A list of ideas that could reduce lag in Cyrodiil, vote your preference.

SkysOutThizeOut

I’ve consolidated simple ideas I have seen over the last week that COULD improve Cyrodiil lag. I have provided numerous options so you can vote for the changes you are most okay with in order to quantify the most approved ideas by the community in hopes that ZOS may consider. I have numbered the ideas. Vote on the ideas you are for by observing the numbers listed. I lumped together ideas that I personally thought would be least controversial. If your preferred choice isn’t here, select the one closest to your preference and comment below (I could only list 10).
These ideas could spread the population across the map or campaigns reducing lag.

1. Incentivize players who relocate from vivec to another campaign. Increased rewards(transmute, gold, gold items).
2. Increase rewards in other campaigns for an extended period of time (provide 30 days rewards for each 7 day campaign for 2 months?). Not only do we need to get people to switch, but we need to get them to stay for an extended period to build habits and a home.
3. Faction lock accounts by campaign. This will force a person to enter other campaigns and maybe guilds.

4. Reduce population cap, less people=less load on the server during primetime.
5. Debuff (flat wd/sd, flat resistance TBD) more than 50 players (not group based, but area) are in a certain radius while in the radius.
6. Buff (flat wd/sd, flat resistance TBD) players when the ratio is 6 to 1 or greater.
7. No AP for killing players when in group of 12 or larger, but AP for objectives still.

idk

This is silly and pointless as we really don’t understand what the real issue is. This isn’t even arm chair quarterbacking. It’s a shot in the dark.

OP is just grasping at straws and without any basis for each idea this is a pointless excercise and I’m pretty sure Zos can see how meaningless this poll is.

Some of ideas are pointless. It is odd that OP thinks group size affects lag. Clear proof this is just tossing darts while blindfolded. Heck, 50 groups of 12 next to each other is why that idea is a perfect example of what I stated. Just makes it worthless.

SkysOutThizeOut

All

@idk
1. Server load causes lag or at least a correlation could be made. We know the more people on in a campaign, the laggier it gets.
2. I know group size doesn’t affect lag, but penalizing people for being in groups of 12 or larger COULD reduce the size of groups which COULD make it harder to coordinate and COULD potentially reduce the overall number of players in an area.
3. I listed 7 ideas that people could choose from, understanding some have significantly less potential than others.
4. I have yet to see you offer a solution, only attempt to belittle others and be negative.

idk

1 you have no clue as to what is cashing the biggest loads. Your just guessing.
2. Again, limiting group size is absurd as it doesn’t limit the number of players in an area. Read your other thread as that is pointed out.
3. You have no clue the impact any of those ideas would have which is why this thread is absurd and pointless.

4. I don’t offer a solution because I have enough sense to know I do it know how the code is organized, design of server architecture, specific loads from various aspects of Cyrodiil and much more that would be required to properly analyze the situation and develops an actual solution.

Clearly you do not either.

Edit: judging by the response it seems players seem to understand. Two have voted including OP and only one person has commented on the thread the time of this edit.

These are just guesses and if you read your other thread a number of players disagreed and presented logic behind their reasons.

SkysOutThizeOut

All

@idk okay

WaltherCarraway

I cannot open the crown store while stuck in combat please fix.

Vapirko

All

I’d go for all, but something in line 3,4,7 for sure, maybe 5 and 6 but I think the screaming would make us bleed from the ears, plus I’d rather we stop giving big groups access to 100% uptime on expedition via rapids (which is dumb becuse all other skills were brought to 4 seconds) and give us better snare removal and mobility back. Basically just even the odds so that everyone is closer to even ground. And I’d rather that than a buff/debuff based on group size.

idk

Vapirko wrote: »

I’d go for all, but something in line 3,4,7 for sure, maybe 5 and 6 but I think the screaming would make us bleed from the ears, plus I’d rather we stop giving big groups access to 100% uptime on expedition via rapids (which is dumb becuse all other skills were brought to 4 seconds) and give us better snare removal and mobility back. Basically just even the odds so that everyone is closer to even ground. And I’d rather that than a buff/debuff based on group size.

