Update on Cyrodiil Performance & Upcoming AOE Tests

Banana

Spend some money on the $#@&-$ servers

RobZha

Sorry for writing half a novel back there, I found it really odd seeing this though after playing FFXIV. I can count the online games I've got into on one hand, so to be back on that for the first time in years with most skills on global cooldown, then seeing this a week later is mad.

Please give us a direct damage option for Templar jabs/sweeps!

And before I go a long time request : buff Guars. Maybe give them some aoe.

Tigor

Banana wrote: »

Spend some money on the $#@&-$ servers

I hear these kind of remarks often. Some questions again

The current servers are from somewhere in 2014, roughly 6 years

What servers are now used?
Are there currently better servers?
Can the game easily be moved to a different server?
What servers do other games use?

ESO may already be the state of the art game, and only needs some little segregation.

Dusk_Coven

RobZha wrote: »

And when we're talking about server upgrades to make the game work without adding things like cooldowns, it's clear after so much time has passed that ZOS isn't going to do that. It could be that only one option would allow that to take place, and that could be to like FFXIV again, make the game require a monthly subscription so they have stable, regular money which could make them consider it.

I don't think ZOS is qualified to do mandatory subscription.

When EU can't even log in, they won't pay to not be able to play the game.

When ZOS customer service answers your ticket days later with a totally nonsensical answer, people aren't even going to subscribe for totally unprofessional service. TERA is free to play, has real people read every ticket (never an auto response at the start), 24 hour or less response time, and they ask for your feedback on how every single ticket is handled. And people say TERA is a dead game.

Yes, subscription money can help them address this, but will people wait while they see little to no value in subscribing?

Elsonso

Tigor wrote: »

Banana wrote: »

Spend some money on the $#@&-$ servers

I hear these kind of remarks often. Some questions again

The current servers are from somewhere in 2014, roughly 6 years

What servers are now used?
Are there currently better servers?
Can the game easily be moved to a different server?
What servers do other games use?

ESO may already be the state of the art game, and only needs some little segregation.

We do not know what they are using now. They showed pictures of PC EU back in 2014, and it was not hard to tell what ZOS was using for their hardware platform. I doubt they will ever update us or show new pictures. These pictures are still available on the ESO website.

Based on the pictures, they were using Hewlett Packard Enterprise servers at launch, and that is probably still the case. Once that decision is made, there really isn't much of a reason to switch to a different company after only 6 years, unless the company stops selling, and that is not the case. These can be upgraded in-place without needing to switch suppliers.

http://files.elderscrollsonline.com/uploads/blogs/72d25c7769c29b3b467796da4b101a3d.jpg

The above picture shows a portion of the EU server, circa 2014. We do not know how much larger the EU server might be. This picture represents up to about 270 Hewlett Packard commercial servers. Each of these servers are one or two Intel Xeon server CPUs, multi-core and multi-thread, probably a couple hundred gigabytes of RAM, and an SSD for the OS and software.

The actual number of servers will probably be less than 270. It is hard to tell from the back what is installed. Fully populated, it is 272 servers.

The little green light, third tower over, second enclosure down, on the right, by itself, next to the white power cable. That is the power light for the Grey Host campaign server on PC EU. I jest, of course.



Wider image, also from 2014, showing the Frankfurt data center and the EU server. Anyone who seriously thinks that ZOS is so cheap that they are running the server on some Windows 95 machine with an Intel 386 out of Lambert's office should probably rethink. This not a cheap megaserver.

When people say that Grey Host is lagging on PC/EU and that ZOS should upgrade the servers rather than wasting time on 3 second cooldowns, this makes no sense to me. With all the hardware that is running this game, hundreds of server computers, the portion of it that is running Grey Host, even across all six megaservers, is relatively tiny. I have to think that the cost to upgrade that little part is much cheaper than what they are spending in developers, and losing in revenue, working on game play fixes. To think that they have not done that, before spending more on other solutions, is [snipped].

Dusk_Coven

@ZOS_RichLambert Can you clarify if 6.1.0 proc-removal on many sets will be implemented before or after this AOE test?

