Why PvP will never be fixed as is 2014-2018 (DAoC all over again)

Rohamad_Ali

Ch4mpTW wrote: »

Damn. It’s like the end of 2017, and entering into 2018 more and more of the “ugly truths” about ESO are seeping out. @NewBlacksmurf these are the types of threads which the community needs more of. Quality thread right here. I rate it 10/10, and will be sharing it with a few of my buddies. Matter of a fact, hey take a look at this @Vaoh and @Rohamad_Ali . This thread drops some major jewels.

@Ch4mpTW I don't disagree with the OP but do not know enough about DAoC to really say yes , that's it . Combinations of things over years . Lighting patch was the most notable performance change here . Megaserver technology is another issue as its not fully implemented in Cyrodil where players have to be in the same instance for PVP . Without knowing exactly what ZoS set up for PVP , everything is just a guess . I usually just yell fix it a lot and hope @ZOS_BrianWheeler can explain the technical details that either reinforce the op or give a different narrative . Anything I say is guessing . It's easy to connect dots but doesn't always make the dots the truth .

Vaoh

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Ch4mpTW wrote: »

Damn. It’s like the end of 2017, and entering into 2018 more and more of the “ugly truths” about ESO are seeping out. NewBlacksmurf these are the types of threads which the community needs more of. Quality thread right here. I rate it 10/10, and will be sharing it with a few of my buddies. Matter of a fact, hey take a look at this Vaoh and Rohamad_Ali . This thread drops some major jewels.

Ch4mpTW I don't disagree with the OP but do not know enough about DAoC to really say yes , that's it . Combinations of things over years . Lighting patch was the most notable performance change here . Megaserver technology is another issue as its not fully implemented in Cyrodil where players have to be in the same instance for PVP . Without knowing exactly what ZoS set up for PVP , everything is just a guess . I usually just yell fix it a lot and hope ZOS_BrianWheeler can explain the technical details that either reinforce the op or give a different narrative . Anything I say is guessing . It's easy to connect dots but doesn't always make the dots the truth .

I just wish I could have played ESO before the performance got to where it currently is. If I didn't like or care for ESO I would never bother playing it, and I'd certainly never post on these Forums. I want to witness those advertised large-scale battles that used to happen on PC, and without such performance problems that we see in battles today that aren't nearly as large-scale. It's probably too much to ask for.

I asked in ESO Live chat today sometime between 6:55pm-7:00pm EST if a possible Legacy Server, meaning the vanilla launch version of ESO with maybe a few changes to key problems, might have a chance to exist in the future. Rich Lambert responded that he seriously doubted it. That still leaves a tiny chance though... if these performance problems are caused by specific changes overtime to ESO, then those specific changes are what need to be examined.

Lastly, I'm sure it would help tremendously on console to have the *option* to turn off shadows/grass/water reflection/graphics etc like PC players can to manually adjust game performance.

Rohamad_Ali

Vaoh wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Ch4mpTW wrote: »

Damn. It’s like the end of 2017, and entering into 2018 more and more of the “ugly truths” about ESO are seeping out. NewBlacksmurf these are the types of threads which the community needs more of. Quality thread right here. I rate it 10/10, and will be sharing it with a few of my buddies. Matter of a fact, hey take a look at this Vaoh and Rohamad_Ali . This thread drops some major jewels.

Ch4mpTW I don't disagree with the OP but do not know enough about DAoC to really say yes , that's it . Combinations of things over years . Lighting patch was the most notable performance change here . Megaserver technology is another issue as its not fully implemented in Cyrodil where players have to be in the same instance for PVP . Without knowing exactly what ZoS set up for PVP , everything is just a guess . I usually just yell fix it a lot and hope ZOS_BrianWheeler can explain the technical details that either reinforce the op or give a different narrative . Anything I say is guessing . It's easy to connect dots but doesn't always make the dots the truth .

I just wish I could have played ESO before the performance got to where it currently is. If I didn't like or care for ESO I would never bother playing it, and I'd certainly never post on these Forums. I want to witness those advertised large-scale battles that used to happen on PC, and without such performance problems that we see in battles today that aren't nearly as large-scale. It's probably too much to ask for.

I asked in ESO Live chat today sometime between 6:55pm-7:00pm EST if a possible Legacy Server, meaning the vanilla launch version of ESO with maybe a few changes to key problems, might have a chance to exist in the future. Rich Lambert responded that he seriously doubted it. That still leaves a tiny chance though... if these performance problems are caused by specific changes overtime to ESO, then those specific changes are what need to be examined.

Lastly, I'm sure it would help tremendously on console to have the *option* to turn off shadows/grass/water reflection/graphics etc like PC players can to manually adjust game performance.

It was a glorious time a couple weeks after the first launch crash bugs got repaired . The original dev team still intact and actively making adjustments . This video always takes me back , not the Angry Joe videos . Those were still to early .