Large groups do not have any more access to major expedition while in combat than anyone else which is exactly 4 seconds you mention is related to. However, I do not see how this pertains to the subject of this thread.

Sacredx

A for effort, but I would have to agree with others. No one is going to take any action based on something that 'could' improve lag. It's just a guess. You need to prove your words with evidence.

Katahdin

None

WaltherCarraway wrote: »

I cannot open the crown store while stuck in combat please fix.

Im sure they will get right on that for ya

frozywozy

4

Minno

idk wrote: »

This is silly and pointless as we really don’t understand what the real issue is. This isn’t even arm chair quarterbacking. It’s a shot in the dark.

OP is just grasping at straws and without any basis for each idea this is a pointless excercise and I’m pretty sure Zos can see how meaningless this poll is.

Some of ideas are pointless. It is odd that OP thinks group size affects lag. Clear proof this is just tossing darts while blindfolded. Heck, 50 groups of 12 next to each other is why that idea is a perfect example of what I stated. Just makes it worthless.

yea none of these are lag reduced. These are zerg changes.

Therefore I declare this thread a zerg-nerf thread!!

As for lag, fast movement+objectives outside emp ring+UI overhaul to systems that need it (I.E like the guild roster bug) are the only items that will reduce server load.

And bot protections, get rid of them I want to kill some zergs controlled by one person lol

technohic

4 and then not quite 6.

We have a low pop boost for AP but it would be useful if it buffed the underdogs. In the past when Vivec overflowed into Shor; the heaviest pop could run things over. Considering that they'd also have an EMP and all/most scrolls makes AP boost kind of worthless and the game less fun. Could use some sort of boost for the middling pop faction as well. No 6 to 1 ratio. Just flat out from most to least. I feel like area debuff is more of an attempt to limit large zergs than actual lag.

Then I'd make Shor also 30 days and allow once every 30 day faction change.

Basically want to incentivize players to balance out rather than stack for more rewards to go along with the fact that all factions at 3 bars seems to be still large fights and minimal lag now.

khemdog

Change basic skills/passives so they don't require all the if > then checks before they go off.
Problem solved

redspecter23

1

There are some interesting ideas on the list, but I'll go with #1 as a good general idea to start with. Make the rewards large enough and they can't be ignored, at least by players that are there for those rewards. Remember that players view "rewards" differently. Some play for AP gain. Some play for the campaign. Some live just for the fight, even if the AP gained is near zero. Knowing this, how do you increase "rewards" to attract more players?

An interesting idea to explore, but know that no one reward, even if increased to an extreme would be enough to please everyone. Some would still view that particular reward as meaningless for their playstyle.

I would expand on the idea of increasing rewards and extend it to individual campaigns to assist in population imbalances.

Solariken

All

All of those sound good.

Also make all PvP non-CP (but move the passive HP/mag/stam bonuses from the CP system back into the base character).

idk

redspecter23 wrote: »

There are some interesting ideas on the list, but I'll go with #1 as a good general idea to start with. Make the rewards large enough and they can't be ignored, at least by players that are there for those rewards. Remember that players view "rewards" differently.

Your suggesting players only PvP for the reward when this game, since launch, has shown most want to PvP where the PvP actually is. The entire list is just a list of guesses. OP has not determined what the issue actually is and has even said it his ideas should be implemented to test it. Well, if one has no clue what is the main culprit testing out right guesses is a generally bad idea.

redspecter23

1

idk wrote: »

redspecter23 wrote: »

There are some interesting ideas on the list, but I'll go with #1 as a good general idea to start with. Make the rewards large enough and they can't be ignored, at least by players that are there for those rewards. Remember that players view "rewards" differently.

