Would you welcome halving pop cap if that meant much less lag in Cyro?

InvictusApollo

I've noticed that a few hours before primetime, duriong this event, Cyrodill has lower population and much lower lag. Fights are still nice. No huge zerggrops or ballgroups. Every combatant means much more and even fps are higher.
I know that Cyrodill used to have a much higher population. But honestly I hate lag and if lowering the pop cap would alleviate it, then I wouldn't mind.

Bergzorn

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

Worth a try IMO, but only if group size is restricted to 12 people or less.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if it still lags. IMO, they should focus at 'optimizing' skills, passives, gear sets, and combat in general with performance in mind. I'm not so sure they did this during all the changes over the last years, there might be a lot of room for improvement.

caeliusstarbreaker

As much as fighting 8v8v8 would be exciting I would rather the company I gave money to would spend it appropriately.

VaranisArano

Not really. I love Cyrodiil for it's large scale AvAvA combat. Low pop Cyrodiil isn't as much fun and it tends to have a lot of scoring issues.

I'd rather ZOS just fixed the known performance issues.

Mr_Walker

Halve it?

How many people do you think you have in there now?

Major_Lag

No

No.

Fix the damn servers @ZOS, and let us have huge reasonably-lag-free fights again

Reducing the pop cap is the absolute wrong way to go about it.
As things stand now, already the map sometimes feels quite empty with not all that much action going on, even during times when it's double or triple poplocked.

jadarock

No

No thanks since Haderus2016 I feel like it's been halved already

josh.lackey_ESO

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

I think they should try capping the group size at 8 or 12 first.

My observation over the years is that the really bad bouts of lag come not just from high population, but ball groups during high population.

You can have locked pop, with big fights, and the server can be mostly okay. But then like clockwork, when the ball group guilds start running, everything slows to a crawl. I am talking about server lag, not framerate.

idk

The population cap is significantly smaller than what it was during Cyrodiils glory days and each time they reduced the cap it had no noticeable effect.

The issue is not the cap. It is the sheer numbers that show up at one location and battle close together coupled with all the server calculations the need to go on for all that.

Derra

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

josh.lackey_ESO wrote: »

I think they should try capping the group size at 8 or 12 first.

My observation over the years is that the really bad bouts of lag come not just from high population, but ball groups during high population.

You can have locked pop, with big fights, and the server can be mostly okay. But then like clockwork, when the ball group guilds start running, everything slows to a crawl. I am talking about server lag, not framerate.

The issue isn´t the ballgrp iteself really.

It´s that the game leaves them unable to kill the 3 to 10 times their number of enemys while they don´t die themselves - creating an endless fight.
A groupcap of 8 to 12 doesn´t solve that. The groups still would not die and create those really drawn out fights.

Though i agree with reducing groupsize it would have to be accompanied by making the ballgroups AND the zerg more vulnerable.
Turn those fights from an endless series of small engangements into a fight with one engagement where either the grp dies - or they´re able to finish a large enough portion of the zerg to afterwards clean the rest.

Less mobility for large groups.
Less impact of siege against players.
More impact for aoe bombs (more scaling mechanics like proxy).
Meaningful ways to hinder ressurection with instant combat return at full efficiency (camps + in combat rezzes).
Less tankiness for players on the ends of the spectrum (getting 30 to 35k HP + stacking radiating regen shouldn´t be a way to make yourself near invulnerable vs singletarget dmg).
In general higher mortality + less ability to recover for both sides.

It really has to get away from these endless encounters where you farm the same people in the same location over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Recovering should be hard for a group - but mistakes should be punished just as hard for the zerglings.

TriangularChicken

No

reduced pop will kill pvp even more. the main problem is that the zergs dont spread out, there has to be incentives to make them spread:

- lower offensive ticks for PvDooring (spread AP between everyone who was invovled in taking the keep, start with for example a 30k tick, 6 ppl invovled get 5k AP each, 30 ppl get 1k each)

- earlier this year we had the questing event in cyro where people went to the small towns to do their quests. there was way less lag in prime time than usual. also involve ayleid ruins and other object at the edge of the map, the locations are really nice to fight there...

