Regarding AOE Tests and A Better Resolution.

Xzysts

Hello,

Today, I would like to discuss the recent topic of "The AOE Lag" of abilities that is current in the game. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the constant spamming of AOE's overloads the server. Endless waves of players all gather to one exclusive point and cast endless amounts of abilities. These abilities effect enemy and friendly players alike. A battle could be on the complete other side of the map and you will still be effected. I'd like to address the issue in a manner more consistent with the values of The Elder Scrolls Online game play.

The Elder Scrolls Online was envisioned to have no ability cool downs. Instead, the vision for the game was much like the RPG counter part of the series in which you could cast abilities as long as you had the resources to cast them. This idea makes for faster, more diverse, and more fluid game play. The PvP community loves the entire concept. While I agree that over the course of the game, players have been more diligent at creating and optimizing stronger builds, I am not aware at how that is deemed as a player issue. The developers of this game continued to raise the ceiling of Champion Points, sets, and abilities. With each new addition, players have grown leaps and bounds in damage and performance over the years. We have all read the patch notes each 3 months and watched as insanely powerful new abilities and sets have been entered into the game. Seemingly there is no issue with this until you bring the servers into discussion. Increasing damage, healing, Champion Point, and various other numbers makes the server have to make larger calculations. While in small scale environments this does not appear to be an issue. Although, in large scale PvP such as zergs, ball groups, etc, it is a very troublesome problem. Many players stacked on top of each other spamming the same AOE heals or damage abilities can cripple performance. Therefore, I propose a better solution. A solution that does not require drastically changing the fast-paced PvP environment we love.

I propose a solution with two parts. The first solution would be to limit the amount of players in a PvP group to either 4 or 6. This combined with the second part of the solution I believe will eliminate most of the server stress while maintaining the core values of ESO. The second part of the solution would be to limit how abilities and sets operate with nearby players. Instead of all abilities and sets being able to effect any of your nearby allies, I believe these should be restricted to ONLY members of your same group. Placing these limiting factors will not only reduce server calculations, but reduce them drastically. There is absolutely no reason why you need to play in a 24 man group in Cyrodiil spamming heals and AOE's. Limiting the group size will also help for more coordinated and team based game play in which you will have to communicate with other groups to achieve your goals. This will result in a greater need for interactive game play and will make the game more enjoyable. Nobody enjoys getting zerged down by 6-24 players constantly and not being able to fight back at all. The only thing saving solo players from getting nuked by zergs is being able to use their own AOE's. In writing this, I came upon another unique idea of scaling down or putting cool downs on the AOE usage of those that are in a group of 4 or more. I think we need to stop punishing small group/solo players, and start giving penalties to those that play in the largest/cheesiest groups.

All in all, I am glad to see that ZOS is doing mere tests instead of jumping the gun and making this a permanent change. I believe it is best to approach situations like these with an open mind and approach them with caution. Tilting the scales too much in one direction is not good for anyone. There needs to be a balance between what is too much and what is too little. Zergs and ball groups have gone unchecked for years now. What they do should not effect the entire player base like it usually does.

Regards,
Xzysts

Ectheliontnacil

I suspect more experienced players would prefer this over Zeni's approach. Newer players (zerglings) however would probably quit the game in droves.

zaria

Much much better idea, primary as it would have an very low impact in PvE, yes it will make it harder to mob dragons and hard world bosses as you can not heal or buff the others but not much else as its either solo or group based.

The AoE nerf on the other hand will hurt everybody from new players in delves to trial groups very hard.
Pugging group dungeons will be an nightmare the first months and yes this will hit the bottom line.
Just doing public dungeons with this sounds painful, obvious doable just slow and tedious.

Xzysts

zaria wrote: »

Much much better idea, primary as it would have an very low impact in PvE, yes it will make it harder to mob dragons and hard world bosses as you can not heal or buff the others but not much else as its either solo or group based.

The AoE nerf on the other hand will hurt everybody from new players in delves to trial groups very hard.
Pugging group dungeons will be an nightmare the first months and yes this will hit the bottom line.
Just doing public dungeons with this sounds painful, obvious doable just slow and tedious.

I agree. I completely understand the point that AOE's make the server do more calculations and therefore make more lag. I think most of us would agree on that. I also think that most of us would disagree with these changes if implemented. I guess for now we will see what happens.