Elsonso

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

@ZOS_RichLambert Can you clarify if 6.1.0 proc-removal on many sets will be implemented before or after this AOE test?

I think the testing is coming after Update 27 hits the Live servers (on PC). Does that answer your question?

Bergzorn

Actually, as bad and unimaginative cooldowns are for this game's combat system, I don't even really care.

I might be able to adapt to AOE cooldowns. I'm not able to adapt to multiple of the strong proc sets triggered by random damage hitting me while being unable to properly heal, shield, or dodge due to bad server performance.

Katheriah

Elsonso wrote: »

When people say that Grey Host is lagging on PC/EU and that ZOS should upgrade the servers rather than wasting time on 3 second cooldowns, this makes no sense to me. With all the hardware that is running this game, hundreds of server computers, the portion of it that is running Grey Host, even across all six megaservers, is relatively tiny. I have to think that the cost to upgrade that little part is much cheaper than what they are spending in developers, and losing in revenue, working on game play fixes. To think that they have not done that, before spending more on other solutions, is [snipped].

Then why is it running fine during Midyear Mayhem, when they give Cyro some more server juice?

Aurielle

LOL, decided to log in after a few months away from the forums and see (1) if anything had been done to address poor performance on PS4 and (2) if there were any new developments of note...

Oh man. So glad I unsubscribed and uninstalled this game ages ago. It’s rather strange indeed that developers of a game that was DESIGNED around active combat, that deliberately eschewed the tired old skill timer mechanics of older MMOs, are actually considering this as a solution to their game’s worsening performance.

Looks like I won’t be reinstalling any time soon.

Elsonso

Katheriah wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

When people say that Grey Host is lagging on PC/EU and that ZOS should upgrade the servers rather than wasting time on 3 second cooldowns, this makes no sense to me. With all the hardware that is running this game, hundreds of server computers, the portion of it that is running Grey Host, even across all six megaservers, is relatively tiny. I have to think that the cost to upgrade that little part is much cheaper than what they are spending in developers, and losing in revenue, working on game play fixes. To think that they have not done that, before spending more on other solutions, is [snipped].

Then why is it running fine during Midyear Mayhem, when they give Cyro some more server juice?

For starters, I don't think they gave campaigns like Grey Host "more server juice"

Did they add to the total megaserver for MYM? I think they did. It is not that much to add a few extra servers to run the extra campaigns on. They could also re-purpose from other parts of the megaserver. But, I do not think they upgraded the server hardware that runs the existing campaigns, and then downgraded after the event.

I could be wrong. I think it would be great if Lambert would pop in here and put me in my place. (Come on, Lambert, you know you want to! I dare ya! )

Dracane

SilverKatz wrote: »

Smallscale PvP dies，Templar dies,Warden half dead,DK half dead.
What is left in pvp?
Sorc,NB, Zerg are the beneficiary of these changes.
Any one else smell the nepotism here ? ZOS STOP BUFFING THE CLASS THAT YOUR OWN EMPLOYEE PLAYS
why not make this game a round base , and u need pay for the tokem of creating a gody class of NB / sorc ?
I am sure newbie will love it .

It's not like Sorcerer loses their entire selling point; the ability to have a good chance of running away. They lose their main defensive strategy. What a foolish rant.

Templars, Wardens and Sorcerers suffer the most from this. DKs, Nightblades and Necromancers are least affected by this or at least do not have their main selling points punished by it.

RobZha

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

I don't think ZOS is qualified to do mandatory subscription.

When EU can't even log in, they won't pay to not be able to play the game.

When ZOS customer service answers your ticket days later with a totally nonsensical answer, people aren't even going to subscribe for totally unprofessional service. TERA is free to play, has real people read every ticket (never an auto response at the start), 24 hour or less response time, and they ask for your feedback on how every single ticket is handled. And people say TERA is a dead game.

Yes, subscription money can help them address this, but will people wait while they see little to no value in subscribing?

I can see what you mean and wasn't suggesting it. I just think it'd be one of the only ways that they'd even consider sorting the server problems out quickly instead of resorting to this if they're in such a need of upgrading.

