You know what needs to be done, why not just do it!? Edited!!

NeillMcAttack

@ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_Gilliam @ZOS_BrianWheeler

You wanted last year to be the year you fixed performance in Cyro, but you put everything on the server instead and made a broad stroke in addressing the fallout from that(removing cross-healing), which largely worked btw. I'm not here to tell you to move everything back to the client. Because I actually understand the value in having a competitive game on a dedicated server, not just to be able to weed out cheaters, but also to allow compensation to lag and make sure there is fair calculation being made to allow everyone's input to go through at the time the server knows it was cast.
Just want to say that we know you can still make Cyro playable in prime time, and achieve that goal, and all you have to do is limit group size further. 3-4 players for a start I think, and without cross healing obv. Performance first, right, and while we are at it, why not just have a few different sets, like we have now!!??

Just one campaign that prioritizes performance first.

Don't worry, "the coordinated" will get good and adapt. That is apparently what they do best. And Brian, did you know that synergies can still be used by any allies when cross healing is off, whether intended or not, it's actually an interesting mechanic that can keep strength in numbers and I believe could be built upon without having as negative an effect on performance as these "smart" heals do. We could even start marking some skills as outliers that can be cast across groups, like single target abilities such as healing ward still going to people below 25% health and what not, but obviously, performance first.
In fact, until the scale of combat matches the complexity of it, we can't really have balance. And all your work in making Cyro and PvP as a whole more accessible to average and newer players, with the vets, will be for nothing. Ballstacks in Cyro are way over-powered without cross healing, and the only counter is to make more stacks, and then we end up back to powerpoint PvP. Cyro, and the majority of it's players, deserve better.

We should be able to jump in and have fun regardless of the time of day.

Waffennacht

I dont spend a whole lot of time in Cyrodiil, so I cant say to how your proposition would feel; but I would like to say how well you put forth your opinions and ideas.

I think what you've said will be better heard because of how you said it.

Here's an awesome

x48rph

If you limit it to 4 you might as well just make everyone solo. Then of course what really is the point. It's bad enough we have to watch our alliance mates die right next to us while being able to do nothing. The answer isn't to continue to further penalize the community, especially the casual and non elite players. They've already proven with their tests which at the end had a ridiculous number of restrictions that it wasn't the answer and at brought little gain. The real problem that they don't want to address is all the stuff they keep adding to the game. Multiple procs sets, crazy conditions on abilities, all the cp stuff, half the sets they introduce any more all involve stacks which has to be kept track of, ect, ect... Not to mention moving everything to the server along with countless anti cheat mechanisms have just added so much strain to an outdated engine that it just can't handle it. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't remove all the stuff they added, a new engine isn't going to happen, and there really are no other answers other than to remove cyrodil and replace it with something different. Cyrodil will never function like it's suppose to during prime time unless they cap the population even lower at which point you'd have to ask why bother when it'll only be one or two groups running around that huge map.

alterfenixeb17_ESO

x48rph wrote: »

They can't remove all the stuff they added

I do not agree with that statement. In other games it is possible for devs to alter for instance set bonuses and in here it is not. Really? It's rather they do not want to do that as that would supposedly for example kill those precious vet dungeons. After all everyone is running them for monster sets and nobody does it for fun.

Also it is not needed to remove everything added as not everything is a problem. Just deal with those mechanics that are problematic (like proc sets in general) and be done with it really. But above anything ZoS should start doing that instead of constantly trying to dodge it over and over again.

NeillMcAttack

x48rph wrote: »

If you limit it to 4 you might as well just make everyone solo. Then of course what really is the point. It's bad enough we have to watch our alliance mates die right next to us while being able to do nothing. The answer isn't to continue to further penalize the community, especially the casual and non elite players. They've already proven with their tests which at the end had a ridiculous number of restrictions that it wasn't the answer and at brought little gain. The real problem that they don't want to address is all the stuff they keep adding to the game. Multiple procs sets, crazy conditions on abilities, all the cp stuff, half the sets they introduce any more all involve stacks which has to be kept track of, ect, ect... Not to mention moving everything to the server along with countless anti cheat mechanisms have just added so much strain to an outdated engine that it just can't handle it. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't remove all the stuff they added, a new engine isn't going to happen, and there really are no other answers other than to remove cyrodil and replace it with something different. Cyrodil will never function like it's suppose to during prime time unless they cap the population even lower at which point you'd have to ask why bother when it'll only be one or two groups running around that huge map.