Xzysts

Ectheliontnacil wrote: »

I suspect more experienced players would prefer this over Zeni's approach. Newer players (zerglings) however would probably quit the game in droves.

That would be very unfortunate if they did. I believe ZOS will make up for it if these changes are made. I imagine skills like Biting Jabs etc would possibly be changed to single target or somehow given a major buff. I think these changes could potentially be good for PvP, but only if they heavily rework skills and sets also. That would also take a lot of time to do though as well. I think limiting PvP groups and making abilities/sets to those only in your group would make for a great test as well.

Twingena

Xzysts wrote: »

Hello,

I propose a solution with two parts. The first solution would be to limit the amount of players in a PvP group to either 4 or 6. This combined with the second part of the solution I believe will eliminate most of the server stress while maintaining the core values of ESO.

I think that this proposal does not change anything at all. Ball groups communicate in discord or TM. However, this will affect other players. They will be scattered and easily broken by the very same ball groups.

CAB_Life

Shared this in the rep discord—obviously I’m NDA’d from sharing any dev responses, though. I would prefer this approach myself, or the escalating costs. Anything aside from a complete gutting of the core combat mechanics.

Xzysts

Twingena wrote: »

Xzysts wrote: »

Hello,

I propose a solution with two parts. The first solution would be to limit the amount of players in a PvP group to either 4 or 6. This combined with the second part of the solution I believe will eliminate most of the server stress while maintaining the core values of ESO.

I think that this proposal does not change anything at all. Ball groups communicate in discord or TM. However, this will affect other players. They will be scattered and easily broken by the very same ball groups.

I disagree. Ball groups would not be nearly as powerful because all the abilities they use could only effect those in the same group. Meaning less server calculations. This would also mean that each group would have to spread their players more evenly for better results. I am aware that they use discord to communicate which is not an issue. The main point was to make PvP less laggy, which I think this would work quite well. On the other hand it would most definitely make ball groups not as powerful. I think that if they don't go this route, they could easily apply cool downs and resource ramping on AOE's for those in larger groups. Larger groups meaning anything more than 5 -6 people. I do not think that in anyway shape or form this will harm anyone other than ball groups. I mean in reality there is almost nothing that can be done to stop a ball group anyways. They have to be dealt with by other means. Allowing this style of play to continue only furthers lag and cheesy PvP. If you cannot solo play or do small group play, then you can go to a larger group. However, those large groups need some sort of penalties. I am not saying they kill large group PvP, but as I stated usually the changes that are made almost always negatively effect small group/solo players more than they effect large groups. Why punish one for the sins of the masses XD

Xzysts

CAB_Life wrote: »

Shared this in the rep discord—obviously I’m NDA’d from sharing any dev responses, though. I would prefer this approach myself, or the escalating costs. Anything aside from a complete gutting of the core combat mechanics.

You are awesome. Thank you for sharing it. Even if they do not limit group size or limit how abilities/sets interact to just people in your group... I still think it would be a positive change to add cool downs/resource ramping to those in larger groups. That way solo and small group players can still enjoy how they like to play as well and be able to compete against some of these larger groups instead of getting destroyed instantly.

Raudgrani

It's supposed to be Alliance vs Alliance. Not some small scale turf war/clan feuds. We have Battlegrounds for your needs.

If ZOS can't solve the problems (or investing in better server structure, which I suspect would mean a lot) without turning this into The Banner Saga Online, perhaps it's time to say farewell to Cyrodiil - and make it a PVE zone instead. It's not like I want it, but this is getting as old as it is silly. This latest "AOE experiment" is just a bit too much, it's not the same game anymore.

Xzysts

Raudgrani wrote: »

It's supposed to be Alliance vs Alliance. Not some small scale turf war/clan feuds. We have Battlegrounds for your needs.

If ZOS can't solve the problems (or investing in better server structure, which I suspect would mean a lot) without turning this into The Banner Saga Online, perhaps it's time to say farewell to Cyrodiil - and make it a PVE zone instead. It's not like I want it, but this is getting as old as it is silly. This latest "AOE experiment" is just a bit too much, it's not the same game anymore.