Bergzorn wrote: »

Actually, as bad and unimaginative cooldowns are for this game's combat system, I don't even really care.

I might be able to adapt to AOE cooldowns. I'm not able to adapt to multiple of the strong proc sets triggered by random damage hitting me while being unable to properly heal, shield, or dodge due to bad server performance.

Agreed, the game might not be as good any more combat wise, but it might at least be playable and it doesn't look like we have much of a choice at this stage anyway by the looks of it.

JWillCHS

Demonhunter wrote: »

jcmlongb16_ESO wrote: »

Demonhunter wrote: »

The reason people don't play in Cyrodil has nothing to do with combat it has to do with the extreme LAG issues, just because you increase cool-down on abilities it doesn't mean that combat won't be fun. There are lots of examples of mmorpg's with cool-downs even more than what Zenimax is proposing.

And the reason that people are playing PVP on ESO rather than these other mmorpgs is that the combat system is way smoother.

That's a pretty broad statement, just cause your increasing cool-down it doesn't mean the combat system won't be smooth, in fact it will be smoother? If you eliminate lag, combat gets smoother regardless of cool downs.

I feel people who are overly in love with the combat make this declaration about it being smooth. But hop over to the MMORPG subreddit or ask anyone else who prefers another game over ESO; the most common complaint is the combat. In fact, even on launch almost every outlet who reviewed the game had that analysis.

So when someone asks me why I play ESO with [snip] combat I always tell them it's what I can do with it and my built in PvP. I also like the idea being able to spam abilities with my only limitation being the available resources I have. I feel the game is less intuitive at the late/end game compared to other MMORPGs, but if you have patience you can still do a lot of cool things with it. Black Desert Online, World of Warcraft, and Guild Wars 2 are more smooth in my opinion. And animations creating weight have a lot to do with that. But I feel ESO is way more dynamic and skill based(at least in PvP).

I truthfully believe the combat in ESO doesn't work for you, but you have to work the combat system to get any decent result out of it. A good example is ani-canceling elemental weapon. That thing is so jank. [snip]

[Edited to remove Profanity and Inappropriate Content]

relentless_turnip

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

@ZOS_RichLambert Can you clarify if 6.1.0 proc-removal on many sets will be implemented before or after this AOE test?

After reading the most recent post on performance by @ZOS_RichLambert. Part of me thinks it may be a way to dictate the meta away from skill spamming. The benefit being that procs have cooldowns and the number of calculations as a result are controlled by what is optimal to run. Also with the amount of easy damage in the next patch everyone will die faster, taking more out of the fight.

Demonhunter

I personally think a 3 second cool-down is not the end of the world for ESO, even if they add global cool-downs people will eventually get use to it and modify their builds accordingly if necessary.

And I have a feeling that if it slightly increases performance, those ability cool-downs are here to stay. Also, people seem to think that ESO player base are only playing this game because there are no other good mmorpg's outhere. I tend to believe it's a mix of liking the game with regards to PVP/PVE endgame content and playing the economy and simple cause there is nothing else to do so I might as well log in ESO.

So, I doubt adding ability cool-downs is going to destroy the game, and Zenimax knows that. Even if they lose a few, they might gain a few too. You'd be surprised how many people like me will play Cyrodil even more now with increased performance.

MercilessnVexed

Why don't you just... make PVP servers. Hm?

Finedaible

A better solution in my opinion would be to reduce max group size to 12 (Trial-sized groups). Having massive pvp battles was a main concept when making the game but 12 is still a fairly large size and you could still have more than one group present at a keep, albeit without certain abilities having to parse an unlimited number of players in the immediate area.

Finedaible

At least just try reducing the max group size to 12 and see what results from that before reworking the entire game.

