Maintenance for the week of January 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 6
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 6
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
Reinventing Large Scale PVP in ESO
Aurielle
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Maybe it’s time.
As we all know, Cyrodiil is a shadow of its former self. Population caps in each campaign have steadily decreased over time with no perceivable impact on performance. Even before the recent updates that introduced multiple group-wide crashes per hour in Cyrodiil both on console and now on PC, group on group combat was sluggish/laggy and simply not fun on the whole. It is very apparent that the major changes that have been periodically introduced to the game since launch have made large scale PVP in ESO unsustainable in its current form. The game engine simply cannot keep up with the demands placed on it. Battlegrounds are interesting, but they lack the large scale feel of Cyrodiil, as well as the siege warfare that so many of us enjoy.
I propose that ZOS should consider taking a few pointers from other multiplayer PVP games and completely reinvent large scale PVP in ESO. There are many ways in which this could be done. Here’s what I propose as one example of what might work:
tl;dr: large scale PVP in ESO is frustrating because after all the changes made to the code over the years, the game can no longer handle the devs’ original vision for Cyrodiil. To ensure a smoother experience on all platforms, perhaps the devs need to scrap Cyrodiil in its current iteration and come up with something better. This is an example of what fun, large scale PVP is supposed to look like. This is not. I mean, ideally the devs should just FIX THE DAMN GAME, but that may be a bridge too far for them.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Other ideas?
Edited by Aurielle on February 28, 2020 5:15PM As we all know, Cyrodiil is a shadow of its former self. Population caps in each campaign have steadily decreased over time with no perceivable impact on performance. Even before the recent updates that introduced multiple group-wide crashes per hour in Cyrodiil both on console and now on PC, group on group combat was sluggish/laggy and simply not fun on the whole. It is very apparent that the major changes that have been periodically introduced to the game since launch have made large scale PVP in ESO unsustainable in its current form. The game engine simply cannot keep up with the demands placed on it. Battlegrounds are interesting, but they lack the large scale feel of Cyrodiil, as well as the siege warfare that so many of us enjoy.
I propose that ZOS should consider taking a few pointers from other multiplayer PVP games and completely reinvent large scale PVP in ESO. There are many ways in which this could be done. Here’s what I propose as one example of what might work:
1. Multiple Smaller Maps
Break Cyrodiil up into multiple smaller maps that are significantly bigger than BG maps, but much smaller than the current map — roughly around, say, the size of Battlefield’s Conquest maps. Cap the total player count to somewhere between 48-96 (however many full groups the megaserver can smoothly handle after considerable testing). Create multiple instances of each map that are populated based on demand, but still make it possible to select and queue for specific instances, as is possible in Battlefield. Cap the queue for any specific instance to ten in order to reduce players focusing on one campaign over all others (i.e. the Vivec/Kaal problem).
2. Shorter Campaign Length
Most large-scale multiplayer matches in other games last for 30 mins to one hour. What if we were to try twelve or six hour campaigns? Less strain on the server — no keeping track of millions upon millions of AP earned between thousands of characters in one campaign over thirty days. Eliminates the “night capping” complaints made by people who don’t understand that this is a global MMO. Promotes strategic gameplay for a sustained period of time to ensure victory — limited PVDooring during off-peak hours.
3. End the Three Banners War
For smaller maps to work, tri-faction PVP isn’t really viable. People who are more creative than I can come up with some sort of lore to justify a two faction war. While I do enjoy faction loyalty in games and think it works in Cyrodiil’s current form, for this sort of system to work and be balanced, I think individual players and groups should be able to select their faction when they join the campaign. If you still want to RP faction loyalty, then you can consistently pick the same faction if slots for that faction are available. Eliminating the three faction war eliminates the “team orange, team purple, team green” trash talking that goes on, and it makes campaign outcomes more about individual/group skill and less about faction stacking.