Well, I would agree with you, but battlegrounds is no CP. Plus, Cyrodiil is amazing compared to BG's because it is a free open world. Besides, I do not think they should ruin large group play. Everyone has the way they like to play. Some prefer solo, some like 3-4 people, some like 20. I just do not think we should shred the core of ESO game play and harm small group/solo play. At the very least, large groups should probably receive some sort of penalty. Giving the penalty to those who are playing solo or in smaller groups just is not fair. Especially when they are not usually causing the problem. I would rather people have to stack in many different groups and be coordinated compared to a massive zerg in which everyone (including those who aren't even in the zergs group) being able to just spam heals and AOE's that can effect anyone and everyone.

red_emu

The problem is, there is a minority of players that play "ball group" style of game play exclusively, which is understandable.

Ball group style is basically easy mode. Taking advantage (not exploiting) of the game mechanics, to defeat opponents in as short time as possible by dealing upwards of 100k of damage in an area immidiate around the group members and stacking heals up to 10-15k healing per second, while being able to purge all negative effects 3-4 times per global cool down.

You can see how playing this kind of style is attractive. You nuke other players while yourself being invincible. I'm not saying it takes no skill but once you get the hang of it and get used to performing actions on command like a robot, no fight is too hard.

As we have learned over the years, ZOS loves listening to the minority.

I have a weird feeling, that whatever changes will be implemented, they will only hurt players who do not communicate over voice comms (solos and PuG's).

This could potentially kill the game for a lot of players who enjoy Cyrodiil. It could end up with PvP being basically guild ball groups only.

idk

It would nice if OP would actually state why forcing everyone into small groups would have a significant reduction in lag instead of just saying that it combined with the second point would reduce lag.

Even when combined with the second point the fact remains that we tend to go to the same areas and we would still be casting the same skills which means that the idea would do little to reduce the lag. OP even states there is no doubt in their mind that the spamming of AoE overloads the server.

It seems this is all predicated on eliminating large groups with the thought that we would no longer see large groups. Back in the day when the pop caps were significantly larger some groups ran multiple 24 man groups simultaneously. Basically we saw 70+ player zergs. As such, there is no reason to believe we would no longer see 20 man zergs as the same people who run the zergs now will just coordinate it via a few groups and still have the same net effect. At that, we tend to congregate at the same location as that is where the actual PvP is. It is the nature of the beast.

Raudgrani

Xzysts wrote: »

Raudgrani wrote: »

It's supposed to be Alliance vs Alliance. Not some small scale turf war/clan feuds. We have Battlegrounds for your needs.

If ZOS can't solve the problems (or investing in better server structure, which I suspect would mean a lot) without turning this into The Banner Saga Online, perhaps it's time to say farewell to Cyrodiil - and make it a PVE zone instead. It's not like I want it, but this is getting as old as it is silly. This latest "AOE experiment" is just a bit too much, it's not the same game anymore.

Well, I would agree with you, but battlegrounds is no CP. Plus, Cyrodiil is amazing compared to BG's because it is a free open world. Besides, I do not think they should ruin large group play. Everyone has the way they like to play. Some prefer solo, some like 3-4 people, some like 20. I just do not think we should shred the core of ESO game play and harm small group/solo play. At the very least, large groups should probably receive some sort of penalty. Giving the penalty to those who are playing solo or in smaller groups just is not fair. Especially when they are not usually causing the problem. I would rather people have to stack in many different groups and be coordinated compared to a massive zerg in which everyone (including those who aren't even in the zergs group) being able to just spam heals and AOE's that can effect anyone and everyone.

I am sure you could expect them to include CP BG's, if Cyrodiil closed for good for PVP. But that's not the point. I don't like BG's much, I like the huge large scale battles, especially defending/taking a keep - in battles that can last for hours. Couldn't care less for Battlegrounds, really. It's nowhere near the same thing. And with changes like these, or the ones suggested by OP, this would be the end of it. I have patiently been waiting for another 6 months for performance to improve (the promised "plan" doesn't seem to work), but all I hear is it keeps getting worse.

But it seems to be the case with all things you love, it goes away. Only the boring and ugly stays... ;-)

zaria

Xzysts wrote: »

Ectheliontnacil wrote: »

I suspect more experienced players would prefer this over Zeni's approach. Newer players (zerglings) however would probably quit the game in droves.

That would be very unfortunate if they did. I believe ZOS will make up for it if these changes are made. I imagine skills like Biting Jabs etc would possibly be changed to single target or somehow given a major buff. I think these changes could potentially be good for PvP, but only if they heavily rework skills and sets also. That would also take a lot of time to do though as well. I think limiting PvP groups and making abilities/sets to those only in your group would make for a great test as well.