Cinbri

How about disable grouping in cyro and check how it will affect lags.
And btw when does input lag will be fixed?

paganslyer

ZOS please as many say before me
the best thing in eso Compared to other games is that Eso have NO Cool down!!!!!!!!!!!

its absurd that in try to fix performance DEV just change the Whole Concept of the Game
There is no doubt That the game will no longer be worth anything if these changes come into the game

so solution: just limit the Amount people can play in cyro and Scatter them across the map by create
more objectives and Points of interest across cyro that Will give players a reason to disperse across the map.
i think its worth that cyro will be limit to 50 players each faction compared to 3 sec cool down
just leave this Unnecessary and not a good idea and put real work in this game!!!!!!!!!!!

NeroTheDk

Demonhunter wrote: »

The reason people don't play in Cyrodil has nothing to do with combat it has to do with the extreme LAG issues, just because you increase cool-down on abilities it doesn't mean that combat won't be fun. There are lots of examples of mmorpg's with cool-downs even more than what Zenimax is proposing.

So if Zenimax succeeds in increasing performance with this idea, people will join Cyrodil and fight even more. Unfortunelty those people who are against this has to do with guild politics, because there are people who spam AOE's in Cyrodil and become unstoppable with no counter play what so ever. Just yesterday, there was a zerg ball of say 8 players against 30 players for over an hour with lag trying to kill them. It just doesn't make sense, ESO wasn't made to play with unlimited resources and AOE spam. You can't play GOD in any world im sorry.

It has been going on for years now and zerg balls and lag are killing the game, not increased combat cooldowns. So hopefully, this will pass the test and increase performance

I completely agree with this.

NeroTheDk

jcmlongb16_ESO wrote: »

Demonhunter wrote: »

The reason people don't play in Cyrodil has nothing to do with combat it has to do with the extreme LAG issues, just because you increase cool-down on abilities it doesn't mean that combat won't be fun. There are lots of examples of mmorpg's with cool-downs even more than what Zenimax is proposing.

And the reason that people are playing PVP on ESO rather than these other mmorpgs is that the combat system is way smoother.

I disagree with this. BDO is probably one of the smoothest well thought out combat systems I’ve ever played. However I chose ESO for the story over the combat in comparison. Don’t get me wrong, I love PvP in ESO but the combat is not at all why I stay.

NeroTheDk

Joxer61 wrote: »

Why 3 secs?

I believe it is because of sets like spell power cure and Olorime (before the update I believe) where most of the effectS have 3-5 second cool downs. That is just my guess.

Amunari

I recall saying something a few months back about how the game will need a global cool down system. These things are not bad, and there is more at stack here then just being able to chain abilities,"freedom of builds" or the servers stability. It is outright insanity to believe that "nerfing" the spamming of abilities has any sort of negative impact on the player created class builds and their identity.

This is a total strawman tactic for people who are absorbed in egotism trying to propagate the one shot of "noobs", and any such individual advocating that its a good thing to "one shot noobs" should be ignored and walked away from, from a business perspective its stupidity, and from the perspective that population dictates the health and longevity of a game.


Actually the opposite is true, that by implementing GCD'S, and cool downs on abilities it is a good way to empower builds and bring good balance to the game.

@devTeam


What you should do is implement a across the board cool down application to 0.5 seconds after pushing any ability. In addition to this another improvement you can make is by empowering some aoe abilities and deleting others and reworking the skills. Destruction staff was way to many aoe abilities, and honestly is really falling short in almost every aspect it has to offer. It would be wise to rework "destructive reach" to possible be some insanely long range ability (like 50-60 yards) that is single target, with moderately high damage, and the last ability in the tree to have significantly more damage, then moving the walls into being "terrain blockers" to prevent people from getting to the mage for a short period, or finding some other similar utility and reworking it from being aoe damage. alternatively, It may be interesting to see if you can turn destructive reach into a range based bonus to spells, and light/heavy attacks as a type of buff.

On another note i want to point out something very serious here, namely the massive amounts of class balance that are about to take place because of this change, and i encourage you to make some additional changes, especially to sorc such as

- Buffing their mage-absorb effects to 80-120% magicka, up from 60% Max HP. They are far to week, and with destructive staff being nerfed hard and aoes being hit, this will turn them into an almost useless class in terms of dealing with multiple people, especially in pvp (bgs). Their defensive is far to short of a duration, and far to week to be of any value to them and needs a big tuneup.


