibs

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

I suspect it will never be possible to de-incentivize the big zerg guild groups in ESO, because they will almost always win against disorganized random players. It's a fundamental part of how the game is designed.

It's not even a game design issue. It's a fundamental reality issue.
Larger forces defeat smaller forces.

Any kind of game design thing to change this would feel cheap, gimmicky, unnatural, and just plain asinine.

rich.magab14a_ESO

Vercingetorix wrote: »

I’ve seen a smattering of players claim that performance in Cyrodiil is better due to the lack of CP. Reports of improved performance are outliers. They are most likely in low-pop campaigns and/or avoiding the major fights (which is fine, but can't be used to describe the entire PvP experience). I can assure you that Cyrodiil performance has actually WORSENED this week (especially on XB1 and PS4). This week, however, has highlighted the real issue with Cyrodiil and it’s not CP, it’s zergs. The solution to the zerging problem is to de-incentivize it.

I propose “battle scaling” at keeps and resources when attacked by an excessive amount of players (this number can be determined by ZoS based on heat maps and crash reports). This scaling will give the attacked keep or resource the following bonuses*:
- Walls/doors gain SIGNIFICANT defenses (i.e. you would need 20 siege minimum and several repairs/replacement siege just to bust each wall/door down)
- Guards gain additional shields, armor, damage, and have reduced re-spawn timers
- AP gains for the enemy from taking the resource/keep as well as the enemy killing any players within the resource/keep’s radius are SIGNIFICANTLY reduced (yes, this means even solo players attacking other players at a zerged keep/resource, too)

*The penalties for walls, doors, and guards are slightly less severe if their corresponding resources are not owned by the attacked keep.

This solution will push for smaller, more organized groups of players and essentially dissuade players from having the entire faction knocking at a single keep’s door. I would like to hear some feedback from the community on this and if you feel this is a good solution (or at least a good start), please feel free to share this post.

So your solution for a performance fix is to add another check and strain the server even more? No thank you. Most zergs, excluding the organized kind, zerg because they are looking for a quick fight. So they go to the chalamo or alessia bridge because that's exactly what they will find. Zos needs to stop thinking AP is the main driving force for player behavior and start believing pvp is the driving force for player behavior.Finding faster ways to the traverse the whole map by either increasing mount speed or some other way of fast travel will help. Also getting rid of the ring mechanic for getting emp may also help.
Like have the emp keeps change at intervals forcing players to play the whole map. But what ever the solution pvp needs, it will not be another check for the server

Lord_Eomer

Vercingetorix wrote: »

I’ve seen a smattering of players claim that performance in Cyrodiil is better due to the lack of CP. Reports of improved performance are outliers. They are most likely in low-pop campaigns and/or avoiding the major fights (which is fine, but can't be used to describe the entire PvP experience). I can assure you that Cyrodiil performance has actually WORSENED this week (especially on XB1 and PS4). This week, however, has highlighted the real issue with Cyrodiil and it’s not CP, it’s zergs. The solution to the zerging problem is to de-incentivize it.

I propose “battle scaling” at keeps and resources when attacked by an excessive amount of players (this number can be determined by ZoS based on heat maps and crash reports). This scaling will give the attacked keep or resource the following bonuses*:
- Walls/doors gain SIGNIFICANT defenses (i.e. you would need 20 siege minimum and several repairs/replacement siege just to bust each wall/door down)
- Guards gain additional shields, armor, damage, and have reduced re-spawn timers
- AP gains for the enemy from taking the resource/keep as well as the enemy killing any players within the resource/keep’s radius are SIGNIFICANTLY reduced (yes, this means even solo players attacking other players at a zerged keep/resource, too)

*The penalties for walls, doors, and guards are slightly less severe if their corresponding resources are not owned by the attacked keep.

This solution will push for smaller, more organized groups of players and essentially dissuade players from having the entire faction knocking at a single keep’s door. I would like to hear some feedback from the community on this and if you feel this is a good solution (or at least a good start), please feel free to share this post.

PS4 NA performance is much better with CP disabled..

danno8

So a large group (let's say 40) show up to take a keep. Now the keep gets all these buffs, NPC's get buffs etc...

So now when the 40 equivalent defenders show up they basically get rewarded for having large group of defenders, while the assaulters (who are the ones assuming the majority of the risk here) have to deal with fortified walls and NPC's? No thanks.