I can see an major difference between an instant AoE like Whirling Blades and an ground based AoE DoT like wall of elements or Arrow Barrage.
For Whirling Blades you will only affect damage to enemies near you once so once check on nearby enemies.

An ground dot need to be set up in an list of ground effects who you then test who nearby enemies is inside any of them looping trough nearby dots x nearby targets and map out the effects, you also need to handle effect timing out or effect getting re-cast, in short its more work than an instant AoE and you need to do it for every tick its active.
Here its also an question how optimized the code is.

Note that some casts like Cleave and Acid Spray are AoE and Dots but not ground based ones, if you get hit you get the dot just like any other single target attack with an dot effect.
Now not differentiating here will reduce the accuracy of test a lot. You also has secondary AoE effects on many skills like endless furry and force pulse, many monster and proc sets with AoE effects how would this work out?

Gandrhulf_Harbard

@Xzysts

Surely limiting the size of PvP Groups is breaking the core principles of ESO.
That of having 100 vs 100 vs 100 PVP.

I mean if we aren't allowed to change a core "non combat" system like the abysmal Trade Kiosks, surely changing a core combat system like PvP by so severely limiting group sizes is a no no as well?

All The Best

Raudgrani

zaria wrote: »

Xzysts wrote: »

Ectheliontnacil wrote: »

I suspect more experienced players would prefer this over Zeni's approach. Newer players (zerglings) however would probably quit the game in droves.

That would be very unfortunate if they did. I believe ZOS will make up for it if these changes are made. I imagine skills like Biting Jabs etc would possibly be changed to single target or somehow given a major buff. I think these changes could potentially be good for PvP, but only if they heavily rework skills and sets also. That would also take a lot of time to do though as well. I think limiting PvP groups and making abilities/sets to those only in your group would make for a great test as well.

I can see an major difference between an instant AoE like Whirling Blades and an ground based AoE DoT like wall of elements or Arrow Barrage.
For Whirling Blades you will only affect damage to enemies near you once so once check on nearby enemies.

An ground dot need to be set up in an list of ground effects who you then test who nearby enemies is inside any of them looping trough nearby dots x nearby targets and map out the effects, you also need to handle effect timing out or effect getting re-cast, in short its more work than an instant AoE and you need to do it for every tick its active.
Here its also an question how optimized the code is.

Note that some casts like Cleave and Acid Spray are AoE and Dots but not ground based ones, if you get hit you get the dot just like any other single target attack with an dot effect.
Now not differentiating here will reduce the accuracy of test a lot. You also has secondary AoE effects on many skills like endless furry and force pulse, many monster and proc sets with AoE effects how would this work out?

Yes. My StamDK with Gorgonzola Breath, Carve and Volatile Armor looks forward to his retirement, upon hearing these news...

Xzysts

idk wrote: »

It would nice if OP would actually state why forcing everyone into small groups would have a significant reduction in lag instead of just saying that it combined with the second point would reduce lag.

Even when combined with the second point the fact remains that we tend to go to the same areas and we would still be casting the same skills which means that the idea would do little to reduce the lag. OP even states there is no doubt in their mind that the spamming of AoE overloads the server.

It seems this is all predicated on eliminating large groups with the thought that we would no longer see large groups. Back in the day when the pop caps were significantly larger some groups ran multiple 24 man groups simultaneously. Basically we saw 70+ player zergs. As such, there is no reason to believe we would no longer see 20 man zergs as the same people who run the zergs now will just coordinate it via a few groups and still have the same net effect. At that, we tend to congregate at the same location as that is where the actual PvP is. It is the nature of the beast.

as stated, the problem is all of these abilities that are being casted effect literally everyone nearby. If you enjoy zerging, that is fine. I just think you should be penalized instead of solo or small group players. I believe larger groups are somewhat necessary to accomplish keep captures and defenses in PvP. The notion that these changes would somehow not effect lag or that I wish to ruin large group play are misguided. I will give the run down again.

50 players in one area. Lets say that 5 out of 50 are spamming rapid regen. The heal goes to the lowest health nearby ally. The server now has to scan through 50 different players at once to decide who gets to be healed. Imagine this over and over again. Constantly. Multiple players over and over and over again.