On another note, I really still recommend you remove the charge up mechanic to heavy attacks and shift heavy attacks into an rng off light attack so that left click just becomes a spammable ability. Holding it down to auto cast it would be great and it would make it feel really good, and solve the problem of identity between the two and still empower them both.

Amunari

Ragnaroek93 wrote: »

This is a horrible idea and will cause so many balance issues...

You have no idea my friend. This will be the gate to entire design passes on classes/weapons. I don't think the dev team understands what they are biting on here, and how serious this is.

I Strongly encourage the changes though, because on the other side of that cloud, is a beautiful, magical rainbow.

siddique

This sounds horrible. PvP will be dead. What next, turn based attacks like some sort of a browser game? You should be able to upgrade your servers and fix the code instead of ruining combat.

Honestly, I don't understand the brainwave behind this at all.

Fuzzybrick

I understand why the servers are lagging, and aside from upgrading them so that they can handle the spikes, why don't you consider changing some aspects of the game?
Just thoughts to consider.
1. Turn cyrodiil into many battlegrounds so you can only get so many people in it at a time.
2. Make the entire map of Tamriel PVP able.
3. No more "One Tamriel" put levels back into the game, and separate the factions. If I'm AD I should get merked when I cross into EP and all NPCs should want to kill me. (expansions would obviously be neutral zones) PS. This is what I thought I was getting when I originally got this game 6 yes ago.
4.(not necessary to fix lag... But) To make the game more competitive again, please do away with 5 guild... One guild, one alliance, one goal, to crush my enemies.
Edit: if cyrodiil had it's own versions of battle grounds, their standings could potential have a "buff/debuff" on pve'ers running trials. In addition, you could expand each zone into cyrodiil so that they actually had a real foot hold there with a large NPC military presence so that way if people still wanted to run the gambit they could, but each "zone" could be drastically reduced in size and at the border to your neighboring faction would be the "real world" locations to the battlegrounds to capture the lumber mill for example. Open world PVP wouldn't be dead, you would still get your gankers, that maybe we could place bounties on.
And now I take myself down the rabbit hole...

carlos424

ItsJustHashtag wrote: »

Athan1 wrote: »

Well I guess the way they explain it, it makes sense. I just hope these changes are applied only to pvp though because pve doesn't have such issues.

This is false. Get into a very good trial guild and you see same issues.

Not nearly on the same level as cyrodil though. Sure, you sometimes you have some desync or barswap issues, a bit of lag, etc. But I have never run into the same “slideshow” issues in a trial that I’ve seen in cyrodil. Not even close. It’s probably just a product of fewer people in a given area. If you had 30-person trials, it would probably get rough.

p00tx

carlos424 wrote: »

ItsJustHashtag wrote: »

Athan1 wrote: »

Well I guess the way they explain it, it makes sense. I just hope these changes are applied only to pvp though because pve doesn't have such issues.

This is false. Get into a very good trial guild and you see same issues.

Not nearly on the same level as cyrodil though. Sure, you sometimes you have some desync or barswap issues, a bit of lag, etc. But I have never run into the same “slideshow” issues in a trial that I’ve seen in cyrodil. Not even close. It’s probably just a product of fewer people in a given area. If you had 30-person trials, it would probably get rough.

I have. There was a patch, maybe 3-4 patches ago, where all trials and dungeons functioned as poorly as Cyrodil. It was wild and we were probably getting about 5-6FPS in PVE content. Even overland stuff experienced a noticeable FPS drop during that time. There was some mistake in their code that caused it, which leads me to believe the Cyrodil lag is caused by another coding mistake or miscalculation. For what it's worth, after moving to PC, I can safely say that PvP on the PC NA servers might actually be just as bad as, if not worse than, XBox NA PvP. I was in there yesterday during off peak hours, and I was getting serious skill lag even when I was nowhere near the zergblob and my ping, which is normally around 85 or 90, jumped to 350+. There is something seriously wrong in there.