The Lag In PvP and potential solutions/ideas

Irylia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPT5oKfE0_4&lc=z22xsrtpyuqbu3dyj04t1aokgtgb2lbmz2jurfjaoyvkbk0h00410

Minno

Good video. Liked the idea of all campaigns providing towards the score.

They do need to look at all their UI systems to make sure it's not bleeding data (like the guild roster).

Siege should take multiple characters to operate.

CP should be revamped. No way around it, even new pve players look at the system and find it clunky and weird.

Sanctum74

Some really great ideas, even if they implemented half of them it would reduce server strain significantly. This should be a required watch for the devs.

Joy_Division

I wonder if ZOS realized how much more interesting their game would be and how much better it would perform if they did what the video suggested should be done with CP, what probably should have been done from the beginning: No generic straight calculation based percentage buffs. Instead make us choose ways (which shut off alternative paths) to customize our characters to do things they normally wouldn't be able to do.

Video is also 100% correct in how the siege changes have just dragged out the very long keep fights that tank the server in the first place.

Irylia

Joy_Division wrote: »

I wonder if ZOS realized how much more interesting their game would be and how much better it would perform if they did what the video suggested should be done with CP, what probably should have been done from the beginning: No generic straight calculation based percentage buffs. Instead make us choose ways (which shut off alternative paths) to customize our characters to do things they normally wouldn't be able to do.

Video is also 100% correct in how the siege changes have just dragged out the very long keep fights that tank the server in the first place.

Which sucks because the intention was to break up balls and help kill them faster.

Durham

The main problem is not long battles or sieges.. It not even CP.. It's the way abilities are coded.. Smart healing creates enormous strain on the servers.. When you get ball zerg spamming the healing while taking damage you will see lag immediately ...

idk

I agree with much of what the OP has said. As he indicated Zos has done pretty much everything possible to add strain to the server since the game launched.

Essentially they have managed the game poorly and there is no way around that comment.

For spreading out in the campaign, the only real way that can be affected is good leadership. Early in the game a group I ran with often worked to take stress away from whatever keep was being focused. It was less about lag than about tactics. We did have issues with lagging out like we have today. Yes, we had lag issues but it was very different.

Also, as far as getting players to go to shore, even when all things were equal we still congregated to the same campaigns. In the beginning there was not actual difference between any campaign, all 90 days, all the same reward. We just chose to not play in empty campaigns.

With that, I do not see a carrot and stick approach working and personally think it is a bad idea to force it because Zos has lacked vision managing the game as it opens the door to continued poor management.

Further, with the lag being worse in recent weeks the question that needs to be answered is why. I do not recall a major change in the incremental patches and I have seen the lag when the area was not populated. Basically something else is going on which may be an undocumented change Zos made.

In other words, we need better management of this game. The reason Cyrodiil population is a shell of it's former self is mostly due to poor management.

idk

Durham wrote: »

The main problem is not long battles or sieges.. It not even CP.. It's the way abilities are coded.. Smart healing creates enormous strain on the servers.. When you get ball zerg spamming the healing while taking damage you will see lag immediately ...

The OP video is correct that it is all the calculations required. It is not any one thing in that aspect. Yes, it is probably also poor coding as well. Zos has seemed challenged with certain aspects of their game.

Berenhir

As long as the TCP based communication with the servers makes every player dependent on the quality of the internet connection of the other players they interact with, there won't be any solution for the lag problem. The game is not designed for having massive amounts of players interact with each other. ZOS would have to recode the whole game so that players with a (deliberately created) bad ping are kicked instead of lagging out the server.

Berenhir

Most valuable post about lag:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/256376/eso-performance-and-lag-technical-discussion/p1

Irylia

Berenhir wrote: »

As long as the TCP based communication with the servers makes every player dependent on the quality of the internet connection of the other players they interact with, there won't be any solution for the lag problem. The game is not designed for having massive amounts of players interact with each other. ZOS would have to recode the whole game so that players with a (deliberately created) bad ping are kicked instead of lagging out the server.

Atleast shrink the map and lower population per campaign instance. Then shor and viv see equivalent use and hopefully with less players per campaign the pvp experience isnt as laggy

Seperatist

Irylia wrote: »

Berenhir wrote: »

As long as the TCP based communication with the servers makes every player dependent on the quality of the internet connection of the other players they interact with, there won't be any solution for the lag problem. The game is not designed for having massive amounts of players interact with each other. ZOS would have to recode the whole game so that players with a (deliberately created) bad ping are kicked instead of lagging out the server.

Atleast shrink the map and lower population per campaign instance. Then shor and viv see equivalent use and hopefully with less players per campaign the pvp experience isnt as laggy

It's not only about population in whole campaign instance but also all these massive zergs all together in same place, like most of actions per faction on the map happening cuz of 1 zerg except guilds and maybe some smallscalers. If ppl would be just spread from something like 40 ppl in 1 place to like 20 ppl here 20 over there it's already somewhat less lag in 1 action place. And from what i heard populations already been hidden lowered. Some nice ideas in the vid tho

Malamar1229

I think another issue is all conditional gear sets, the "if this, then that" type sets that cause checks as well. Especially in ball groups

Ragnaroek93

Is there a short summary to the video? I just prefer reading forum posts over watching videos.