Now lets take the same amount. 50 players. This time they are spread into groups of 5. A total of 10 groups. Lets say half of these groups have 1 player who is spamming rapid regen. Instead of it having to calculate the same amount of 50 people. It now only has to decide between the remaining individuals in the given group. Meaning less calculations.

NupidStoob

I don't see how limiting teamplay and actually forcing it into small groups is a better solution at all. Soloplayers would be forced to join groups and stay together in bigger fights which many don't want and big groups would be broken up which obviously anyone who values teamplay wouldn't want either. Just the thought of having to def a keep while staying close together with a group of 3-5 others most likely randoms to benefit from their heals is disgusting. It would also devalue healers effectiveness , but we would need way more for each group to have one and we are already lacking a lot in this department.

This would create as many if not more issues than the approaches ZoS wants to test.

If you read ZoS post and have been around long enough you also know that there was a time where we couldn't spam AOE abilities in cyro and guess what it was fine. You all are freaking out before anything even happened. It's called "tests" for a reason, not just for ZoS to see what impacts the server the most, but also to see which approaches might be better and which just won't work.

Xzysts

NupidStoob wrote: »

I don't see how limiting teamplay and actually forcing it into small groups is a better solution at all. Soloplayers would be forced to join groups and stay together in bigger fights which many don't want and big groups would be broken up which obviously anyone who values teamplay wouldn't want either. Just the thought of having to def a keep while staying close together with a group of 3-5 others most likely randoms to benefit from their heals is disgusting. It would also devalue healers effectiveness , but we would need way more for each group to have one and we are already lacking a lot in this department.

This would create as many if not more issues than the approaches ZoS wants to test.

If you read ZoS post and have been around long enough you also know that there was a time where we couldn't spam AOE abilities in cyro and guess what it was fine. You all are freaking out before anything even happened. It's called "tests" for a reason, not just for ZoS to see what impacts the server the most, but also to see which approaches might be better and which just won't work.

I suggest you read my other comments or re-read for a better understanding. This would hurt larger groups. Instead of penalizing everyone for the problems that large groups create, only large groups should be penalized since they create the problem. It makes a lot of sense.

Xzysts

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

@Xzysts

Surely limiting the size of PvP Groups is breaking the core principles of ESO.
That of having 100 vs 100 vs 100 PVP.

I mean if we aren't allowed to change a core "non combat" system like the abysmal Trade Kiosks, surely changing a core combat system like PvP by so severely limiting group sizes is a no no as well?

All The Best

No, the idea that large scale keep captures or battles would somehow be erased is illogical. Players can visually see where battles take place on the map. Players want to fight and earn AP. Therefore, players go to those spots on the map and battle. Meaning large battles.

Qbiken

I agree with OP on all points.

And it's cute to see all people who are like:

We need to wait and test and collect feedback so zos can make the right decisiona. You can't tell anything until it's been tried.

This is the kind of response I would expect from a new player who has no clue about zos track record when it comes to fixing things, but zos has failed time and time again, and even made things worse.

So everyone who is criticising these "tests" (which is more than likely to be actual real changes) have all rights to be concerned. Because lets face it, none of the 4 suggested changes are good for the game. Would personally keep the current lag in Cyrodil than dealing with any of the AoE changes.

Xzysts

Raudgrani wrote: »

Xzysts wrote: »

Raudgrani wrote: »

It's supposed to be Alliance vs Alliance. Not some small scale turf war/clan feuds. We have Battlegrounds for your needs.

If ZOS can't solve the problems (or investing in better server structure, which I suspect would mean a lot) without turning this into The Banner Saga Online, perhaps it's time to say farewell to Cyrodiil - and make it a PVE zone instead. It's not like I want it, but this is getting as old as it is silly. This latest "AOE experiment" is just a bit too much, it's not the same game anymore.

Well, I would agree with you, but battlegrounds is no CP. Plus, Cyrodiil is amazing compared to BG's because it is a free open world. Besides, I do not think they should ruin large group play. Everyone has the way they like to play. Some prefer solo, some like 3-4 people, some like 20. I just do not think we should shred the core of ESO game play and harm small group/solo play. At the very least, large groups should probably receive some sort of penalty. Giving the penalty to those who are playing solo or in smaller groups just is not fair. Especially when they are not usually causing the problem. I would rather people have to stack in many different groups and be coordinated compared to a massive zerg in which everyone (including those who aren't even in the zergs group) being able to just spam heals and AOE's that can effect anyone and everyone.