Your suggesting players only PvP for the reward when this game, since launch, has shown most want to PvP where the PvP actually is. The entire list is just a list of guesses. OP has not determined what the issue actually is and has even said it his ideas should be implemented to test it. Well, if one has no clue what is the main culprit testing out right guesses is a generally bad idea.

I agree with you mostly. For many, they do want to pvp where the pvp acutally is. I count that as an incentive. Part of what needs to be taken into account as far as rewards are concerned. For players that want huge battles and large scale pvp, no "reward" will encourage them to move to another campaign. No other smaller campaign can offer what they are looking for. The rewards could serve to get people to consider moving if huge battles may not be the main reason they are playing pvp. Understand individual motivations. Offer incentives to some groups based on their motivations and you can split the population a bit more evenly. If you were to offer 10% more AP to players on Shor, it would likely not move anyone that enjoys 50 v 50 combat.

However, there are some in VIvec for other reasons. Perhaps they want the 50 transmute crystal rewards. 4 weeks of 10 crystals in Shor is less than that. If Shor offered 13 crystals per week, those in Vivec mostly for transmutes would consider swapping. These players can be incentivized and I think that would be where there could be merit in the idea of providing greater rewards to even out campaigns.

I also agree that the OP is throwing out a ton of ideas, almost randomly. No one idea here is an automatic solution to a perceived problem. My assumption is that large battles are not an issue, but the lag caused by the large battles is. Again, an assumption is that lowering the population in some way would reduce lag. Finding a way to lower the population is what the OP is getting at. Many of these ideas have some space to explore, even if none are perfect.

Ruckly

Lots of ideas have been fielded on this subject in different threads. It is difficult to get people to agree. The most agreeable solution is to reduce pop cap but that would result in lines and a wasteland cyrodill and mount simulator.

It is a difficult subject because of the combination of DDOS, players intentionally trashing the server, and other phenomena that may or may not affect lag e.g. being delocalized by buffs/debuffs/other effects which might make a group on a different part of the map relevant to your toon and the toons around you. The server has a disconnect line but it doesn't seem to have a line where if you are a certain distance from someone who applied a buff/debuff to you it disappears or if you haven't engaged in combat for a certain amount of time and you haven't used stealth you are removed from combat.

idk

redspecter23 wrote: »

idk wrote: »

redspecter23 wrote: »

There are some interesting ideas on the list, but I'll go with #1 as a good general idea to start with. Make the rewards large enough and they can't be ignored, at least by players that are there for those rewards. Remember that players view "rewards" differently.

Your suggesting players only PvP for the reward when this game, since launch, has shown most want to PvP where the PvP actually is. The entire list is just a list of guesses. OP has not determined what the issue actually is and has even said it his ideas should be implemented to test it. Well, if one has no clue what is the main culprit testing out right guesses is a generally bad idea.

I agree with you mostly. For many, they do want to pvp where the pvp acutally is. I count that as an incentive. Part of what needs to be taken into account as far as rewards are concerned. For players that want huge battles and large scale pvp, no "reward" will encourage them to move to another campaign. No other smaller campaign can offer what they are looking for. The rewards could serve to get people to consider moving if huge battles may not be the main reason they are playing pvp. Understand individual motivations. Offer incentives to some groups based on their motivations and you can split the population a bit more evenly. If you were to offer 10% more AP to players on Shor, it would likely not move anyone that enjoys 50 v 50 combat.

However, there are some in VIvec for other reasons. Perhaps they want the 50 transmute crystal rewards. 4 weeks of 10 crystals in Shor is less than that. If Shor offered 13 crystals per week, those in Vivec mostly for transmutes would consider swapping. These players can be incentivized and I think that would be where there could be merit in the idea of providing greater rewards to even out campaigns.