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wHnjFXFAE90



Last part of the video with Cyrodil .

badmojo

Vaoh wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

I constantly hear about the horrible lag making Cyrodiil unplayable, and how it should be removed from ESO. Yet every time I try to join Vivec on PC/NA I get hit with a 50-150 queue and when I do fainally get in I have fun.

Sure, because ESO has a pretty sizable PvE population atm. Sometimes those PvEers want to jump into Cyrodiil to make 100K AP for those free 50 transmute stones, or farm RotW to split on multiple chars, or even to level up their alliance skills lines for PvE. You can thank the fact that were playing a TES game for this population lol.

On PC, the population in Cyrodiil per campaign used to be set at 2000 players. There also used to be *a lot* more campaigns. Many were full and queues massive. Nowadays... well the population cap per campaign is something like 200-300 per alliance (including those in IC), and you can go ahead and talk to PC players to ask them how populated PvP still is

On console there used to be double the amount of campaigns, with 2-4 constantly pop-locked with massive queues and a few others nearly pop locked, with the rest of the campaigns having high populations in one faction only (buff/"PvE" servers). Nowadays there's just 4 campaigns: two sometimes pop-locked campaigns, and two others that are dead 24/7 (depending on server ofc)

These days if Vivec is laggy asf, you move to Shor and often find the same thing. All of the solo players have either quit PvP due to lag or joined zergs due to balancing decisions overtime that specifically favor Xv1. So basically all you find to fight are zergs.... which are also being fought by your alliance's zerg..... which means the only fight you can get involved in to earn any meaningful AP is almost always the biggest zerg fight you can find.

Maybe to you it's impressive to see a campaign pop-locked, but the problem here is that there used to be like 3-4 campaigns popolocked and also populated campaigns even late at night. The populations in each individual campaign were much larger in the past for PC in particular and the style of play allowed much more varied because not everyone funneled into the same mass zerg just to see action (which takes place within maybe like 20% of the land in Cyro).

You're saying that the queues in Vivec on PC/NA are from PVE players just wanting to get something and then leave? Strange how I constantly see the same names and same guilds playing, those PVE players must really suck at getting AP or something. But, seriously, do you actually believe it's PVE players keeping Cyrodiil pop-locked? That's absurd.

Why would I "go ahead and talk to PC players" to find our how populated Cyrodiil is? I've played there since beta. Sure, populations have gone down over the years, but that mostly happened in the first year, and the game became more stable because of it.

Are you seriously reminiscing about the buff servers? Buff servers were toxic for the game as a whole, it forced every faction to maintain one, I know this very well because the guild I am in was constantly dominating Chillrend to protect DCs buffs. I did have some of the best times on that server, being outnumbered, defending my guild leaders emp crown for a month while she was on vacation. Having to constantly ignore whispers from the AD and EP players trying to get me to back off my defense and let her crown fall, they thought because I was in line to take the crown I could be corrupted. But, it wasn't like those buff servers were always populated, our guild was constantly turning the map blue then going over to the populated campaign to have some real PVP battles. Back then there were way too many servers for the population of the game. Buff servers proved that and thankfully ZOS took steps to remove them.

OMG the whole "Zergs are bad" argument is ***. Cyrodiil is an open world PVP zone, with centralized objectives, obviously there are always going to be "zergs" fighting each other, to assume otherwise is naive. The game is setup to specifically promote group fighting, it's a large part of what I love about the game, you can be fighting a 20vs 20 battle and suddenly another 100 players come over the hill and change the entire battle. Knowing when to push, knowing when to withdraw, these are things that make the game interesting. It's not just about 'Can my characters beat your character', if it was, I wouldn't be here. But, that doesn't mean there aren't small engagements to be had also. I constantly hear people complain that Cyrodiil is just a zerg fest, yet nobody bothers to defend keeps these days. It's extremely rare to hear about a siege until the keep is flagged, because people refuse to scout and defend keeps. It's easy to find small engagements, so easy I am constantly dying in 1vs1 fights because I rarely build my character for them. You just have to watch the map for resources being turned and scout your keeps for enemy siege, then fight the small number of players you find doing these things. But, I guess it's easier to just cry zergs and run back to PVE?

Perhaps I have the best computer and internet connection in the world, but I don't consider Vivec to be laggy. In large battles my FPS does drop to below 30 at times, but my abilities aren't noticeably delayed, when I hit people they take damage, it's far from unplayable to me. That was kind of my point in the other post, if Cyrodiil was so unplayable, then people wouldn't be playing it. But, since it's always population locked and the queues get quite large on the weekends, I can only assume that your problems in Cyrodiil aren't shared by the people constantly playing in Cyrodiil on PC/NA. Is it a console problem? Is it a region problem? Is it a computer problem? Is it a connection problem? Is it a graphics thing? Is it CPU bottlenecking? Server lag? Who knows, because all people on these forums seem to want to do is blame ZOS and ignore the fact that other people are more than happy playing this "unplayable" game mode.