I am sure you could expect them to include CP BG's, if Cyrodiil closed for good for PVP. But that's not the point. I don't like BG's much, I like the huge large scale battles, especially defending/taking a keep - in battles that can last for hours. Couldn't care less for Battlegrounds, really. It's nowhere near the same thing. And with changes like these, or the ones suggested by OP, this would be the end of it. I have patiently been waiting for another 6 months for performance to improve (the promised "plan" doesn't seem to work), but all I hear is it keeps getting worse.

But it seems to be the case with all things you love, it goes away. Only the boring and ugly stays... ;-)

I agree, I enjoy those battles as well. I enjoy large keep defenses. I have absolutely no desire to ruin a style of play that I also enjoy. I just would rather not lag while doing it. Players will still connect with each other at battle sites. When I see my alliance is attacking a keep, I go there. That will not change. Players will still manage to go to the largest battle sites, because that is where the AP is. Large scale battles will still be 100% possible, viable, and necessary.

Xzysts

Qbiken wrote: »

I agree with OP on all points.

And it's cute to see all people who are like:

We need to wait and test and collect feedback so zos can make the right decisiona. You can't tell anything until it's been tried.

This is the kind of response I would expect from a new player who has no clue about zos track record when it comes to fixing things, but zos has failed time and time again, and even made things worse.

So everyone who is criticising these "tests" (which is more than likely to be actual real changes) have all rights to be concerned. Because lets face it, none of the 4 suggested changes are good for the game. Would personally keep the current lag in Cyrodil than dealing with any of the AoE changes.

Thank you for your response. I think that most of the comments here seem to believe that large group battles will be erased if we limit group size. That is just not true. Players will still go to keeps and battles located on the map because that is where the AP is. What this helps though, is limit the amount of calculations that will be done.

Digiman

I really hope ZoS doesn't get cold feet and goes ahead with the tests, this might amount to a hill of beans and [snip]. I hear some [snip] that it will affect their DPS playstyle all the while they had been [snip]

[snip]

I want ZoS and ESO to be successful, and it won't be if accessibility and engagement is ignored [snip]

FYI to others, the best I am hoping for is a cost increase, at least they can attempt to boost the power of the AoE if they decided to stick with harder changes anyway.

[edited for baiting/bashing]

Xzysts

Digiman wrote: »

I really hope ZoS doesn't get cold feet and goes ahead with the tests, this might amount to a hill of beans and [snip]. I hear some [snip] that it will affect their DPS playstyle all the while they had been [snip]

[snip]

I want ZoS and ESO to be successful, and it won't be if accessibility and engagement is ignored [snip]

FYI to others, the best I am hoping for is a cost increase, at least they can attempt to boost the power of the AoE if they decided to stick with harder changes anyway.

I am not too sure what you are getting at exactly. Nothing I stated was elitist. If anything, this will help those players who are not in [snip] ball groups/PvP guilds. Engagement and accessibility will still be there completely. My statements are to show ways of reducing server stress without destroying the fundamentals of the game. I'd give my post and comments another read.

[edited for baiting]

josiahva

While this approach may help...it is still just a band aid. The ONLY way they will ever solve this is to separate PvP skills and sets from PvE versions. Yes, you will have to swap skills and sets when you go PvP....this is NOT A BIG DEAL. There are already add-ons like dressing room that will do this for you at the touch of 1 button, so it would not be difficult to make a quick change feature part of the main game. That way, in PvP you can limit skills and sets however you want without affecting PvE

Xzysts

josiahva wrote: »

While this approach may help...it is still just a band aid. The ONLY way they will ever solve this is to separate PvP skills and sets from PvE versions. Yes, you will have to swap skills and sets when you go PvP....this is NOT A BIG DEAL. There are already add-ons like dressing room that will do this for you at the touch of 1 button, so it would not be difficult to make a quick change feature part of the main game. That way, in PvP you can limit skills and sets however you want without affecting PvE

Yea that could also work as well. They should have some sort of separation from PvE if possible so that changes made wont' effect pve and vice versa. just because I know some changes will be good for one but not the other

Hallothiel

Whilst I appreciate what the op is trying to do, it would ruin pvp for many in my pvp guild.