Imo the performance seems to be OK during the event, which is quite surprising. I think the main reason for that is because organised groups aren't able to join the full campaigns together. This would mean that organised zerg groups are the real problem for the PvP performance and that could be fixed by encouraging players to spread out more. Maybe some AoE scaling, friendly fire, group size cap (maybe to 8), less AP rewards for zerging would be possible solutions.

GrimJaw

Excellent video Irylia! Every topic is spot on. The ending had a very special treat.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler


-Methuselah lurking.

Irylia

Still an option

Irylia

Performance has been better but could still be increased if we reduced the toll on the server with the aoe’s and how they interact with multiple - all players

elfantasmo

No more lag please.

InvictusApollo

We had much less lag and more fps during the "siege bug"... just saying.

Vapirko

Hopefully they go in this direction with the CP changes at least. They definitely need to cool it with the AOE damage, and proc damage sets have always been an issue in more ways than just creating lag. They implemented so many things that were short sighted in terms of performance. It’s going to take a long time for the new combat team to undue it, if they get there at all.

Irylia

InvictusApollo wrote: »

We had much less lag and more fps during the "siege bug"... just saying.

Less players were playing and stacks of raids weren’t as inclined to roam cyro because of how devestating siege was.
Lag gets sticky when those raids get to run around spamming aoes and the pugs respond in kind with aoe drops and persisting siege
I think there is a balance that we need

ChefZero

I suggested a few times here, so one more time...

Adjust flag positioning in keeps and outposts. Remove front flag and add a flag upstairs in outposts and basic keeps. In homekeeps add the flagg to the 2nd floor. Add a 3rd flag to the 1st floor in outer maingate tower of all keeps.

This will spread fights and encourage cooperation.

Irylia

ChefZero wrote: »

I suggested a few times here, so one more time...

Adjust flag positioning in keeps and outposts. Remove front flag and add a flag upstairs in outposts and basic keeps. In homekeeps add the flagg to the 2nd floor. Add a 3rd flag to the 1st floor in outer maingate tower of all keeps.

This will spread fights and encourage cooperation.

Could also have players hold all the resources while taking the keep.
Maybe spread the blob out by having them hold all 3 resources during keep flip.
If defending forces want to hole up in the keep then more attackers will leave the resource and push the keep.
Otherwise defenders can fight off the resource attackers causing a few fights around the keep. Not spread out an insane amount but still some and potentially less siege/aoe’s in one area.

A map overhaul could also be nice

Shadow-Fighter

Sorry guys it was my fault about the lag.

Please forgive me






Oh wait... I've been killed in Cyro

darkblue5

Disconnect half the players in every medium to big combat for 30 minutes. Those outside of the big conflicts only get disconnected for 10 minutes every hour randomly when a 70+ zerg come to recap that rss or passes by.
Wait, wait, hold on we have an update from the scene of the crime. That is in fact the current system. we are sorry for this error.
Rather they should just disconnect all players immediately for 30 years. That'd solve the lag.

ChefZero

Irylia wrote: »

ChefZero wrote: »

I suggested a few times here, so one more time...

Adjust flag positioning in keeps and outposts. Remove front flag and add a flag upstairs in outposts and basic keeps. In homekeeps add the flagg to the 2nd floor. Add a 3rd flag to the 1st floor in outer maingate tower of all keeps.

This will spread fights and encourage cooperation.

Could also have players hold all the resources while taking the keep.
Maybe spread the blob out by having them hold all 3 resources during keep flip.
If defending forces want to hole up in the keep then more attackers will leave the resource and push the keep.
Otherwise defenders can fight off the resource attackers causing a few fights around the keep. Not spread out an insane amount but still some and potentially less siege/aoe’s in one area.

A map overhaul could also be nice

I wouldn't exaggerate it otherwise it could kill the progress on the fronts.

InvictusApollo

Irylia wrote: »

InvictusApollo wrote: »

We had much less lag and more fps during the "siege bug"... just saying.

Less players were playing and stacks of raids weren’t as inclined to roam cyro because of how devestating siege was.
Lag gets sticky when those raids get to run around spamming aoes and the pugs respond in kind with aoe drops and persisting siege
I think there is a balance that we need

You are wrong. I've been playing with all three alliances being at population capacity and having as many players on screen as usually. The only difference was that those players were spread out because they were afraid of siege engines.

chris25602

so as a technical idea ill just throw this out there since i have thought about it for awhile now.

The back end game system (non-lua) should provide precalc tables to the frontend (lua land) for some of the complex operations that the wide range of sets impose on the game. so instead of the game having to calculate each interaction as it happens the frontend only needs to know the end value. So instead of (x+y)*(z-X)/2 you have some thing like row 200 attr 5 find it in the table and be done.... honestly i would kind of be surprised if this isn't already happening but if it isn't it def should be happening.

heavier

chris25602 wrote: »

so as a technical idea ill just throw this out there since i have thought about it for awhile now.

The back end game system (non-lua) should provide precalc tables to the frontend (lua land) for some of the complex operations that the wide range of sets impose on the game. so instead of the game having to calculate each interaction as it happens the frontend only needs to know the end value. So instead of (x+y)*(z-X)/2 you have some thing like row 200 attr 5 find it in the table and be done.... honestly i would kind of be surprised if this isn't already happening but if it isn't it def should be happening.

I srsly hope that static tooltip aren't recalculated each time dmg is proced
it would explain how awful performance is, however