I also agree that the OP is throwing out a ton of ideas, almost randomly. No one idea here is an automatic solution to a perceived problem. My assumption is that large battles are not an issue, but the lag caused by the large battles is. Again, an assumption is that lowering the population in some way would reduce lag. Finding a way to lower the population is what the OP is getting at. Many of these ideas have some space to explore, even if none are perfect.

While yes, some go into Vivec for the crystals, those people are not staying long as they only need to get to tier one.

We know from the history of the game those who are in Vivec to actually PvP are there because it is the active campaign. Player flocked to the active campaign from the start of the game which was well before crystals were a thing.

Beyond that, I do not get into baseless assumptions which is what this thread is based on. Not a single person who has posted in this thread has as clue what is going on. Zos is also best to keep the actual server info to themselves. If they released it we would have even more armchair QBs giving their expert advice even though hey are challenged turning on their own PC at times.

I have no issues if the shorter campaigns became 30 days we well and the rewards were the same but it is an assumption that will bring change. It

SkysOutThizeOut

All

@redspecter23 best way to handle “idk” is just to ignore him and pretend like he isn’t there. He is mostly condescending in his posts and obsessed with telling people they don’t know what they’re taking about... ironic because his name is, idk...

idk

SkysOutThizeOut wrote: »

@redspecter23 best way to handle “idk” is just to ignore him and pretend like he isn’t there. He is mostly condescending in his posts and obsessed with telling people they don’t know what they’re taking about... ironic because his name is, idk...

This is a great idea. Especially in a thread created for baseless guessing as this one is. LMAO.

Some understand when they create a thread and post an idea they are opening that idea up to discussion which includes criticism. Others seem to have great difficulty with that same criticism.

Marcus684

Option 4 plus something to decrease group size. I've noticed 2 things contribute the most to lag: overall server population and the number and quality of the tight-knit ball groups active at any given moment. If all 3 alliances are pop-locked but there's no reports of several ball groups clashing somewhere on the map, lag is noticeable but manageable. If pop is anywhere close to locked but there's 5+ of the top guild groups engaged in combat, server performance goes to absolute sh*t. It's my opinion that the highly-efficient and well-built ball groups place the most load on the server per player by a huge margin, and when coupled with max population, it's just beyond what ZOS' hardware can deliver.

ezio45

3

they need to fraction lock campigns, if it does nothing for lag it will help the spirit of pvp.

they also need to get ride of the anti bot patch that killed cyro in the first place. soon as they introduced that patch it killed cyro. it needs to go and its long over due

Derra

This poll is the equivalent of fishing with dynamite.

ezio45 wrote: »

they need to fraction lock campigns, if it does nothing for lag it will help the spirit of pvp.

They can do that when i can change the faction of my toons. As it stands we do not have enough campaigns to play on for this to be an option.

I´d say remove factions for pve entirely and assign your whole account for a faction for atleast 3 campaign cycles - after that period you may switch. Staying with a faction gives additional loyalty rewards?

pieratsos

idk wrote: »

SkysOutThizeOut wrote: »

@redspecter23 best way to handle “idk” is just to ignore him and pretend like he isn’t there. He is mostly condescending in his posts and obsessed with telling people they don’t know what they’re taking about... ironic because his name is, idk...

This is a great idea. Especially in a thread created for baseless guessing as this one is. LMAO.

Some understand when they create a thread and post an idea they are opening that idea up to discussion which includes criticism. Others seem to have great difficulty with that same criticism.

There is a difference between discussion/healthy criticism and straight up attacking/insulting the other person because you didnt like his thread. Just saying.

usmcjdking

The real answer is to entirely redo the QoS at their end. Everything else is indirectly trying to tackle a technical issue.

Stormshadowonesixty

3

Alliance locking honestly would be the best thing that happened to PVP ever

We got people on the PS4 server going back and forth in alliances basically abusing the game

I know in actual wars that there is spies and what-not

But this is not a war, it's a game. And it's hard to enjoy PVP when you get that one person in your zerg sniping you out to the other alliances just to get Emp when they never end up getting emp anyways

I do accept this though, the current state cyrodil is in

I still enjoy it only for the reason that I know others will disagree with me and others do not want to come up with a compromise has human beings to meet in the middle

It's really the only thing I'd like to change but it wouldn't kill me if it didn't.