I can't help but think you have some intense nostalgia goggles on. Or maybe the game really is a different beast on consoles, I saw you mention console, so.... I don't know. But my experience has been different than yours.

thedude33

I played DaoC since beta. Put in far too many hours.

In regards to balance. When all 3 alliances have access to the same classes, how can that be unbalanced?

As much as I liked daoc, it is impossible not to have balance issues. Each realm had their own unique classes. What a nightmare trying to balance that.

Xsorus

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

There is a very simple problem that has absolutely no solution as is......let me explain

What the issue is
The problem is this zone is literally their attempts to recreate the awesomeness of Dark Age of Camelot’s two environments.

Cyrodil = Frontier and Imperial City = Darkness Falls

DAoC has RvR in a Frontier with Keep attacks, Relic steal runs and Zergs

For those who have no idea what I’m referring to, Mythic was the developer of Dark Age I’d Camelot back in the late 1990’s early 2000 founded by Matt F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythic_Entertainment

Why it’s an issue
That game also had a never ending lag issue and they were never resolved. That game allowed somewhere around 350+ players per alliance/faction in the Frontier. It was seperate servers however we still had issues. Notice, regardless of what they change, lag exists or gets worse and eventually requires maintenance. Initially they had to do maintenance 2-3 times every week to keep things stable.

Once a week isn’t enough but it was called Elder Scrolls Offline as 3/7 days was maintenance.


Matt F and a number of others who were with that developer left and some came to this game while others went to make an unreleased Camelot Unchained.

http://camelotunchained.com/v3/


What we are playing for PvP is an old recreated version of that game with TES lore.

It’s why we have classes, skills that aren’t balanced well and a number of other direct comparisons.

A realistic solution:
The short of it is this......the only way to resolve the main complains I see on the forums and in the game is to remove Cyrodil and Imperial City.

Cyrodil can exist in smaller chunks
1. Break the zone up into multiple zones for the PvE content and have a background simulation of PvE campaign
2. Break the zone up into smaller versions of a new type of PvP battle ground. Each campaign should host all these smaller chunks as separate.
3. Imperial City would also follow the above for both PvP and PvE BUT access to Imperial City would have different rules depending upon your choices.

*Because some player want a mixed zone you can offer in the PvE chucks a PvE only and PvE+PvE version which would have the background simulation going

With all of this, there needs to be a different way to handle Faction selection.

I’d propose to remove factions from character creation entirely. Instead the faction would occur as a choice upon joining either the PvE Cyrodil and/or PvP+PvE Cyrodil.

It would reset when the campaign resets and require a new choice.
There would be absolutely no swapping factions and once a choice is made, it’s account wide for these two areas.

The rest of the world would not have a faction

I thinks it’s important that these chunks work like battle ground queues so that a set min per faction and max per faction applies and once a keep, scroll, or whatever the goal is, becomes completed, those players win, loose, draw and can join a new battle ground within the same campaign

This means the possibility of multiple battlegrounds within a campaign

This also means emperor and rewards to apply per battle ground as the campaign is there to assist with faction selection and faction resets.

Guilds should be neutral however players within the guild should be forced into a faction filter for guild chat if they are in a battle ground


Lastly this would allow the developers to look at PvP skill rebalance seperately from PvE

I’d argue that if the above occurs, it would make sense to have PvP only abilities and skills that toggle on a saved skill bar (2 of them)

Players may also be open to PvP gear but I’m getting ahead of myself. It’s time to remove the impossible and develop content for fun.

DAOC has far greater caps then 350 per each faction.

Merlin population in NF was around 650 to 750 Midgard
750-850 hib and Albion could easily break 1000 people at nights.

You’d generally only get lag during relic raids at the relic temple because everyone stacked there to defend it.

Xsorus

Balance issues in DAOC cracks me up; because even games with exact mirror classes have balance issues.

The fact that DAOC has 44 bloody classes and was pretty damn balanced in 8v8 shows how good it’s balance was.

NewBlacksmurf

@Xsorus

Yes they did have larger caps. I was hoping to give context but hopefully it’s not interpreted that those were the caps.

Typically around 250-350 that was the largest RvR group most ppl could run with.

Those relic and fends raids were a lot of fun. I honestly picked this up hoping for those good memories but they lost something and went another direction just at the last few months of closed beta into launch.

Vaoh

badmojo wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

I constantly hear about the horrible lag making Cyrodiil unplayable, and how it should be removed from ESO. Yet every time I try to join Vivec on PC/NA I get hit with a 50-150 queue and when I do fainally get in I have fun.

Sure, because ESO has a pretty sizable PvE population atm. Sometimes those PvEers want to jump into Cyrodiil to make 100K AP for those free 50 transmute stones, or farm RotW to split on multiple chars, or even to level up their alliance skills lines for PvE. You can thank the fact that were playing a TES game for this population lol.

