Crowdfunding new servers for Cyrodiil

Olquorron

Server performance in Cyrodiil (particularly in CP-enabled campaigns) is lacking, to say the least. During prime time Cyrodiil is often unplayable. Yet we keep coming back, because we love the game, we love the PvP experience, and we hold out hope that eventually the extreme latency issues will be resolved.

But they won't be resolved.

At least, not if we just wait for ZOS to fix them. Why not? Firstly, it's abundantly clear that what's most needed is upgraded (i.e., faster) server hardware. Case in point: extreme lag issues in CP-enabled campaigns (even when Sotha is also pop-locked) are far more apparent for the reason that CP-enabled combat requires a far greater number of computations. Thus, what is needed is a major hardware upgrade.

I'm sure the people at ZOS responsible for making such determinations (i.e., the people that actually work on the game) would *love* to upgrade the server hardware. I suspect the problem is that higher powers don't want to invest that kind of money in a four-year-old game. We keep coming back, we keep trying to make PvP work, we keep our ESO subscriptions current, and we keep buying stuff from the crown store.

Under these circumstances, why would those whose job it is to look out for the bottom line pony up the money for new servers? They won't.

I'd like to propose that we start a campaign to convince the powers-that-be to upgrade the servers if the playerbase can front the money itself, directly for this purpose (and this purpose alone). In other words, crowdfund new servers.

I think it would take only a few days to crowdfund the money for the necessary server upgrades w/ contributions from the existing playerbase.

Thus, I would invite anyone who finds this idea appealing to use this thread to explore with me the many potential barriers to such an arrangement. I'd be chuffed if those with legal expertise would chime in.

Acrolas

Olquorron wrote: »

Thus, I would invite anyone who finds this idea appealing to use this thread to explore with me the many potential barriers to such an arrangement. I'd be chuffed if those with legal expertise would chime in.

But in Bethesda, Maryland, ZeniMax Media has slowly built an empire that has established a significant foothold in the gaming space—and while individual and corporate investors are shut out for now, venture capitalists are courting it aggressively.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/39726707

Despite being an article from 2010, that's still the case. ZeniMax does seem to prefer being indebted to as few people as possible because that means returning investments for as few people as possible.


The other barrier is, of course, that Cyrodiil is not a server. Each campaign is a large instance on the megaserver. There's never going to be real-time performance and some people have to start realizing that smashing a lot of people together in one place can be just as uncomfortable digitally as it is in real life. Latency is going to be an issue in any multiplayer game, no matter the product. It's not something that has a magic fix.

Gilvoth

then make fewer people allowed in each campaign, like 25 per alliance max.
any new people are locked out and pushed into another campaign.

ALL campaigns 75 people max, 25 per alliance.

VaranisArano

Its not for lack of money that ZOS can't or won't fix the lag or persistent performance issues in PVP. They've got the money.

VaranisArano

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

then make fewer people allowed in each campaign, like 25 per alliance max.
any new people are locked out and pushed into another campaign.

ALL campaigns 75 people max, 25 per alliance.

So, a guild raid and a ganker?

Olquorron

VaranisArano wrote: »

Its not for lack of money that ZOS can't or won't fix the lag or persistent performance issues in PVP. They've got the money.

That's exactly my point.

LegacyDM

It’s not a server hardware issue. It’s software coding flaws deeply rooted in the base code. Increasing server power won’t fix it. They need to allocate manpower resources to fix it. Pvp doesn’t generate money. Their money comes from new content and crown store. Pvp players is a fraction of the larger player base. It’s not cost effective for them.their manpower resources goto pve.

ArchMikem

You do know the servers ZOS use are practically brand new? Its not a hardware issue whatsoever.

rootimus

LegacyDM wrote: »

It’s not a server hardware issue. It’s software coding flaws deeply rooted in the base code. Increasing server power won’t fix it.

None of us on the outside know for certain if it's a hardware issue, a software issue, or a combination of both. Anecdotal evidence suggests you're probably right, though.

LegacyDM wrote: »

They need to allocate manpower resources to fix it.

Sadly, this is never going to happen. It's what happens when a company is run by people like Jerry Bruckheimer, Les Moonves and Robert Trump; when the money starts to dry up they'll be fine with ESO withering and dying while they happily milk the next cash cow.

Kadoin

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

then make fewer people allowed in each campaign, like 25 per alliance max.
any new people are locked out and pushed into another campaign.

ALL campaigns 75 people max, 25 per alliance.

The performance doesn't seem any better or worse than it did when the game had more people per server IMO

MakoFore

they just dont care- so yeah - lets crowdfund it lol-
given that pop lock is a mere 350-500 players around the world at once in cyrodil= and they cant have a stable server for it- i guess its doomed.

Olquorron

LegacyDM wrote: »

It’s not a server hardware issue. It’s software coding flaws deeply rooted in the base code. Increasing server power won’t fix it. They need to allocate manpower resources to fix it. Pvp doesn’t generate money. Their money comes from new content and crown store. Pvp players is a fraction of the larger player base. It’s not cost effective for them.their manpower resources goto pve.