I feel BG's is more fun because it's basically everyone against everyone no matter what faction it is and there is no discrimination at all
BG's is basically supersmash bros and it's the best thing that has ever happened for PVP in this game
Because I don't have to do Cyrdodil
I can just SUPER SMASH SCROLLS in BG's and I'm just as content.
This game is awesome and I try not to complain too much cause most of us can agree that no matter what this game will still be way better than World of Warcraft

idk

pieratsos wrote: »

idk wrote: »

SkysOutThizeOut wrote: »

@redspecter23 best way to handle “idk” is just to ignore him and pretend like he isn’t there. He is mostly condescending in his posts and obsessed with telling people they don’t know what they’re taking about... ironic because his name is, idk...

This is a great idea. Especially in a thread created for baseless guessing as this one is. LMAO.

Some understand when they create a thread and post an idea they are opening that idea up to discussion which includes criticism. Others seem to have great difficulty with that same criticism.

There is a difference between discussion/healthy criticism and straight up attacking/insulting the other person because you didnt like his thread. Just saying.

Not at all

When someone is clearly complete guessing and cannot offer any shred to support the claim the idea (not the person) is unsubstantiated and should be condemned.

In fact, when someone creates a thread on a subject they are opening that subject up to criticism, plain and simple.

That is very different than criticizing the person themselves, or trying to put down the person which is what OP has resorted to and you seem to be defending. The latter is not part of a healthy discussion but is nothing more than acting out in an emotional episode.

pieratsos

idk wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

idk wrote: »

SkysOutThizeOut wrote: »

@redspecter23 best way to handle “idk” is just to ignore him and pretend like he isn’t there. He is mostly condescending in his posts and obsessed with telling people they don’t know what they’re taking about... ironic because his name is, idk...

This is a great idea. Especially in a thread created for baseless guessing as this one is. LMAO.

Some understand when they create a thread and post an idea they are opening that idea up to discussion which includes criticism. Others seem to have great difficulty with that same criticism.

There is a difference between discussion/healthy criticism and straight up attacking/insulting the other person because you didnt like his thread. Just saying.

Not at all

When someone is clearly complete guessing and cannot offer any shred to support the claim the idea (not the person) is unsubstantiated and should be condemned.

In fact, when someone creates a thread on a subject they are opening that subject up to criticism, plain and simple.

That is very different than criticizing the person themselves, or trying to put down the person which is what OP has resorted to and you seem to be defending. The latter is not part of a healthy discussion but is nothing more than acting out in an emotional episode.

Oh absolutely there is a big difference between healthy criticism and straight up insulting someone. You should look it up.

Defending the OP for attacking you. Wut? Im baffled that you actually went as far to now accuse him of attacking you. Like seriously? The guy just listed possible ways to reduce lag in his opinion and basically asked the opinion of other people through a poll. And for prety much no apparent reason you started insulting and putting words in his mouth that he never actually said.

Literally your first response to him for "opening a discussion and healthy criticism" was to tell him clueless, call his thread worthless, silly, pointless, meaningless and grasping at straws. And after that comment he didnt even respond negative to you when most other people would simply tell you to f*** off. He was again polite stating his opinion and then you started insulting him and literally anyone who had the audacity to post in the thread. But he is the one who attacked you because he made a pun with ur name after you literally buried him with insults? Lmao.

idk

You can say what you want though I would suggest reading his thread that predates this one as the OP chose to argue with player actuall pointing out that idea had been done several times with no success, not even a little bit. Even made statements of fact that go against the history presented to him.

So say what you want, I am correct calling his ideas baseless guesses. We need Zos to look at for actual solutions instead of listening to ill-founded guesses.