On PC, the population in Cyrodiil per campaign used to be set at 2000 players. There also used to be *a lot* more campaigns. Many were full and queues massive. Nowadays... well the population cap per campaign is something like 200-300 per alliance (including those in IC), and you can go ahead and talk to PC players to ask them how populated PvP still is

On console there used to be double the amount of campaigns, with 2-4 constantly pop-locked with massive queues and a few others nearly pop locked, with the rest of the campaigns having high populations in one faction only (buff/"PvE" servers). Nowadays there's just 4 campaigns: two sometimes pop-locked campaigns, and two others that are dead 24/7 (depending on server ofc)

These days if Vivec is laggy asf, you move to Shor and often find the same thing. All of the solo players have either quit PvP due to lag or joined zergs due to balancing decisions overtime that specifically favor Xv1. So basically all you find to fight are zergs.... which are also being fought by your alliance's zerg..... which means the only fight you can get involved in to earn any meaningful AP is almost always the biggest zerg fight you can find.

Maybe to you it's impressive to see a campaign pop-locked, but the problem here is that there used to be like 3-4 campaigns popolocked and also populated campaigns even late at night. The populations in each individual campaign were much larger in the past for PC in particular and the style of play allowed much more varied because not everyone funneled into the same mass zerg just to see action (which takes place within maybe like 20% of the land in Cyro).

You're saying that the queues in Vivec on PC/NA are from PVE players just wanting to get something and then leave? Strange how I constantly see the same names and same guilds playing, those PVE players must really suck at getting AP or something. But, seriously, do you actually believe it's PVE players keeping Cyrodiil pop-locked? That's absurd.

Why would I "go ahead and talk to PC players" to find our how populated Cyrodiil is? I've played there since beta. Sure, populations have gone down over the years, but that mostly happened in the first year, and the game became more stable because of it.

Are you seriously reminiscing about the buff servers? Buff servers were toxic for the game as a whole, it forced every faction to maintain one, I know this very well because the guild I am in was constantly dominating Chillrend to protect DCs buffs. I did have some of the best times on that server, being outnumbered, defending my guild leaders emp crown for a month while she was on vacation. Having to constantly ignore whispers from the AD and EP players trying to get me to back off my defense and let her crown fall, they thought because I was in line to take the crown I could be corrupted. But, it wasn't like those buff servers were always populated, our guild was constantly turning the map blue then going over to the populated campaign to have some real PVP battles. Back then there were way too many servers for the population of the game. Buff servers proved that and thankfully ZOS took steps to remove them.

OMG the whole "Zergs are bad" argument is ***. Cyrodiil is an open world PVP zone, with centralized objectives, obviously there are always going to be "zergs" fighting each other, to assume otherwise is naive. The game is setup to specifically promote group fighting, it's a large part of what I love about the game, you can be fighting a 20vs 20 battle and suddenly another 100 players come over the hill and change the entire battle. Knowing when to push, knowing when to withdraw, these are things that make the game interesting. It's not just about 'Can my characters beat your character', if it was, I wouldn't be here. But, that doesn't mean there aren't small engagements to be had also. I constantly hear people complain that Cyrodiil is just a zerg fest, yet nobody bothers to defend keeps these days. It's extremely rare to hear about a siege until the keep is flagged, because people refuse to scout and defend keeps. It's easy to find small engagements, so easy I am constantly dying in 1vs1 fights because I rarely build my character for them. You just have to watch the map for resources being turned and scout your keeps for enemy siege, then fight the small number of players you find doing these things. But, I guess it's easier to just cry zergs and run back to PVE?

Perhaps I have the best computer and internet connection in the world, but I don't consider Vivec to be laggy. In large battles my FPS does drop to below 30 at times, but my abilities aren't noticeably delayed, when I hit people they take damage, it's far from unplayable to me. That was kind of my point in the other post, if Cyrodiil was so unplayable, then people wouldn't be playing it. But, since it's always population locked and the queues get quite large on the weekends, I can only assume that your problems in Cyrodiil aren't shared by the people constantly playing in Cyrodiil on PC/NA. Is it a console problem? Is it a region problem? Is it a computer problem? Is it a connection problem? Is it a graphics thing? Is it CPU bottlenecking? Server lag? Who knows, because all people on these forums seem to want to do is blame ZOS and ignore the fact that other people are more than happy playing this "unplayable" game mode.

I can't help but think you have some intense nostalgia goggles on. Or maybe the game really is a different beast on consoles, I saw you mention console, so.... I don't know. But my experience has been different than yours.

I wasn't arguing with you lol. You really don't need to take everything I say and try to create an argument for the sake of doing it. Nothing constructive about that at all. Zergs are fine (that's the point of Cyrodiil), but it's a problem nowadays that there are only zergs to fight. I don't have nostalgia for PC PvP because I'm on console.