Make everyone solo and have perfect performance throughout the entire day, every day....? Don't you threaten me with a good time.
Seriously though, why are we compromising on performance? Is ballstack gameplay really more important than a functioning game?
Having a functioning game is a reward to the community, not a penalty, we are paying the penalty right now for allowing this to continue.

But you are largely right, the game wasn't designed to have all these calculations on the server, but now that they are, we really need to adjust the scale to compensate. Performance first, isn't that what everyone is always complaining about around here? It's sad that people just can't see the reality, they would rather live in denial of the results of the tests as it may have a small effect on their gameplay style. As for proc sets, they are actually even stronger during prime time, as they are more reliable than using abilities as there is no guarantee they will go off, and that is very sad.

Joy_Division

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

idk

Four-man groups in Cyrodiil makes no sense. More importantly, OP is merely guessing it would make a huge improvement in how Cyrodiil operates. We lack comprehensive data on why sometimes performance is better than other times and as such we are just guessing, grasping at hope.

And of course, what Joy stated, play BGs if you want 4-man groups.

NeillMcAttack

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

idk

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

Please point out where in Joy's statement they actually suggest BGs would be like BG's if group size was capped at 4?

Theignson

Allow group sizes to 24...but no group abilities, everyone for themselves!

That would fix a lot of lag issues but still allow groups to coordinate movement

NeillMcAttack

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

Please point out where in Joy's statement they actually suggest BGs would be like BG's if group size was capped at 4?

Joy_Division wrote: »

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?.

Does that not suggest that if I want 4 man groups in Cyro so bad I may as well play BG's. It's kind of a non point anyway. I would absolutely love if we could have any size group, and our faction allies could buff and heal each other. But we can't, and we know why, and we also know what helped, but we are all also unwilling to juts go a step further. You, joy, and many other people don't actually care about Cyro performance it seems. If it plays fine for you at all hours why are you even here? Why did you feel the need to comment?

NeillMcAttack

Theignson wrote: »

Allow group sizes to 24...but no group abilities, everyone for themselves!

That would fix a lot of lag issues but still allow groups to coordinate movement

Actually not a bad suggestion, as it would for sure help performance a great deal as we know from the tests. But I think people still want to play support roles, and the fact that so many abilities become completely useless means so many builds would have to change a great deal?
We definitely need a solid change in the short term, lest this is what we are stuck with until sometime early next year when cutting group size could easily be the only change they make anyway.

Minyassa

Sure, that makes sense. No army in history has ever had more than four soldiers in it, so that's gonna work like a charm to replicate military battles.

idk

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

Please point out where in Joy's statement they actually suggest BGs would be like BG's if group size was capped at 4?

Joy_Division wrote: »

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?.

Does that not suggest that if I want 4 man groups in Cyro so bad I may as well play BG's. It's kind of a non point anyway. I would absolutely love if we could have any size group, and our faction allies could buff and heal each other. But we can't, and we know why, and we also know what helped, but we are all also unwilling to juts go a step further. You, joy, and many other people don't actually care about Cyro performance it seems. If it plays fine for you at all hours why are you even here? Why did you feel the need to comment?

That does not answer the question I asked.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

If we are going to be serious then your question I quoted insinuates Joy said something they did not.

Regardless, we lack actual information that suggests the idea would have a significant impact on the game's performance. Add to that Zos was only interested in testing only a smaller group of 12-man. It would stand to reason that Zos would see 4-man cap for Cyrodiili not make any sense and that would pretty much makes this a non-issue anyway.

Joy_Division

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

No, Cyrodiil would be worse than battlegrounds because at least those maps and objectives are designed for <20 people and groups of 4.