4. No Transit Shrines
Smaller maps means you’re hoofing it everywhere, except when respawning after dying to another player. This encourages ACTUAL DEFENCE. You can’t just leave one NB sitting in stealth on the walls, waiting to report back to the main raid that there’s an enemy group setting up at the door, allowing a full ball group zerg to port in before the keep flags. Campaign wins would be based on which team is able to strike the best balance between defence and offence, without the crutch of swift travel to save the day. Also, less people trying to swift travel into the same contested area potentially means less strain on the game. How many times have you crashed or experienced extremely long loading screens after trying to transit shrine into a contested keep?
Break Cyrodiil up into multiple smaller maps that are significantly bigger than BG maps, but much smaller than the current map — roughly around, say, the size of Battlefield’s Conquest maps. Cap the total player count to somewhere between 48-96 (however many full groups the megaserver can smoothly handle after considerable testing). Create multiple instances of each map that are populated based on demand, but still make it possible to select and queue for specific instances, as is possible in Battlefield. Cap the queue for any specific instance to ten in order to reduce players focusing on one campaign over all others (i.e. the Vivec/Kaal problem).
2. Shorter Campaign Length
Most large-scale multiplayer matches in other games last for 30 mins to one hour. What if we were to try twelve or six hour campaigns? Less strain on the server — no keeping track of millions upon millions of AP earned between thousands of characters in one campaign over thirty days. Eliminates the “night capping” complaints made by people who don’t understand that this is a global MMO. Promotes strategic gameplay for a sustained period of time to ensure victory — limited PVDooring during off-peak hours.
3. End the Three Banners War
For smaller maps to work, tri-faction PVP isn’t really viable. People who are more creative than I can come up with some sort of lore to justify a two faction war. While I do enjoy faction loyalty in games and think it works in Cyrodiil’s current form, for this sort of system to work and be balanced, I think individual players and groups should be able to select their faction when they join the campaign. If you still want to RP faction loyalty, then you can consistently pick the same faction if slots for that faction are available. Eliminating the three faction war eliminates the “team orange, team purple, team green” trash talking that goes on, and it makes campaign outcomes more about individual/group skill and less about faction stacking.
4. No Transit Shrines
Smaller maps means you’re hoofing it everywhere, except when respawning after dying to another player. This encourages ACTUAL DEFENCE. You can’t just leave one NB sitting in stealth on the walls, waiting to report back to the main raid that there’s an enemy group setting up at the door, allowing a full ball group zerg to port in before the keep flags. Campaign wins would be based on which team is able to strike the best balance between defence and offence, without the crutch of swift travel to save the day. Also, less people trying to swift travel into the same contested area potentially means less strain on the game. How many times have you crashed or experienced extremely long loading screens after trying to transit shrine into a contested keep?
tl;dr: large scale PVP in ESO is frustrating because after all the changes made to the code over the years, the game can no longer handle the devs’ original vision for Cyrodiil. To ensure a smoother experience on all platforms, perhaps the devs need to scrap Cyrodiil in its current iteration and come up with something better. This is an example of what fun, large scale PVP is supposed to look like. This is not. I mean, ideally the devs should just FIX THE DAMN GAME, but that may be a bridge too far for them.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Other ideas?
0
-
xenowarrior92eb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Spaceroamer wrote: »Are you really trying to compare Battlefield and ESO on map design?
hey...leave him alone! and if we bring Battlefield on the topic...I want my damn T34-B!!!! oh and some artillery squads...trebuchets are sooo 1st era!Edited by xenowarrior92eb17_ESO on February 28, 2020 5:09PM1 -
Aurielle✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Spaceroamer wrote: »Are you really trying to compare Battlefield and ESO on map design?
No. I’m giving an example of how another game manages to deliver a smooth, large-scale combat experience. Conquest maps are an example of a decent map size that could work if we’re thinking about possibly breaking Cyrodiil up into slightly smaller (but still large scale) maps, rather than one giant map.0 -
AhPook_Is_Here✭✭✭✭✭
✭really you just need a BG that is alterac valley“Whatever.”
-Unknown American0 -
Aurielle✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »really you just need a BG that is alterac valley
Something like that could work too. Decent map size, decent player cap — though I do think a larger player cap would work over a longer period of time.
Honestly, there are just so many other games out there that manage to do large scale PVP well without running into the issues we see in Cyrodiil. I know the devs really wanted to make DAoC’s system work here, and it did for a while — it’s time to scale back, though, if the devs truly cannot make Cyrodiil functional on all platforms again.0 -
TequilaFire✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭If I wanted to play BF I would play BF.