Solo play is basically gone (unless against very low skilled/new players) due to the million Xv1 tools and specific class nerfs overtime, and small groups disadvantaged by the very same mechanics. Take cost poisons for example, or Cliff Racers vs Medium Armor, or Soul Assault causing the caster to become CC immune, unbashable, to reveal the target, and apply an unpurgeable beam that deals very high damage which also ticks very quickly to burn extra Stam if blocked. There are so many things that have changed overtime which funnel people into the same areas to zerg.

The game has *hard counters* now to numerous playstyles that just didn't exist before. This is interesting for group play but can be a huge issue for solo or small group play. Snares are also extremely powerful atm. Although it's fine in group play it hurts outnumbered players tremendously. The game used to be balanced for all styles of play, but is now much more group-based. Small Groups are actually going to be more powerful next patch (I hope) due to the removal of AoE Caps so that might be an improvement though

As for your example of a 20v20, and then a group of 100 coming over the hill... when does this happen? I can't remember something like this happening a lot since console launch. In recent times, anything like that would cause enormous lag, FPS drops, and multiple players across the battlefield to crash The difference between Console and PC gameplay is much larger than you think. Our endgame PvE trials (mainly HoF, vMoL, Asylum) drop us to like 5-10 FPS and slow down the game a lot. PvP makes it even worse in 100+ player battles. I'll also add that I use PS4 Pro and that PS4 regular performs even worse.

Vaoh

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Ch4mpTW wrote: »

Damn. It’s like the end of 2017, and entering into 2018 more and more of the “ugly truths” about ESO are seeping out. NewBlacksmurf these are the types of threads which the community needs more of. Quality thread right here. I rate it 10/10, and will be sharing it with a few of my buddies. Matter of a fact, hey take a look at this Vaoh and Rohamad_Ali . This thread drops some major jewels.

Ch4mpTW I don't disagree with the OP but do not know enough about DAoC to really say yes , that's it . Combinations of things over years . Lighting patch was the most notable performance change here . Megaserver technology is another issue as its not fully implemented in Cyrodil where players have to be in the same instance for PVP . Without knowing exactly what ZoS set up for PVP , everything is just a guess . I usually just yell fix it a lot and hope ZOS_BrianWheeler can explain the technical details that either reinforce the op or give a different narrative . Anything I say is guessing . It's easy to connect dots but doesn't always make the dots the truth .

I just wish I could have played ESO before the performance got to where it currently is. If I didn't like or care for ESO I would never bother playing it, and I'd certainly never post on these Forums. I want to witness those advertised large-scale battles that used to happen on PC, and without such performance problems that we see in battles today that aren't nearly as large-scale. It's probably too much to ask for.

I asked in ESO Live chat today sometime between 6:55pm-7:00pm EST if a possible Legacy Server, meaning the vanilla launch version of ESO with maybe a few changes to key problems, might have a chance to exist in the future. Rich Lambert responded that he seriously doubted it. That still leaves a tiny chance though... if these performance problems are caused by specific changes overtime to ESO, then those specific changes are what need to be examined.

Lastly, I'm sure it would help tremendously on console to have the *option* to turn off shadows/grass/water reflection/graphics etc like PC players can to manually adjust game performance.

It was a glorious time a couple weeks after the first launch crash bugs got repaired . The original dev team still intact and actively making adjustments . This video always takes me back , not the Angry Joe videos . Those were still to early .

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wHnjFXFAE90



Last part of the video with Cyrodil .

Yeah I've seen some videos of ESO's early days. This vid was in beta but the amount of players and lack of lag is shocking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-BhwhwX38o

Rohamad_Ali

Vaoh wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Ch4mpTW wrote: »

Damn. It’s like the end of 2017, and entering into 2018 more and more of the “ugly truths” about ESO are seeping out. NewBlacksmurf these are the types of threads which the community needs more of. Quality thread right here. I rate it 10/10, and will be sharing it with a few of my buddies. Matter of a fact, hey take a look at this Vaoh and Rohamad_Ali . This thread drops some major jewels.

Ch4mpTW I don't disagree with the OP but do not know enough about DAoC to really say yes , that's it . Combinations of things over years . Lighting patch was the most notable performance change here . Megaserver technology is another issue as its not fully implemented in Cyrodil where players have to be in the same instance for PVP . Without knowing exactly what ZoS set up for PVP , everything is just a guess . I usually just yell fix it a lot and hope ZOS_BrianWheeler can explain the technical details that either reinforce the op or give a different narrative . Anything I say is guessing . It's easy to connect dots but doesn't always make the dots the truth .

I just wish I could have played ESO before the performance got to where it currently is. If I didn't like or care for ESO I would never bother playing it, and I'd certainly never post on these Forums. I want to witness those advertised large-scale battles that used to happen on PC, and without such performance problems that we see in battles today that aren't nearly as large-scale. It's probably too much to ask for.

I asked in ESO Live chat today sometime between 6:55pm-7:00pm EST if a possible Legacy Server, meaning the vanilla launch version of ESO with maybe a few changes to key problems, might have a chance to exist in the future. Rich Lambert responded that he seriously doubted it. That still leaves a tiny chance though... if these performance problems are caused by specific changes overtime to ESO, then those specific changes are what need to be examined.