- reduce group size to 12.

ChefZero

No

InvictusApollo wrote: »

I've noticed that a few hours before primetime, duriong this event, Cyrodill has lower population and much lower lag. Fights are still nice. No huge zerggrops or ballgroups. Every combatant means much more and even fps are higher.
I know that Cyrodill used to have a much higher population. But honestly I hate lag and if lowering the pop cap would alleviate it, then I wouldn't mind.

Again?

As you mentioned, ballgrps and zergs are directly related to lag. Adjusting the cap won't fix it.

InvictusApollo

Yes

Derra wrote: »

josh.lackey_ESO wrote: »

I think they should try capping the group size at 8 or 12 first.

My observation over the years is that the really bad bouts of lag come not just from high population, but ball groups during high population.

You can have locked pop, with big fights, and the server can be mostly okay. But then like clockwork, when the ball group guilds start running, everything slows to a crawl. I am talking about server lag, not framerate.

The issue isn´t the ballgrp iteself really.

It´s that the game leaves them unable to kill the 3 to 10 times their number of enemys while they don´t die themselves - creating an endless fight.
A groupcap of 8 to 12 doesn´t solve that. The groups still would not die and create those really drawn out fights.

Though i agree with reducing groupsize it would have to be accompanied by making the ballgroups AND the zerg more vulnerable.
Turn those fights from an endless series of small engangements into a fight with one engagement where either the grp dies - or they´re able to finish a large enough portion of the zerg to afterwards clean the rest.

Less mobility for large groups.
Less impact of siege against players.
More impact for aoe bombs (more scaling mechanics like proxy).
Meaningful ways to hinder ressurection with instant combat return at full efficiency (camps + in combat rezzes).
Less tankiness for players on the ends of the spectrum (getting 30 to 35k HP + stacking radiating regen shouldn´t be a way to make yourself near invulnerable vs singletarget dmg).
In general higher mortality + less ability to recover for both sides.

It really has to get away from these endless encounters where you farm the same people in the same location over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Recovering should be hard for a group - but mistakes should be punished just as hard for the zerglings.

I personally enjoy long battles. Before that Cyrodill felt like a horse riding simulator. I agre howeer that we need more mechanics to harm larger groups. If in PvP every AOE had a mechanic like Imminent Detonation then that would be awesome. It would have similar effect to "Siege Bug": less lag, no ballgroups, spread out zergs, good players actually having an opportunity to shine and not just be a single gear in a clockwork.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

Not unless a lot of other changes were made. Cyro is already feeling dead at its current pop. With half it would be way worse with the current map/ group sizes etc

technohic

No

Nah. They need to do their attempt at performance fixes and go from there.

Zer0_CooL

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

I would welcome some investments towards server infrastructure.

Master_Kas

No

No way, they done this to much already.

Derra

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

InvictusApollo wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

josh.lackey_ESO wrote: »

I think they should try capping the group size at 8 or 12 first.

My observation over the years is that the really bad bouts of lag come not just from high population, but ball groups during high population.

You can have locked pop, with big fights, and the server can be mostly okay. But then like clockwork, when the ball group guilds start running, everything slows to a crawl. I am talking about server lag, not framerate.

The issue isn´t the ballgrp iteself really.

It´s that the game leaves them unable to kill the 3 to 10 times their number of enemys while they don´t die themselves - creating an endless fight.
A groupcap of 8 to 12 doesn´t solve that. The groups still would not die and create those really drawn out fights.

Though i agree with reducing groupsize it would have to be accompanied by making the ballgroups AND the zerg more vulnerable.
Turn those fights from an endless series of small engangements into a fight with one engagement where either the grp dies - or they´re able to finish a large enough portion of the zerg to afterwards clean the rest.

Less mobility for large groups.
Less impact of siege against players.
More impact for aoe bombs (more scaling mechanics like proxy).
Meaningful ways to hinder ressurection with instant combat return at full efficiency (camps + in combat rezzes).
Less tankiness for players on the ends of the spectrum (getting 30 to 35k HP + stacking radiating regen shouldn´t be a way to make yourself near invulnerable vs singletarget dmg).
In general higher mortality + less ability to recover for both sides.