I don't think that's true. If it were, the problem wouldn't be directly tied to the number of people active in a given campaign, and the problem wouldn't be worse in CP vs. no-CP campaigns.

If it *is* true, then perhaps there's something we could still fund, since those with the ability to greenlight such things clearly won't put the capital forward (again, I know those who actually work on the game would surely do something about this if it were within their power to do so).

SHADOW2KK

Ye lets waste more money giving to ZoS..

LittlePinkDot

Well if we were to crowdfund a fix for cyrodiil, first we would have to get ZoS to tell us what exactly the problem is and how much they think it will cost to fix. We would need a number to aim for, and it would then have to be legally binding that ZoS uses the money to fix whatever is causing the problem in cyrodiil. Throwing money at them is useless if they can just do whatever they want with the money.

Olquorron

LittlePinkDot wrote: »

Well if we were to crowdfund a fix for cyrodiil, first we would have to get ZoS to tell us what exactly the problem is and how much they think it will cost to fix. We would need a number to aim for, and it would then have to be legally binding that ZoS uses the money to fix whatever is causing the problem in cyrodiil. Throwing money at them is useless if they can just do whatever they want with the money.

Yes, that's covered in the original post.

DeadlyRecluse

If unironic, this is a new level of rendering yourself voluntarily servile to our corporate overlords.

LegacyDM

rootimus wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

It’s not a server hardware issue. It’s software coding flaws deeply rooted in the base code. Increasing server power won’t fix it.

None of us on the outside know for certain if it's a hardware issue, a software issue, or a combination of both. Anecdotal evidence suggests you're probably right, though.

LegacyDM wrote: »

They need to allocate manpower resources to fix it.

Sadly, this is never going to happen. It's what happens when a company is run by people like Jerry Bruckheimer, Les Moonves and Robert Trump; when the money starts to dry up they'll be fine with ESO withering and dying while they happily milk the next cash cow.

I'm just going off what ZOS has stated. They have admitted that the problem is a software one. Not an issue with hardware.

Olquorron wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

It’s not a server hardware issue. It’s software coding flaws deeply rooted in the base code. Increasing server power won’t fix it. They need to allocate manpower resources to fix it. Pvp doesn’t generate money. Their money comes from new content and crown store. Pvp players is a fraction of the larger player base. It’s not cost effective for them.their manpower resources goto pve.

I don't think that's true. If it were, the problem wouldn't be directly tied to the number of people active in a given campaign, and the problem wouldn't be worse in CP vs. no-CP campaigns.

If it *is* true, then perhaps there's something we could still fund, since those with the ability to greenlight such things clearly won't put the capital forward (again, I know those who actually work on the game would surely do something about this if it were within their power to do so).

I can't find it but I recall that Brian Wheeler stated that the results of the no-CP test were not what they initially thought and they were going to look at other causes.

ezio45

i didnt read but im not even funding the regular servers til my shields are fixed

Sylosi

People going on about hardware, but I seem to remember a video (by Fengrush) showing a big drop in performance after they added code to deal with botting early in the game.

Solariken

We'd be better off crowdfunding development of a new a game to replace ESO, which is basically what is happening via Camelot Unchained.

darvaria

Crowdfunding is now regulated by the SEC in the US. Similar rules as used to sell shares as applied to LP/GP investments. You have to "qualify" investors, define a "return", etc. I've mostly seen them used in start ups or a new product or division. Crowdfunding got a lot more complicated after the SEC ruling came about in 2016. Not sure ZOS would meet the requirements for crowdfunding (particularly the one about disclosure with sales being around $115M, I would guess they are an exchange act reporting company even though it is a private company. If ZOS isn't, seems likely the parent company is ... so I'm speculating they would NOT qualify .. (just speculating) But ... IF they could quality, one premise used is to offer something of value to the investors. Some of these virtual product rewards could easily fall under that option. I don't see equity positions as a viable option.

Is there reason to think Zenimax does not have the funds or could raise the funds from other methods to improve the servers? They COULD sell a Cyrodiil supporters package. Virtual rewards such as a mount as no one as seen before. Appearance based rewards so as not to trend toward "pay to win".

Jameliel

For as many people that play the game, they should at the very least put servers in Asia and Oceanic regions as well. z0$ is going down as legendary for being a cheap company. I'm not sure exactly what they need to do to fix performance and lag issues. I do know they need to do something NOW, and not another 4 years down the road. I've seen nothing that makes me believe they are doing anything but milking as much money as they can before the game slowly loses more and more players.

SugaComa

Just sell adds on the load screen ... This load screen was brought to you by pepsi

Urvoth

LegacyDM wrote: »

It’s not a server hardware issue. It’s software coding flaws deeply rooted in the base code. Increasing server power won’t fix it. They need to allocate manpower resources to fix it. Pvp doesn’t generate money. Their money comes from new content and crown store. Pvp players is a fraction of the larger player base. It’s not cost effective for them.their manpower resources goto pve.