And then what if people do what you want them to do? Show up with smaller squads to not have to deal with a fortified structure, and then what? Get rolled by a large defending force when it shows up?

Overly complicated and counter intuitive in my opinion.

halkjear

Max groups of 12 and friendly fire to anyone not in your group. I bet that would spread people out, haha!

Vercingetorix

halkjear wrote: »

Max groups of 12 and friendly fire to anyone not in your group. I bet that would spread people out, haha!

Sheogorath's undies! Are you mad? Multiple Destro-Ults will become collateral damage! LMFAO

Vercingetorix

So your solution for a performance fix is to add another check and strain the server even more? No thank you. Most zergs, excluding the organized kind, zerg because they are looking for a quick fight. So they go to the chalamo or alessia bridge because that's exactly what they will find. Zos needs to stop thinking AP is the main driving force for player behavior and start believing pvp is the driving force for player behavior.Finding faster ways to the traverse the whole map by either increasing mount speed or some other way of fast travel will help. Also getting rid of the ring mechanic for getting emp may also help.
Like have the emp keeps change at intervals forcing players to play the whole map. But what ever the solution pvp needs, it will not be another check for the server

I like your idea of removing the ring to maintain emperor. I'd also consider amending your solution by adding a condition that emperor status is only achieved while ALL keeps are under your faction's control. This would drive the emperor to move around the map like mad, but I don't think it will de-incentivize zergs at a keep unless you make it incredibly punishing to do so. Also, defenders of a zerged keep do benefit from my solution, but the easy fix to that is to simply not zerg the keep in the first place, lol.

Vercingetorix

danno8 wrote: »

So a large group (let's say 40) show up to take a keep. Now the keep gets all these buffs, NPC's get buffs etc...

So now when the 40 equivalent defenders show up they basically get rewarded for having large group of defenders, while the assaulters (who are the ones assuming the majority of the risk here) have to deal with fortified walls and NPC's? No thanks.

And then what if people do what you want them to do? Show up with smaller squads to not have to deal with a fortified structure, and then what? Get rolled by a large defending force when it shows up?

Overly complicated and counter intuitive in my opinion.

The defenders can't take advantage of my proposed fix if there isn't a zerg to attack them in the first place. Want to prevent feeding AP to defenders? Don't zerg. That doesn't sound very complicated to me.

idk

The issue with the idea that OP suggests is what is an excessive sized force. The answer is a variable and deters combat as well.

Is 20 players excessive when the keep is defending by 40 players? Probably not. The proposed idea would greatly benefit defending a keep without changing the server performance issue.

Yes, it's good to think of ideas. My point is that Zos doesn't always take our ideas because they have to do their best to find the unintended consequences.

Hopefully they find the info they are looking for in this weeks testing so a solution can be developed and implemented.

Vercingetorix

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

The issue with the idea that OP suggests is what is an excessive sized force. The answer is a variable and deters combat as well.

Is 20 players excessive when the keep is defending by 40 players? Probably not. The proposed idea would greatly benefit defending a keep without changing the server performance issue.

Yes, it's good to think of ideas. My point is that Zos doesn't always take our ideas because they have to do their best to find the unintended consequences.

Hopefully they find the info they are looking for in this weeks testing so a solution can be developed and implemented.

As I told someone else the counterargument that defenders are favored is rendered pointless by the fact that defenders can't take advantage of my solution if there isn't a zerg fighting them in the first place. 40 people can show up to BRK but if there isn't an excessive amount of enemy players attacking the keep then neither side of the fight is favored, just like it is now in the game.

parkham

I know nothing about Cyrodiil or PVP or zergs (I know what zerg means now, though). I do know something about computers though. If these "zergs" are the problem, then it's really a simple solution - simple doesn't always mean easy.

If 500 people want to attack a keep, and 500 players want to defend said keep, then there should be enough server and network resources available on the provider's end to accommodate 500 players attacking a keep.

I don't have access to any data other than what I've read, so this may be completely off: I suspect that an expansion of the physical infrastructure is needed. Multiple instances, set a player cap on areas / zones if that's what it takes. Load balancing. If a player cap is what it takes, then create more areas and zones to allow as many in as possible. I'm pretty sure money is not an issue here - if this is the case.

Arreyanne

halkjear wrote: »

Max groups of 12 and friendly fire to anyone not in your group. I bet that would spread people out, haha!