It really has to get away from these endless encounters where you farm the same people in the same location over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Recovering should be hard for a group - but mistakes should be punished just as hard for the zerglings.

I personally enjoy long battles. Before that Cyrodill felt like a horse riding simulator. I agre howeer that we need more mechanics to harm larger groups. If in PvP every AOE had a mechanic like Imminent Detonation then that would be awesome. It would have similar effect to "Siege Bug": less lag, no ballgroups, spread out zergs, good players actually having an opportunity to shine and not just be a single gear in a clockwork.

The problem with "longer" fights in eso is generally that they don´t end unless one party decides to stop fighting.
I`m not opposed towards longer fights in general.
I´m opposing fights that do not end at all.

Also this is only targetted at grp vs zerg fights. A zerg vs zerg fight should obviously take longer.

Delsskia

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

Honestly, I wish they'd open a guild/group server. I love the GvG fights we get into. Would love to see a server that requires a minimum group size of 8, 10, 12 (pick one) to enter the server. Those who think guild groups are the root of all evil would be happy and those of us who love guild groups would be happy. Win/win.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

Delsskia wrote: »

Honestly, I wish they'd open a guild/group server. I love the GvG fights we get into. Would love to see a server that requires a minimum group size of 8, 10, 12 (pick one) to enter the server. Those who think guild groups are the root of all evil would be happy and those of us who love guild groups would be happy. Win/win.

The sad thing would be that the server wouldn't be populated. We recently tried to do something similar on EU with the 7 day campaign but most weren't up for playing there even 1 day per week or less for various reasons.

Delsskia

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

Yeah it kinda seems like, at this point, almost anything they do would be too little too late. Performance, lack of communication and Cyrodiil in particular have been mismanaged for so long that I don't really know what they can do to bring the population back up.

I don't really like the idea of cutting pop caps again though. I think it'd be more constructive to use Battle Spirit to disable all proc sets and cut the calculations in half rather than cut the number of people in half.

starlizard70ub17_ESO

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

If they were to halve the population (again), then they might as well just create a PvE Cryodiil also. Because that's the effect of halving the population would have on on the other campaigns that weren't the 30 day cp enabled one.

zyk

No

In the future, ZOS will solve performance issues by changing AvA gameplay so that players siege and capture keeps and outposts for the opportunity to decorate them.

Mr_Walker

zyk wrote: »

In the future, ZOS will solve performance issues by changing AvA gameplay so that players siege and capture keeps and outposts for the opportunity to decorate them.

I'm not even in to housing, but am I the only person who actually thinks this would be a neat idea?

josh.lackey_ESO

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

Derra wrote: »

josh.lackey_ESO wrote: »

I think they should try capping the group size at 8 or 12 first.

My observation over the years is that the really bad bouts of lag come not just from high population, but ball groups during high population.

You can have locked pop, with big fights, and the server can be mostly okay. But then like clockwork, when the ball group guilds start running, everything slows to a crawl. I am talking about server lag, not framerate.

The issue isn´t the ballgrp iteself really.

It´s that the game leaves them unable to kill the 3 to 10 times their number of enemys while they don´t die themselves - creating an endless fight.
A groupcap of 8 to 12 doesn´t solve that. The groups still would not die and create those really drawn out fights.

Though i agree with reducing groupsize it would have to be accompanied by making the ballgroups AND the zerg more vulnerable.
Turn those fights from an endless series of small engangements into a fight with one engagement where either the grp dies - or they´re able to finish a large enough portion of the zerg to afterwards clean the rest.

Less mobility for large groups.
Less impact of siege against players.
More impact for aoe bombs (more scaling mechanics like proxy).
Meaningful ways to hinder ressurection with instant combat return at full efficiency (camps + in combat rezzes).
Less tankiness for players on the ends of the spectrum (getting 30 to 35k HP + stacking radiating regen shouldn´t be a way to make yourself near invulnerable vs singletarget dmg).
In general higher mortality + less ability to recover for both sides.