PvP players DO spend money on the crown store and new content, though. I'd even argue that they might spend even more than their PvE only counterparts. Pretty much every PvP player I know has ESO+, has bought every expansion, has certainly bought a horse or opened crates to get one, and most of them have bought costumes, hats, skins, etc from the crown store on top of that. If you ride around in Cyrodiil, it seems like every 2nd player has an apex mount and nearly everyone at least has some sort of purchased one. The brown horse is the least common one out there. Compared to mounting up in trials and seeing a large portion of the people using one of the gold purchased horses or one of the collector's edition or giveaway ones, it seems like PvP players do spend more on cosmetics.

phairdon

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

then make fewer people allowed in each campaign, like 25 per alliance max.
any new people are locked out and pushed into another campaign.

ALL campaigns 75 people max, 25 per alliance.

You cannot be remotely serious?

shaielzafine

SugaComa wrote: »

Just sell adds on the load screen ... This load screen was brought to you by pepsi

Great idea, tbh. With all the loadscreens they should really just introduce more ads if it helps any with performance. After all, immersion is already broken when you log in and see a giant crown store ad.

kargen27

LegacyDM wrote: »

It’s not a server hardware issue. It’s software coding flaws deeply rooted in the base code. Increasing server power won’t fix it. They need to allocate manpower resources to fix it. Pvp doesn’t generate money. Their money comes from new content and crown store. Pvp players is a fraction of the larger player base. It’s not cost effective for them.their manpower resources goto pve.

All the players running Zaan in PvP tells me they do indeed generate money for ZoS. That and entire large groups riding about on mounts gained from crown crates.

With the PvE aspect of the game new content is always required and that drains from the coffers much more than anything they do for PvP.

LegacyDM

Urvoth wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

It’s not a server hardware issue. It’s software coding flaws deeply rooted in the base code. Increasing server power won’t fix it. They need to allocate manpower resources to fix it. Pvp doesn’t generate money. Their money comes from new content and crown store. Pvp players is a fraction of the larger player base. It’s not cost effective for them.their manpower resources goto pve.

PvP players DO spend money on the crown store and new content, though. I'd even argue that they might spend even more than their PvE only counterparts. Pretty much every PvP player I know has ESO+, has bought every expansion, has certainly bought a horse or opened crates to get one, and most of them have bought costumes, hats, skins, etc from the crown store on top of that. If you ride around in Cyrodiil, it seems like every 2nd player has an apex mount and nearly everyone at least has some sort of purchased one. The brown horse is the least common one out there. Compared to mounting up in trials and seeing a large portion of the people using one of the gold purchased horses or one of the collector's edition or giveaway ones, it seems like PvP players do spend more on cosmetics.

kargen27 wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

It’s not a server hardware issue. It’s software coding flaws deeply rooted in the base code. Increasing server power won’t fix it. They need to allocate manpower resources to fix it. Pvp doesn’t generate money. Their money comes from new content and crown store. Pvp players is a fraction of the larger player base. It’s not cost effective for them.their manpower resources goto pve.

All the players running Zaan in PvP tells me they do indeed generate money for ZoS. That and entire large groups riding about on mounts gained from crown crates.

With the PvE aspect of the game new content is always required and that drains from the coffers much more than anything they do for PvP.

All players are spending money. Yes. Not saying pvp players don't buy from the crown store. Sure people like mounts and customes. That's universal and not dependent on pvp. Saying the devs cator their development efforts with pve in mind over pvp improvements because pve is what sells. What I meant buy pvp doesn't generate money is it is free to play with base game purchase. The only money pvp generates is forcing pvp players to buy pve content for new skills (e.g., summerset) and monster helms which by the way show up in golden vendor. Hence my point that resources and development costs are being used to generate pve and crown store items not for pvp,improvementsp. If pvp was the majority of the player base and generated money for Zos they would have fixed it a long time ago. Trust me, it's not a priority for them.

KoultouraS

Crowdfounding a server for ZOS,
... whereas its their absolute business/obligement to do so... GOD where has this come to...?
I Am all in btw for such a motion, even if this shows how desperate pvp community is, but just to rant about a little, ...
if this actually happens then ZOS is officialy the worst thing I 've ever seen in corporate history.

Turelus

LegacyDM wrote: »

It’s not a server hardware issue. It’s software coding flaws deeply rooted in the base code. Increasing server power won’t fix it. They need to allocate manpower resources to fix it. Pvp doesn’t generate money. Their money comes from new content and crown store. Pvp players is a fraction of the larger player base. It’s not cost effective for them.their manpower resources goto pve.

I wish more people understood this, but the internet is obsessed with "upgrade the servers" being able to fix everything.

Anhedonie

Lightning, anti-bot and LoS patches made pvp performance worse. Things went downhill way before CP system.

But after they moved EU server to Frankfurt, my ping doubled. Doitsu no kagaku wa sekai ichi, my arse.