They should add friendly fire to the entire map

hmsdragonfly

Vercingetorix wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

Ok. First off, the populations in PvP right now are higher than they've been in a long time on PC...and the lag has become exponentially better.

I ran with a group of guildies (between 8 and 10 people in the US and also playing from Europe) last night for a significant amount of time (several hours) in a 3-way pop-locked campaign full of zergs, emperor pushes, scroll grabs, you name it...and guess what. Every one of us experienced less lag.

My ping was a steady 60ms the entire time. No lag spikes whatsoever. Everyone else in the group reported the same.

What I did notice is that there were graphical slowdowns. Which I imagine will be 100 times worse on that potato of hardware called the Xbox.

Again, anecdotal evidence is not a summation of the Cyrodiil experience - it is an outlier. I can argue that my guild of 60+, broken down into 3 smaller groups had intense lag the entire 6 hours we were on for the night. All of us, save for 4 people, were dc'd at least once during the night. Each time we were met with long loading screens and about a 15-20 min delay getting back into Cyrodiil. (Keep in mind this was after the supposed "fix" XB1 got on Mon afternoon.)

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/3851106/#Comment_3851106

Removing CP isn't a solution to "fix lag". It's a stress test so they can gather hard data to find if CP is indeed the real cause of lag, and if so, which codes are the problems.

As you can see, many people say they experienced less lag, some of people insist that they experience more lag, so who speak the truth? Ok let just forget the people who think experiencing framedrops in 50v50 zerg battles means more lag (let's hope you are not one of those people), it's good to know that the devs have hard data to determine whether it's less lag or more lag, we will know at the end of the event. You know, we gamers tend to talk gibberish.

andreasranasen

As a PS4 player, the lagg is WORSE. Not because of the amount of players in Scourge. It's the same amount of players as it always been. It's just the q that's longer.

More loading screens and more blue screens...

CP is not the answer. Sorry.

hmsdragonfly

andreasranasen wrote: »

As a PS4 player, the lagg is WORSE. Not because of the amount of players in Scourge. It's the same amount of players as it always been. It's just the q that's longer.

More loading screens and more blue screens...

CP is not the answer. Sorry.

Check this:

Lord_Dexter wrote: »

PS4 NA performance is much better with CP disabled..

So who speak the truth, you or Lord Dexter?

Let's assume that you don't mean framedrops in 50v50 zerg battles as "lag".

danno8

Vercingetorix wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

The issue with the idea that OP suggests is what is an excessive sized force. The answer is a variable and deters combat as well.

Is 20 players excessive when the keep is defending by 40 players? Probably not. The proposed idea would greatly benefit defending a keep without changing the server performance issue.

Yes, it's good to think of ideas. My point is that Zos doesn't always take our ideas because they have to do their best to find the unintended consequences.

Hopefully they find the info they are looking for in this weeks testing so a solution can be developed and implemented.

As I told someone else the counterargument that defenders are favored is rendered pointless by the fact that defenders can't take advantage of my solution if there isn't a zerg fighting them in the first place. 40 people can show up to BRK but if there isn't an excessive amount of enemy players attacking the keep then neither side of the fight is favored, just like it is now in the game.

But you have ignored my main point. Your solutions just makes taking keeps much harder. The only way to make it fair is if 40 defenders show up, and there is only a small group of attackers, then the walls become extra weak.

Again, I just don't see this working well in practice.

andreasranasen

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

andreasranasen wrote: »

As a PS4 player, the lagg is WORSE. Not because of the amount of players in Scourge. It's the same amount of players as it always been. It's just the q that's longer.

More loading screens and more blue screens...

CP is not the answer. Sorry.

Check this:

Lord_Dexter wrote: »

PS4 NA performance is much better with CP disabled..

So who speak the truth, you or Lord Dexter?

Let's assume that you don't mean framedrops in 50v50 zerg battles as "lag".

I don't know what campaign he's in. I never seen him in Scourge which is the busiest campaign on PS4.

hmsdragonfly

andreasranasen wrote: »

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

andreasranasen wrote: »

As a PS4 player, the lagg is WORSE. Not because of the amount of players in Scourge. It's the same amount of players as it always been. It's just the q that's longer.

More loading screens and more blue screens...

CP is not the answer. Sorry.

Check this:

Lord_Dexter wrote: »

PS4 NA performance is much better with CP disabled..