If you made groups of 4, then only those organized guilds that even bother to make separate groups are going to have a chance of affecting the map and comping for 4 little groups in a main group is going to be a huge P.IT.A. seeing how buffs and heals will only work in those little groups. A lot of people aren't going to want to go through the hassle and if group #3's heal spec has to stay at work late, even those who do will have their patience quickly tested. That you think it's going to a non-factor tells me you don;t run in an organized group, let alone try to manage one.

These changes are going to turn all the LFG / Pugherder groups that try to play the map and objectives into small scale 1vX sorts, which they are unsuited for otherwise they'd already be 1vXing. How are these 4 person groups supposed to take Arrius without blobbing together? They can't. And even if they do blob together, they cant even support each other because of the group only thing. Have you ever poured oils on those passionate alliance war fans you refer to? I'm guessing you haven't because they get utterly roasted when they COULD heal each other. You'd either know this idea would never work in Cyrodiil's AvAvA environment or you just don;t care about them as much as you claim to do.

As far as Cyrodiil primetime being perfect, that's a pie-in-the-sky pipedream. The problems obviously run deeper than ZOS is letting on; getting rid of server calculations, something ZOS has been doing for years, hasn't done anything. If anything, things are arguably worse now than in 2017 say. I play on no CP which removes far more calculations than ZOS will ever be able to manage and the performance sucks during prime time when there are intense fights. Even with ZOS's changes in place now, just this last Friday night I was in a group of 9 and still experienced skill delay when fighting blue outside Ash.

Wolfpaw

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Theignson wrote: »

Allow group sizes to 24...but no group abilities, everyone for themselves!

That would fix a lot of lag issues but still allow groups to coordinate movement

Actually not a bad suggestion, as it would for sure help performance a great deal as we know from the tests. But I think people still want to play support roles, and the fact that so many abilities become completely useless means so many builds would have to change a great deal?
We definitely need a solid change in the short term, lest this is what we are stuck with until sometime early next year when cutting group size could easily be the only change they make anyway.

I wouldn't have a problem if most aoe skills had a single target pvp version upon entering a pvp zone. The few left as aoe, in pvp, could be a lot more expensive, & lethal.

I'm not a fan of small group sizes in large scale pvp, or the amount of aoe damage.

NeillMcAttack

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

Please point out where in Joy's statement they actually suggest BGs would be like BG's if group size was capped at 4?

Joy_Division wrote: »

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?.

Does that not suggest that if I want 4 man groups in Cyro so bad I may as well play BG's. It's kind of a non point anyway. I would absolutely love if we could have any size group, and our faction allies could buff and heal each other. But we can't, and we know why, and we also know what helped, but we are all also unwilling to juts go a step further. You, joy, and many other people don't actually care about Cyro performance it seems. If it plays fine for you at all hours why are you even here? Why did you feel the need to comment?

That does not answer the question I asked.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

If we are going to be serious then your question I quoted insinuates Joy said something they did not.

Regardless, we lack actual information that suggests the idea would have a significant impact on the game's performance. Add to that Zos was only interested in testing only a smaller group of 12-man. It would stand to reason that Zos would see 4-man cap for Cyrodiili not make any sense and that would pretty much makes this a non-issue anyway.

The information we know is that removing cross healing to alliance members, and reducing grp sizes to 12 had a significant effect on improving performance. So then it stands to reason that reducing these further would have an even greater effect on performance. Would you be interested in finding out?

NeillMcAttack

Joy_Division wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

No, Cyrodiil would be worse than battlegrounds because at least those maps and objectives are designed for <20 people and groups of 4.

If you made groups of 4, then only those organized guilds that even bother to make separate groups are going to have a chance of affecting the map and comping for 4 little groups in a main group is going to be a huge P.IT.A. seeing how buffs and heals will only work in those little groups. A lot of people aren't going to want to go through the hassle and if group #3's heal spec has to stay at work late, even those who do will have their patience quickly tested. That you think it's going to a non-factor tells me you don;t run in an organized group, let alone try to manage one.