Lastly, I'm sure it would help tremendously on console to have the *option* to turn off shadows/grass/water reflection/graphics etc like PC players can to manually adjust game performance.

It was a glorious time a couple weeks after the first launch crash bugs got repaired . The original dev team still intact and actively making adjustments . This video always takes me back , not the Angry Joe videos . Those were still to early .

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wHnjFXFAE90



Last part of the video with Cyrodil .

Yeah I've seen some videos of ESO's early days. This vid was in beta but the amount of players and lack of lag is shocking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-BhwhwX38o

All of these memories is why it's so hard to give up . We know it can be done . We know it , we've seen it .

Ragnarock41

thedude33 wrote: »

I played DaoC since beta. Put in far too many hours.

In regards to balance. When all 3 alliances have access to the same classes, how can that be unbalanced?

As much as I liked daoc, it is impossible not to have balance issues. Each realm had their own unique classes. What a nightmare trying to balance that.

not to mention having to make a choice between playing with your friends vs going all-in for your desired playstyle.

Kode

Minno wrote: »

Kode wrote: »

Bring it back to the drawing boards and recreate Cyrodiil.

ESO can't support large zerg battles and needs to focus on small scale, loose fights. Do what you do best, do it very well and people will appreciate it more.

The game is broken and new RvR games are coming, and are going to take the player base away because players are fed up with problems. With a game that is trying to build a castle on a swamp.

Focus on what you CAN do.

I'd agree, but I'm worried the game can only support 12 at a time essentially lag free.

But then against that's not terrible, but would be cool to have a locked 50v50v50 Battlfield style que at specific locations.

That is what I mean. New ideas. Get rid of the broken crap we have now and make it so you can queue into individual battles. Break Cyrodiil up and create smaller sectional maps that you can queue into either as solo, group or raid to fight for and defend keeps.
And that idea may not be the one that sticks, but ideas to move this game into an element that works and away from trying to limp along on an obviously unstable system.

thedude33

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

thedude33 wrote: »

I played DaoC since beta. Put in far too many hours.

In regards to balance. When all 3 alliances have access to the same classes, how can that be unbalanced?

As much as I liked daoc, it is impossible not to have balance issues. Each realm had their own unique classes. What a nightmare trying to balance that.

not to mention having to make a choice between playing with your friends vs going all-in for your desired playstyle.

My play style matched up perfectly with my friends. Some of the best times ever in pvp as a 2 Scout duo.(finally found another NB to duo with recently but he doesn't play a lot.)

Also did groups of 3-8 depending on who was on.

Gilvoth

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Well spoken.

They tried to make DAOC, but ended up making the same game but worse.

^this^

Gilvoth

unbalanced classes, been this way since beta.

Bhaal5

Could also say cyrodiil is a copy of wvw from gw2.... Just arenanet got it right with class balance/structure, tournament setup so wvw(pvp) never got stale and server/infrastructure quality.
Been an oceanic player..... Notice a MASSIVE difference between eso and gw2 (gw2 the zergs are larger yet there is less large).

Slick_007

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

It’s why we have classes, skills that aren’t balanced well and a number of other direct comparisons.

i dont think pvp has anything to do with this.

Derra

DAoC had nowhere near the lag issues ESO has.

I´ve played the game since release and while i did have lag in larger fights it was perfectly playable outside of those massive (usually relic) fights (and even those ran better than eso on a regular weekday except for the server crashing completely).

The same players i played DAoC with 4 to 6 times a week over more than 5 years quit eso just after 6 months because of the horrible performance.

NewBlacksmurf

Slick_007 wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

It’s why we have classes, skills that aren’t balanced well and a number of other direct comparisons.

i dont think pvp has anything to do with this.

@Slick_007
According to the devs it does. They’ve shared on eso live a few times their methodology on skill changes. It’s definately driven by PvP

Slick_007

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Slick_007 wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

It’s why we have classes, skills that aren’t balanced well and a number of other direct comparisons.

i dont think pvp has anything to do with this.

@Slick_007
According to the devs it does. They’ve shared on eso live a few times their methodology on skill changes. It’s definately driven by PvP

thats not what you said before which is why i said its not true. skill changes fine, classes and skills no.

pdebie64b16_ESO

DAOC has 3 realms, each realm has 3 RvR zones and one seperate RvR dungeon (Darkness Falls) so the RvR load was more spread out. But most RvR activity was in 1 zone (Emain Macha) most other zones were abandoned except the zones close to the portal zones. When the RvR zones were revamped it was easier to travel to futher away zones by boat (DAOC didnt have mounts that time) but still the RvR zones closed by were the most populair.

The OP has a point but iam afraid only a few zones in Cyrodiil (if it is seperated like DAOC) will be populair what only increase server issues.

