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

Royaji

Current pop cap is about a 100 players per faction. Reduce it even more and you might as well get rid of all the tri-keeps and shrink Cyro just to the emp-keeps ring. Otherwise it will just be a lot of dead space.

Delsskia

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

Seems like folks these days define ball groups more and more with the term "aoe heals". In other words, "the group I was surfing couldn't kill them so they're bad for the game."

People forget that 6 years ago and long after launch, ZOS was advertising ESO as a game with massive tri-faction fights. Their intent from day one was to have large groups fighting each other. The problem was never the groups, it was the inadequate game engine and the bad coding.

Pop caps have been cut several times and guild groups are pretty few and far between now, the remaining constants are the inadequate game engine and bad coding. *** poor performance isn't the fault of the players, it falls squarely on ZOS' shoulders.

Delsskia

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

wow, apparently you can type the word p i s s in the forums.

Delsskia

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

and apparently I need typing lessons... can = can't

dennissomb16_ESO

No

population caps are already stupid low. Cyrodiil could be so active and fun with more population if the game simply worked (in Cyrodiil)

DeadlyRecluse

No

Dueling is low-lag, but I don't want to get together with a bunch of friends and duel while drunk every night.

The population is already a fraction of what was promised--and a fraction of what it was the first few years. And very few campaigns reliably have more than 2 bars of population anyway.

We should not have to chose between "abilities going off reliably" and "fights with more than 10 folks on the screen." We should get both.

Kagukan

No

What is the point of large scale PvP if you don't have a large player base?

Soul_Demon

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

Delsskia wrote: »

Seems like folks these days define ball groups more and more with the term "aoe heals". In other words, "the group I was surfing couldn't kill them so they're bad for the game."

People forget that 6 years ago and long after launch, ZOS was advertising ESO as a game with massive tri-faction fights. Their intent from day one was to have large groups fighting each other. The problem was never the groups, it was the inadequate game engine and the bad coding.

Pop caps have been cut several times and guild groups are pretty few and far between now, the remaining constants are the inadequate game engine and bad coding. *** poor performance isn't the fault of the players, it falls squarely on ZOS' shoulders.

Couldn't agree more- think maybe some players should revisit the original sales pitch ZOS made, maybe the coders and Dev's in game too. https://polygon.com/gaming/2012/6/6/3067008/elder-scrolls-online-preview
"Philosophically it's about scale. It's about, 'Holy crap, there are 500 people in this battle! This entire warfront isn't just my squad versus your squad, which is sort of what a lot of PvP is in MMOs up to this point, but we are part of an entire war effort that you can break that down into squads if you want, or raid and play that way.""It was about what would make the best game possible to take advantage of where the technology is," Konkle said. " "I mean combat — we could have cool open world quests and have you playing with hundreds of players, hundreds of people in these large-scale battles."

whiskidou

No

The pop cap would only make weekends khaal queues bigger and ther map would be even less used than it is right now.

Mr_Walker

Delsskia wrote: »

Seems like folks these days define ball groups more and more with the term "aoe heals". In other words, "the group I was surfing couldn't kill them so they're bad for the game."

People forget that 6 years ago and long after launch, ZOS was advertising ESO as a game with massive tri-faction fights. Their intent from day one was to have large groups fighting each other. The problem was never the groups, it was the inadequate game engine and the bad coding.

Pop caps have been cut several times and guild groups are pretty few and far between now, the remaining constants are the inadequate game engine and bad coding. *** poor performance isn't the fault of the players, it falls squarely on ZOS' shoulders.

Pop caps aren't being cut solely for performance, they're needed to keep prime time balanced, and as the population drops....

Zacuel

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

I r special so I pick this 1

._.

Vapirko

Yes

Yeah is fine if they lowered it a little and people spread between servers. I think they should really take a look at group sizes though, but through the lens of making AoE buffs/heals ONLY apply to people you’re grouped with. Cone or target buffs/heals can still hit anyone but anything else should be group based. This constant checking for low health targets no doubt puts massive strain on the servers.