When we have a guild group, there is a huge social aspect, as well as the fighting. People join the large group as they can join in as & when they please - they do not have to talk if they don’t want. If the groups were smaller, this could be problematic for the shyer, less confident members. The large group can also help newer players get more confidence & learn strategy & tactics.

We also like to pick up random ‘lfg’s as is a good way to build the guild.

Then there is the issue of who takes the crown in these small groups - again, not everyone is happy to do that.

We have people in the guild who do go and organise their own ball groups (usually 4/6) but they communicate with the main group & work with us.

And as has been pointed out, you would still have oodles of calculations as if we had to do this, we would either be in guild chat or psn chat co-ordinating where to go, so there would still be the same areas with lots of players all spamming the same as before. Causing the same problems. Even if the calculations were done within the group, there would still be a huge amount necessary.

And a bit unfair to solo players if aos only affected the group - can’t give a bit of a health boost to an ally at a keep defence?

Edit: I thought that the problem was ball groups NOT the big groups, as the big groups are rarely well co-ordinated! Well, at least in our guild 🤣🤣

Xzysts

Hallothiel wrote: »

Whilst I appreciate what the op is trying to do, it would ruin pvp for many in my pvp guild.

When we have a guild group, there is a huge social aspect, as well as the fighting. People join the large group as they can join in as & when they please - they do not have to talk if they don’t want. If the groups were smaller, this could be problematic for the shyer, less confident members. The large group can also help newer players get more confidence & learn strategy & tactics.

We also like to pick up random ‘lfg’s as is a good way to build the guild.

Then there is the issue of who takes the crown in these small groups - again, not everyone is happy to do that.

We have people in the guild who do go and organise their own ball groups (usually 4/6) but they communicate with the main group & work with us.

And as has been pointed out, you would still have oodles of calculations as if we had to do this, we would either be in guild chat or psn chat co-ordinating where to go, so there would still be the same areas with lots of players all spamming the same as before. Causing the same problems. Even if the calculations were done within the group, there would still be a huge amount necessary.

And a bit unfair to solo players if aos only affected the group - can’t give a bit of a health boost to an ally at a keep defence?

Edit: I thought that the problem was ball groups NOT the big groups, as the big groups are rarely well co-ordinated! Well, at least in our guild 🤣🤣

I appreciate your comment as many who have left a similar comment were not nearly as insightful. Thank you for sharing. I definitely agree with your statements, especially on those about new players. Hopefully we can come up with a great compromise for everyone.

idk

Xzysts wrote: »

idk wrote: »

It would nice if OP would actually state why forcing everyone into small groups would have a significant reduction in lag instead of just saying that it combined with the second point would reduce lag.

Even when combined with the second point the fact remains that we tend to go to the same areas and we would still be casting the same skills which means that the idea would do little to reduce the lag. OP even states there is no doubt in their mind that the spamming of AoE overloads the server.

It seems this is all predicated on eliminating large groups with the thought that we would no longer see large groups. Back in the day when the pop caps were significantly larger some groups ran multiple 24 man groups simultaneously. Basically we saw 70+ player zergs. As such, there is no reason to believe we would no longer see 20 man zergs as the same people who run the zergs now will just coordinate it via a few groups and still have the same net effect. At that, we tend to congregate at the same location as that is where the actual PvP is. It is the nature of the beast.

as stated, the problem is all of these abilities that are being casted effect literally everyone nearby. If you enjoy zerging, that is fine. I just think you should be penalized instead of solo or small group players. I believe larger groups are somewhat necessary to accomplish keep captures and defenses in PvP. The notion that these changes would somehow not effect lag or that I wish to ruin large group play are misguided. I will give the run down again.

50 players in one area. Lets say that 5 out of 50 are spamming rapid regen. The heal goes to the lowest health nearby ally. The server now has to scan through 50 different players at once to decide who gets to be healed. Imagine this over and over again. Constantly. Multiple players over and over and over again.

Now lets take the same amount. 50 players. This time they are spread into groups of 5. A total of 10 groups. Lets say half of these groups have 1 player who is spamming rapid regen. Instead of it having to calculate the same amount of 50 people. It now only has to decide between the remaining individuals in the given group. Meaning less calculations.

LOL. I do not zerg.

What is proposed ignores that masses of players tend to stack at the same location and the size of the group is much less relevant than all the action going on in a single location.

Even here the focus is on the smaller part of the equation and overlooks the majority of the activity going on and that activity is unaffected by anything mentioned here.