So who speak the truth, you or Lord Dexter?

Let's assume that you don't mean framedrops in 50v50 zerg battles as "lag".

I don't know what campaign he's in. I never seen him in Scourge which is the busiest campaign on PS4.

So you know everyone who is playing in that campaign? You even know their forum's usernames apart from their @? Man, that's hell of a dedication. I can remember the @ of 3 dudes, and that's it.

andreasranasen

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

andreasranasen wrote: »

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

andreasranasen wrote: »

As a PS4 player, the lagg is WORSE. Not because of the amount of players in Scourge. It's the same amount of players as it always been. It's just the q that's longer.

More loading screens and more blue screens...

CP is not the answer. Sorry.

Check this:

Lord_Dexter wrote: »

PS4 NA performance is much better with CP disabled..

So who speak the truth, you or Lord Dexter?

Let's assume that you don't mean framedrops in 50v50 zerg battles as "lag".

I don't know what campaign he's in. I never seen him in Scourge which is the busiest campaign on PS4.

So you know everyone who is playing in that campaign? You even know their forum's usernames apart from their @? Man, that's hell of a dedication. I can remember the @ of 3 dudes, and that's it.

I've spent thousands of hours in PvP. I know the PS4 community very well by name.

Olupajmibanan

I disagree with the idea of keep penalty.

Zerging has something positive about it all. You get the feeling of real medieval battle. Do you think that king said something like this while attacking a castle?: "Well, my knights, split into smaller groups so enemies can stand a chance against us. Having a number advantage is dishonor." So why ruining that feeling for players that actually like that (yes, there are a lot of them). And I remember the first ESO trailer where was said about massive PvP battles which actually took my attention.

You don't need to push players towards small group playying since June brings instanced small scale pvp. Just let Cyrodiil be as it is. Encouraging small group plays in Cyrodiil and taking zergs away would even harm their business model. If Cyro is full of small scale pvp, why buying Morrowind then (in case you are PvP exclusive player).

But yes, something must be done, the lag is inmense. Why can't we just ask for performance fix without changing the gameplay?

Maybe change to graphics intensive effects such as Destro ults, Grothdarr and so on?

film

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

andreasranasen wrote: »

As a PS4 player, the lagg is WORSE. Not because of the amount of players in Scourge. It's the same amount of players as it always been. It's just the q that's longer.

More loading screens and more blue screens...

CP is not the answer. Sorry.

Check this:

Lord_Dexter wrote: »

PS4 NA performance is much better with CP disabled..

So who speak the truth, you or Lord Dexter?

Let's assume that you don't mean framedrops in 50v50 zerg battles as "lag".

PS4 NA Scourge -- Lag is no better or worse imo.

Frame rate dropping is just as bad as before but that will probably never change.

Load screens are worse than before patch imo.

Blue screens are about the same (frame rate drops "lags" and sudden/increased movement seems to be a consistent BSOD). Example: Rapids on mount run into a Outpost that's just been FD'd and jump off mount while turning camera will almost always Blue Screen me

All of those are based on feel as I have no way to test ping latency frame rates in game on PS4.

andreasranasen

film wrote: »

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

andreasranasen wrote: »

As a PS4 player, the lagg is WORSE. Not because of the amount of players in Scourge. It's the same amount of players as it always been. It's just the q that's longer.

More loading screens and more blue screens...

CP is not the answer. Sorry.

Check this:

Lord_Dexter wrote: »

PS4 NA performance is much better with CP disabled..

So who speak the truth, you or Lord Dexter?

Let's assume that you don't mean framedrops in 50v50 zerg battles as "lag".

PS4 NA Scourge -- Lag is no better or worse imo.

Frame rate dropping is just as bad as before but that will probably never change.

Load screens are worse than before patch imo.

Blue screens are about the same (frame rate drops "lags" and sudden/increased movement seems to be a consistent BSOD). Example: Rapids on mount run into a Outpost that's just been FD'd and jump off mount while turning camera will almost always Blue Screen me

All of those are based on feel as I have no way to test ping latency frame rates in game on PS4.

Thank you!

Auros

While I understand your @Vercingetorix good intentions here, shouldn't we solve tech problems with tech measures?

21st century, should we disable jumping in an MMO, because the devs can't provide reliable software to handle that functionality?

Maybe it is time to hire some science-oriented people, instead of new marketing/sales personnel then