It really has to get away from these endless encounters where you farm the same people in the same location over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Recovering should be hard for a group - but mistakes should be punished just as hard for the zerglings.

This could be part of the problem, but I still think the server load of all the ball group's calculations are much higher than unorganized fights.

Because I have been in plenty of large-scale, long-duration keep fights when the ball group guilds aren't running, and there is lag, but it's a consistent lag, and it's still playable. But like clockwork, when the ball group guild starts running, we get lag spikes being, skills bugging out, and so on, to unplayable levels.

And it's not every large guild, it's specifically ball group guilds.

I think there is something about the ball groups that the servers uniquely can't handle. No clue what it is. I suspect certain combinations of sets or abilities that don't get used much outside of that niche group composition have bugs or inefficiencies in their routines.

I think it's that they create spikes of lag than a consistently higher level of lag. I can still play if I add an extra 100ms or 200ms to everything I do. It just feels syrupy. But if the lag is fluctuating between 200ms and 500ms with spikes over a second, then everything starts to bug out. The spikes don't usually happen if there are no ball groups.

It makes sense to me, because the nature of playing in a ball group is to stay on the move, be defensive, and build ulti, which is fewer calculations. But then suddenly you coordinate a spike, and everyone in the ball group actives their damage spikes together, and it creates a sudden and dramatic increase in calculations. The server load created by ball groups is highly inconsistent. Whereas with less organized groups or with zergs, the calculation load is much more uniform. It might ramp up or down, but it does so smoothly over a period of time. It doesn't go from zero to 100 all at once.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

2019 and people are still blaming ball groups for lag. Must be all those new super strong ball groups running making the lag worse each patch eh. Also is it a ball group if the players don't stack on crown ?

InvictusApollo

Yes

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

2019 and people are still blaming ball groups for lag. Must be all those new super strong ball groups running making the lag worse each patch eh. Also is it a ball group if the players don't stack on crown ?

Yes, as long as all of them get in range of aoe heals. It depends on how we define "stacked" as in what range it is.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

InvictusApollo wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

2019 and people are still blaming ball groups for lag. Must be all those new super strong ball groups running making the lag worse each patch eh. Also is it a ball group if the players don't stack on crown ?

Yes, as long as all of them get in range of aoe heals. It depends on how we define "stacked" as in what range it is.

What do you consider an aoe heal.
Soul siphon is 28m radius does that count?
Any group of players that take a flag objective are in heal aoe radius. Are they also ball groups?

ThePedge

No

Performance has gradually got worse, they need to find out the cause and either resolve it or make amends.

Livelihood of Cyrodil shouldn't be punished.

InvictusApollo

Yes

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

InvictusApollo wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

2019 and people are still blaming ball groups for lag. Must be all those new super strong ball groups running making the lag worse each patch eh. Also is it a ball group if the players don't stack on crown ?

Yes, as long as all of them get in range of aoe heals. It depends on how we define "stacked" as in what range it is.

What do you consider an aoe heal.
Soul siphon is 28m radius does that count?
Any group of players that take a flag objective are in heal aoe radius. Are they also ball groups?

Stop pretending that you don't know what is a ballgroup.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

I like pancaces (this is "Other" option - type in comment)

InvictusApollo wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

InvictusApollo wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

2019 and people are still blaming ball groups for lag. Must be all those new super strong ball groups running making the lag worse each patch eh. Also is it a ball group if the players don't stack on crown ?

Yes, as long as all of them get in range of aoe heals. It depends on how we define "stacked" as in what range it is.

What do you consider an aoe heal.
Soul siphon is 28m radius does that count?
Any group of players that take a flag objective are in heal aoe radius. Are they also ball groups?

Stop pretending that you don't know what is a ballgroup.

I think that your definition is just "any group that kills me" so that's why I'm trying to understand your point of view. Personally I don't think the term ball group is even applicable any more (at least this patch) and I've always considered group definitions by objective rather than by arbitrary formation or numbers.

Imo there are less "ball groups" than ever playing eso and its a lot more difficult to run successfully unless you are very experienced as a group. So that's why I find it funny that people are still blaming "ball groups" for the lag.