Methariorn

I've played Daoc since day one on USA servers and never got heavy lag like on Teso (and I played on Morgan le Fay one of the most high pop server). Relic raid where some laggy but I also got a dam 256k ADSL in the year of our Lord 2001 xD.
Now during prime time on Vivec (but was the same at start...I still have lag nightmare on Auriel bow...) with a 100mps fiber line it's impossible to play. Let's put aside the horrible engine optimization that force to turn most of the graphics off on high end PC; I smell horrible netcoding from one parsec.

NewBlacksmurf

Slick_007 wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Slick_007 wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

It’s why we have classes, skills that aren’t balanced well and a number of other direct comparisons.

i dont think pvp has anything to do with this.

@Slick_007
According to the devs it does. They’ve shared on eso live a few times their methodology on skill changes. It’s definately driven by PvP

thats not what you said before which is why i said its not true. skill changes fine, classes and skills no.

??? I wrote a few times that the skills are being changed due to the devs looking at PvP???

Where did it state devs aren’t changing skills for PvP?

Cronopoly

While some of you have some valid points, this is an end to end IT issue that ZOS does know how to fix if they wanted to. See below. Many have absolutely no idea how an Enterprise application can work and bottleneck. No they don't teach this in school or Facebook...

Cronopoly wrote: »

We could discuss this with an actual IT terms...and bottlenecks therein.

ALL I.T. SYSTEMS OF EVERY TYPE HAVE A NARRATIVE OF DELIVERING "THE RIGHT DATA TO THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME" I coined it in my draft of my IT Service Delivery Management book I'm writing If you see lag, this is not occurring obviously. If any IT system has ANY problem, something is getting in the way of this maxim. Yes I'm lecturing from the podium. J/K just spouting some of the useless knowledge I have stored up in mah brain from 20+ years in Enterprise billion dollar companies.

We would have to acknowledge actual profiled bandwidth of:

• Networking Routers and marked data types for level of service.
• Transit time through External and Internal DMZ's with enterprise Firewalls like Checkpoint Firewalls
• O/S Servers Gigabit connections and bandwidth
• Physical I/O bus sizes on servers
• Broker/CICS regions that encapsulate player sessions on the Zone partitions
• Transactions to database over Fiber
• SSL appliances bandwidth and timouts
• EMC (like) shared storage for data on SSD vs spindles Hard drives and separate services using the same splindle causing slowdowns.
• Storage Fiber channel cards bottlenecks
• Application Transactional profiling of player functions (fired off skills) that get shared to "Other" players & FIFO Data queues
• Available physical/virtual Memory and the dreaded memory swapping.

All of the items I listed above along with many more I did not mention would need to be profiled/charted for trends after every major patch cycle and of course periodically to see the actual transactional timings during any day/week cycle and most importantly where there is consistent growth on any of the said charts, so any IT manager could see where we are Running Towards a Cliff so the ship can be righted BEFORE going over the edge. Many times you may have weeks notice of something growing unchecked...example like hard drive space on a set partition...you fill it up and the application falls over. Billion dollar companies ignore this daily... Don't get me started on NAT tables, app garbage collection, and some idiot running a full gigabit speed backup on a production server during peak... /cry

But since this is not a low level IT discussion, it's more in the 10,000 foot view, I would say any assertion that does not talk turkey about the lower level actuals may not be relevant to what is actually causing the lag we see.

ZOS should know EXACTLY what I'm talking about and how to remove the lag we see. We could have daily missions to the moon but there is a cost involved and personnel assigned to Manage it. Obviously some party has made a conscious decision top leave things as is and or manage to a good enough level. Not slamming it, just stating that if they wanted to fix "it" and pay for "it", it likely would have occurred already imo. Extreme daily cases of 100 vs 100 in PVP may not warrant the infrastructure cost the company is willing to pay to remove that perceived lag situation.

NewBlacksmurf

Cronopoly wrote: »

While some of you have some valid points, this is an end to end IT issue that ZOS does know how to fix if they wanted to. See below. Many have absolutely no idea how an Enterprise application can work and bottleneck. No they don't teach this in school or Facebook...

Cronopoly wrote: »

We could discuss this with an actual IT terms...and bottlenecks therein.

ALL I.T. SYSTEMS OF EVERY TYPE HAVE A NARRATIVE OF DELIVERING "THE RIGHT DATA TO THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME" I coined it in my draft of my IT Service Delivery Management book I'm writing If you see lag, this is not occurring obviously. If any IT system has ANY problem, something is getting in the way of this maxim. Yes I'm lecturing from the podium. J/K just spouting some of the useless knowledge I have stored up in mah brain from 20+ years in Enterprise billion dollar companies.

