Cyrodiil Performance and a Solution

cpuScientist

You do understand that your proposed method would encourage bigger Zergs than anything else right lol.

olivesforge

First I read...

Vercingetorix wrote: »

Again, anecdotal evidence is not a summation of the Cyrodiil experience - it is an outlier.

Then I read..

Vercingetorix wrote: »

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.)

So the response to OP's assumption that performance is just as bad - which is just an unsupported assumption - was an anecdote that performance is much better. To which OP answered that anecdotes are bad (yay!) and that he could say he has proof because of his subjective experience playing the game...



While nobody likes to get zerged, the large group fighting was established as an intended game dynamic from the game's inception. Even the trailers had thousands sieging the City - not 4 drunken nords yelling at Clivia to "come out and 1v1 us bro." If you want small-scale PvP, until Battlegrounds are released, this is not the game for that.

The suggested response is dead on arrival. Servers that are having trouble calculating CP don't need another large set of rolls and calcs. Further, it favors PvDooring by small groups, and only benefits defenders - there is no compensating dynamic for small amounts of attackers vs. a zerg defense.

So we have a server-intensive, unbalanced solution to an anecdotal problem. No.

Vercingetorix

olivesforge wrote: »

First I read...

Vercingetorix wrote: »

Again, anecdotal evidence is not a summation of the Cyrodiil experience - it is an outlier.

Then I read..

Vercingetorix wrote: »

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.)

So the response to OP's assumption that performance is just as bad - which is just an unsupported assumption - was an anecdote that performance is much better. To which OP answered that anecdotes are bad (yay!) and that he could say he has proof because of his subjective experience playing the game...



While nobody likes to get zerged, the large group fighting was established as an intended game dynamic from the game's inception. Even the trailers had thousands sieging the City - not 4 drunken nords yelling at Clivia to "come out and 1v1 us bro." If you want small-scale PvP, until Battlegrounds are released, this is not the game for that.

The suggested response is dead on arrival. Servers that are having trouble calculating CP don't need another large set of rolls and calcs. Further, it favors PvDooring by small groups, and only benefits defenders - there is no compensating dynamic for small amounts of attackers vs. a zerg defense.

So we have a server-intensive, unbalanced solution to an anecdotal problem. No.

It's not a subjective experience when the entirety of XB1 NA is crashing left and right because of unchecked mobile AoE effects from zergs. Two maintenance "patches" and performance is just as bad. Just because some dude on PC isn't having issues doesn't mean XB1 is just fine (which was my initial point). Punishing zerg formations IS a solution. When there's no benefit to sieging a keep with 50+ people, all spamming Eye of [insert element here] or 25+ Hurricanes running around, then there's less strain on the system.

If you want me to be completely honest, the REAL fix to Cyrodiil is to upgrade the damn servers, as it is pretty obvious ZoS is trying to skate by with bare minimum hardware for an increasingly harder load with new abilities/changes being added every patch. Homestead is one of the least stable releases yet and it features a bunch of useless cosmetic BS that could have been substituted with something more useful, like gameplay improvements and more class fixes (mag nb's still suck butt in terms of DPS). I guarantee you that the new Warden Ice Ultimate will crash the damn game when used en masse. When Morrowind releases, legions of 50+ bear Ulti's running at you will crash you to dashboard before they even land a hit. This isn't about combat win and losses, this is about not being able to play the damn game.

cjthibs

Vercingetorix wrote: »

olivesforge wrote: »

First I read...

Vercingetorix wrote: »

Again, anecdotal evidence is not a summation of the Cyrodiil experience - it is an outlier.

Then I read..

Vercingetorix wrote: »

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.)

So the response to OP's assumption that performance is just as bad - which is just an unsupported assumption - was an anecdote that performance is much better. To which OP answered that anecdotes are bad (yay!) and that he could say he has proof because of his subjective experience playing the game...



While nobody likes to get zerged, the large group fighting was established as an intended game dynamic from the game's inception. Even the trailers had thousands sieging the City - not 4 drunken nords yelling at Clivia to "come out and 1v1 us bro." If you want small-scale PvP, until Battlegrounds are released, this is not the game for that.

The suggested response is dead on arrival. Servers that are having trouble calculating CP don't need another large set of rolls and calcs. Further, it favors PvDooring by small groups, and only benefits defenders - there is no compensating dynamic for small amounts of attackers vs. a zerg defense.

So we have a server-intensive, unbalanced solution to an anecdotal problem. No.

It's not a subjective experience when the entirety of XB1 NA is crashing left and right because of unchecked mobile AoE effects from zergs. Two maintenance "patches" and performance is just as bad. Just because some dude on PC isn't having issues doesn't mean XB1 is just fine (which was my initial point). Punishing zerg formations IS a solution. When there's no benefit to sieging a keep with 50+ people, all spamming Eye of [insert element here] or 25+ Hurricanes running around, then there's less strain on the system.

If you want me to be completely honest, the REAL fix to Cyrodiil is to upgrade the damn servers, as it is pretty obvious ZoS is trying to skate by with bare minimum hardware for an increasingly harder load with new abilities/changes being added every patch. Homestead is one of the least stable releases yet and it features a bunch of useless cosmetic BS that could have been substituted with something more useful, like gameplay improvements and more class fixes (mag nb's still suck butt in terms of DPS). I guarantee you that the new Warden Ice Ultimate will crash the damn game when used en masse. When Morrowind releases, legions of 50+ bear Ulti's running at you will crash you to dashboard before they even land a hit. This isn't about combat win and losses, this is about not being able to play the damn game.

The irony of listening to someone playing on a console tell a corporation running massive server clusters that their hardware needs to git gud.

HeroOfNone

I think you might be a little backwards on this. The issue with prior patches might have been the zergs, but more importantly the amount of passives, abilities, and checks that occurred between zergs.

This week and the AP changes kind of shows that. We have had few drawn out sieges, keeps flip and folks go to the next objective. Folks don't linger and don't stack all these abilities. The TTK is quick also because the standard 1vX builds are crippled with out CP.

Spreading folks out is fine, but I think a big factor is the battles are shorter with less AOE passives & effects on the server.

If I were to give a recommendation based on that, I'd say ZOS needs to actually adopt an EA Battlefield type of model of quick over world combat and quicker TTK mechanics, and then focus more sustained battles for battlegrounds & dueling. That won't be popular with most but at least the lag would be managed better

templesus

cjthibs wrote: »

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?

You realize this is a video game with lizard people who can throw balls of magic at people and go invisible correct?

cjthibs

templesus wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

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?

You realize this is a video game with lizard people who can throw balls of magic at people and go invisible correct?

Of course I do.

So...if 10 magic-ball-throwing lizards attack 1 magic-ball-throwing lizard...should the advantage go to the single magic-ball-throwing lizard?

templesus

cjthibs wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

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?

You realize this is a video game with lizard people who can throw balls of magic at people and go invisible correct?

Of course I do.

So...if 10 magic-ball-throwing lizards attack 1 magic-ball-throwing lizard...should the advantage go to the single magic-ball-throwing lizard?

I couldnt care less about the topic, I just simply pointed out the flaw in your logic and argument. You criticize his argument for "bending reality" when the entire game "bends reality". You lost, so there's no reason to reply to this comment.