Sandman929

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

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.

This is part of the problem. Players dogpile in one campaign even during hours when they don't need to. On Xbox NA, the 30 day is the only populated campaign during off peak hours, so I get that and I play in there as well during those hours, but during prime time NA people still wait in a queue no matter how long rather than just jumping into the lower population 7 day (1-2 bars).
I think you could reduce lag and encourage grouping by limiting AoE healing to members of the group, but there's a lot of "solo" players who don't like that idea either.

WillhelmBlack

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

Makes more lag as everyone goes to the same place for a fight.

The map is currently empty btw. Few at Chal, few at Ash and Alessia. That's it.

kpittsniperb14_ESO

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.

Stop pretending that you know what a ballgroup is.

Nerftheforums

Yes

Ability to zerg > having lag free servers?
Holy *** people really have weird priorities

Azramel

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

Not Half, but def lower the pop cap. The 30 day CP campaign is always pop locked during prime time and the other campaigns are near dead. PvP would much less laggy if people would stop huddling on one server and try other campaigns. I notice that the 30 day CP campaign lag really starts to kick in when 2 factions are pop locked and 1 faction is 3 bars.

Sarousse

No

It's not a matter of population.

It's only related to group size and the way healing/buff/debuffs are handled.

They could nearly shutdown the lag just by limiting groups to 8 people instead of 24.

Azramel

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

Sarousse wrote: »

It's not a matter of population.

It's only related to group size and the way healing/buff/debuffs are handled.

They could nearly shutdown the lag just by limiting groups to 8 people instead of 24.

There's a lot of things they COULD do to improve performance, but it goes against their ideal setup for PvP. Let's be honest, ZOS bit off more than it could chew with their expectations. We want them to do something to improve performance at the times populations are at their greatest. The game has been unplayable at peak attendance on the most crowded server since launch. It hasn't changed yet, and I think what we're all really asking is if it ever will?

On a side note, I've noticed lag on the 30 day CP campaign during the time of day the populations are at their lowest. I hope this gets fixed and isn't a sign of things to come.

Karivaa

They have a pop cap in cyrodiil already which is why we get a queue. They started lowering the pop cap years ago to help with the lag.

dotme

No

Sarousse wrote: »

It's not a matter of population.

It's only related to group size and the way healing/buff/debuffs are handled.

They could nearly shutdown the lag just by limiting groups to 8 people instead of 24.

They're not interested in doing that. If they were, they wouldn't introduce a hammer that the entire faction will follow?

Pop caps have been lowered. A lot. It hasn't helped. They dropped the ability to siege resource towers and cathedral keep roofs because it would improve performance. Then they introduced the ability to siege bridges and milegates. Whiplash doesn't even begin to cover the Cyrodiil strategy, and over time with lower populations, shorter draw distances and a whole bunch of other measures, you'll still encounter random load screens in the middle of nowhere, with no fighting, no other players around.

I concluded a while ago that they've stuffed so much into the game with costumes, effects, mounts and other fluffery that, especially on console, memory management becomes a real problem. Feels like the game's collapsing under its own weight. Dropping population further removes the whole draw of the alliance war. It's supposed to be epic - not severely watered down from where it was 4 years ago. Things are supposed to get better over time, not worse.

Karivaa

The first time I saw the first mount they released that was glittery I knew we were in trouble and there would be lag.

Juhasow

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.

Problem is that those long large battles are one of the main reasons that harms performance. If battle lasts for too long it's obvious after certain period of time 90% of Cyrodill will travel there and fight there for extended amount of time causing more calculations and more lag.

As for the main topic lowering the population wont help much because with even less people on the map there will be even less happening in different points so people will stack even more in 1 place so at the end we'll have 99% of the mapo being dead and everyone fighting in 1 spot and still experiencing lags.

Gravord

No

When the game was in beta and fresh after launch Cyro was capped on 2k players. Then they cut and cut and cut. Down to laughable 600 now. Meantime they killed off deers, wolves, torchbugs and whatever else existed in Cyro. Non of that ever helped.