We would have to acknowledge actual profiled bandwidth of:

• Networking Routers and marked data types for level of service.
• Transit time through External and Internal DMZ's with enterprise Firewalls like Checkpoint Firewalls
• O/S Servers Gigabit connections and bandwidth
• Physical I/O bus sizes on servers
• Broker/CICS regions that encapsulate player sessions on the Zone partitions
• Transactions to database over Fiber
• SSL appliances bandwidth and timouts
• EMC (like) shared storage for data on SSD vs spindles Hard drives and separate services using the same splindle causing slowdowns.
• Storage Fiber channel cards bottlenecks
• Application Transactional profiling of player functions (fired off skills) that get shared to "Other" players & FIFO Data queues
• Available physical/virtual Memory and the dreaded memory swapping.

All of the items I listed above along with many more I did not mention would need to be profiled/charted for trends after every major patch cycle and of course periodically to see the actual transactional timings during any day/week cycle and most importantly where there is consistent growth on any of the said charts, so any IT manager could see where we are Running Towards a Cliff so the ship can be righted BEFORE going over the edge. Many times you may have weeks notice of something growing unchecked...example like hard drive space on a set partition...you fill it up and the application falls over. Billion dollar companies ignore this daily... Don't get me started on NAT tables, app garbage collection, and some idiot running a full gigabit speed backup on a production server during peak... /cry

But since this is not a low level IT discussion, it's more in the 10,000 foot view, I would say any assertion that does not talk turkey about the lower level actuals may not be relevant to what is actually causing the lag we see.

ZOS should know EXACTLY what I'm talking about and how to remove the lag we see. We could have daily missions to the moon but there is a cost involved and personnel assigned to Manage it. Obviously some party has made a conscious decision top leave things as is and or manage to a good enough level. Not slamming it, just stating that if they wanted to fix "it" and pay for "it", it likely would have occurred already imo. Extreme daily cases of 100 vs 100 in PVP may not warrant the infrastructure cost the company is willing to pay to remove that perceived lag situation.

I will trust you both but this suggests they know all of this and are either not applying the suggested tactics or there is a limitation they can’t resolve meaning maybe it’s not a cost but some other obstacle.

Vermintide

I hate to say it but I think Guild Wars pulled off roughly the same concept a lot better than this game. If they could adapt something similar to what GW2 had but without that no-fun-allowed "Here is your PVP gear set, deal with it" system, it'd be a vast improvement.

Also I'd support alliance choice being account wide. I'd still think people should be allowed to change so they can join the side their friends play, for example, but there needs to be a disincentive- Maybe it would cost 500,000 AP to do so, or you would forfeit all rewards from the campaign until the next one starts.

As for performance, who on earth knows. What I think would help is changing the combat system to something more accommodating of imprecise timing; rather than trying to overcome the lag. For instance, all the animation cancelling BS, all the skills that require precision to weave into a combo, yet are basically impossible under normal conditions in Cyro... That stuff all needs to go, and be replaced with a skill mechanic that doesn't simply feel like the remnant of a bug exploit.

Vermintide

I hate to say it but I think Guild Wars pulled off roughly the same concept a lot better than this game. If they could adapt something similar to what GW2 had but without that no-fun-allowed "Here is your PVP gear set, deal with it" system, it'd be a vast improvement.

Also I'd support alliance choice being account wide. I'd still think people should be allowed to change so they can join the side their friends play, for example, but there needs to be a disincentive- Maybe it would cost 500,000 AP to do so, or you would forfeit all rewards from the campaign until the next one starts.

As for performance, who on earth knows. What I think would help is changing the combat system to something more accommodating of imprecise timing; rather than trying to overcome the lag. For instance, all the animation cancelling BS, all the skills that require precision to weave into a combo, yet are basically impossible under normal conditions in Cyro... That stuff all needs to go, and be replaced with a skill mechanic that doesn't simply feel like the remnant of a bug exploit.

DosPanchos

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

DAoC had minimal latency.

You’d get some FPS drops if you were zerging, but lag was rarely an issue.

It’s engine was streamlined for mass data transfer... basically designed to be an MMO.

ESO is not “optimized” for MMO levels of data transfer.

Also ESO is far more balanced than. DAoC ever was. The realms in DAoC had completely different classes. Bone dancers spent 3 years being OP...

Then why do people continue to complain about how inabalanced it is?

Because they can't quit complaining. Sure, the game isn't perfect but it's probably more balanced than it's ever been...

Xsorus

Bhaal5 wrote: »

Could also say cyrodiil is a copy of wvw from gw2.... Just arenanet got it right with class balance/structure, tournament setup so wvw(pvp) never got stale and server/infrastructure quality.
Been an oceanic player..... Notice a MASSIVE difference between eso and gw2 (gw2 the zergs are larger yet there is less large).

Rofl what?

Arenanet most certainly didn’t get anything right with their WVW system. Most of it ended up being nothing but rotating keep farming and thanks to their rankings system only the number 1 server pairings was remotely competitive as everything past that came down to off hour population and just straight up zerging of one faction on the other two.

And wvw is so stale in that game they made new maps and flat out had to remove them because they were terrible.