I want to play large scale AvAvA like I could when I first bought ESO.
1 -
Commandment✭✭✭Cyro isnt really a BG instance to begin with, it's more like an open world PvP sand box thing. Cyro is it's own entity, and it's fine IMO. It's been working all these years.
But if your asking for a new BG game mode, I'de be up for a 1v1 team game mode.0 -
Aurielle✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »If I wanted to play BF I would play BF.
I want to play large scale AvAvA like I could when I first bought ESO.
It’s an example. Not a guideline. An example.
I, too, would like to play the large scale AvAvA that was originally advertised in this game. More importantly, though, I want to play ESO PVP with the friends I made when it still worked. I’ve been waiting six months for a performance fix. How much longer will we have to wait for that fix? Maybe the only true fix is to reinvent large scale PVP in ESO?0 -
Aurielle✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Commandment wrote: »Cyro isnt really a BG instance to begin with, it's more like an open world PvP sand box thing. Cyro is it's own entity, and it's fine IMO. It's been working all these years.
But if your asking for a new BG game mode, I'de be up for a 1v1 team game mode.
I don’t want a new BG game mode. I want some form of what Cyrodiil originally offered PVPers — large scale siege warfare — in a state that is smooth and functional. It is still possible to do sandbox-style large scale siege warfare with smaller maps and a smaller player cap.1 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I like to play Cyrodiil the way it is. I just want performance improved so we can all play effectively as Cyrodiil is designed.2 -
Aurielle✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »I like to play Cyrodiil the way it is. I just want performance improved so we can all play effectively as Cyrodiil is designed.
Well, me too. I just don’t have any faith in ZOS’s ability to fix Cyrodiil. Maybe they’re competent enough to create a new system from scratch, rather than trying to patch up old code that they likely don’t even fully understand?0 -
Bashev✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I am pretty sure that if we all equip only weapons and remove all skills it will be lag free in ESO too. The game has no CDs and it is spammy wit tons of AoEs. No way that we ever see lag free ESO as it was the first month.Because I can!0 -
jad11mumbler✭✭✭✭✭I too have been thinking for awhile a smaller scale, but still large groups, gamemode like this would be great.
With the murkmire event on I was reminded of how cool and different many of the new biomes are in the game outside of Cyro, which has mostly remained unchanged since the game released.
Which got me thinking about some kind of Border war gamemode.
Much like the BG maps it could feature a wide variety, mountain passes on the border of Skyrim and High rock, the swamps of Black marsh, the deserts and canyons of Elsweyr. This could also allow the use of some of the new game play features introduced with newer content, such as the Grapple bow on some maps.
This would also kind of work with the Alliance wars, most borders would be one alliance vs another.
Though it might be a bit difficult to explain why a DC group is fighting on the borders of AD/EP.
But there would be castles and the like set up on these border passes which could play much like Battlefields conquest mode with a Attackers vs Defenders approach, the attackers having to take multiple objectives, inc a Castle using siege, or breaking through a border wall or such.
Cyro has been great and I've had a lot of fun and still will, but its pretty much been unchanged since the game released five years ago. Its had some small changes like the hammer and bridges/gates being destroy-able but that's it.Edited by jad11mumbler on February 28, 2020 11:11PM174 characters and counting over 13 accounts.
120 writ certified. 73 at CP rank.0 -
Commancho✭✭✭✭✭So I'm a dedicated Cyro player and I can tell that it would be much more fun, if there would be more deepth in the campaign. I would love to see a little bit slow paced campaign with castles being actually a castles, which are hard to capture, with rescources being more important than they are now (for example having stables giving +10% to speed etc), upgrading castles for AP would be also a cool feature and overall Cyro is too big for number of player who can play it in peak hours, there are too many empty and open spaces, no cities, no houses inside the castles, no civils, just big empty space with zerglings running in the circles. It's fun to some extent, but it gets a little repeatitive, predictable and boring after awhile. Cyrodiil feels like it's half-done and they gave up on it long time ago.3