These changes are going to turn all the LFG / Pugherder groups that try to play the map and objectives into small scale 1vX sorts, which they are unsuited for otherwise they'd already be 1vXing. How are these 4 person groups supposed to take Arrius without blobbing together? They can't. And even if they do blob together, they cant even support each other because of the group only thing. Have you ever poured oils on those passionate alliance war fans you refer to? I'm guessing you haven't because they get utterly roasted when they COULD heal each other. You'd either know this idea would never work in Cyrodiil's AvAvA environment or you just don;t care about them as much as you claim to do.

As far as Cyrodiil primetime being perfect, that's a pie-in-the-sky pipedream. The problems obviously run deeper than ZOS is letting on; getting rid of server calculations, something ZOS has been doing for years, hasn't done anything. If anything, things are arguably worse now than in 2017 say. I play on no CP which removes far more calculations than ZOS will ever be able to manage and the performance sucks during prime time when there are intense fights. Even with ZOS's changes in place now, just this last Friday night I was in a group of 9 and still experienced skill delay when fighting blue outside Ash.

The majority of players in Cyro are “pug herders” and solo players. A change like this would make very little difference to these kinds of players. Anyway, You say you are not interested in finding out what the fix for Cyro is. That’s fine, but you will be very disappointed going forward, because ZOS are going to make changes, group size could be one, changing how skills work could be another, they could put cooldowns on AOE skills, etc. let’s hope you don’t wish smaller groups would have been your preferred fix when that happens.

Let’s just hold out for upgraded servers.... yea, who is the one really in dream land.

NeillMcAttack

Minyassa wrote: »

Sure, that makes sense. No army in history has ever had more than four soldiers in it, so that's gonna work like a charm to replicate military battles.

Just like all those standing armies that actively avoided fighting during prime time as their weapons would become unreliable yea!?

badmojo

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

Please point out where in Joy's statement they actually suggest BGs would be like BG's if group size was capped at 4?

Joy_Division wrote: »

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?.

Does that not suggest that if I want 4 man groups in Cyro so bad I may as well play BG's. It's kind of a non point anyway. I would absolutely love if we could have any size group, and our faction allies could buff and heal each other. But we can't, and we know why, and we also know what helped, but we are all also unwilling to juts go a step further. You, joy, and many other people don't actually care about Cyro performance it seems. If it plays fine for you at all hours why are you even here? Why did you feel the need to comment?

That does not answer the question I asked.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

If we are going to be serious then your question I quoted insinuates Joy said something they did not.

Regardless, we lack actual information that suggests the idea would have a significant impact on the game's performance. Add to that Zos was only interested in testing only a smaller group of 12-man. It would stand to reason that Zos would see 4-man cap for Cyrodiili not make any sense and that would pretty much makes this a non-issue anyway.

The information we know is that removing cross healing to alliance members, and reducing grp sizes to 12 had a significant effect on improving performance. So then it stands to reason that reducing these further would have an even greater effect on performance. Would you be interested in finding out?

Source?

ZOS specifically said the improvements from all their tests looked good in a spreadsheet but did not have a significant improvement in performance.

Your whole basis for limiting groups further seems to be based on flawed conclusions. If you said 4 man groups would change player behaviour, then you might be on to something.

NeillMcAttack

badmojo wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

Please point out where in Joy's statement they actually suggest BGs would be like BG's if group size was capped at 4?

Joy_Division wrote: »

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?.

Does that not suggest that if I want 4 man groups in Cyro so bad I may as well play BG's. It's kind of a non point anyway. I would absolutely love if we could have any size group, and our faction allies could buff and heal each other. But we can't, and we know why, and we also know what helped, but we are all also unwilling to juts go a step further. You, joy, and many other people don't actually care about Cyro performance it seems. If it plays fine for you at all hours why are you even here? Why did you feel the need to comment?

That does not answer the question I asked.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

If we are going to be serious then your question I quoted insinuates Joy said something they did not.

Regardless, we lack actual information that suggests the idea would have a significant impact on the game's performance. Add to that Zos was only interested in testing only a smaller group of 12-man. It would stand to reason that Zos would see 4-man cap for Cyrodiili not make any sense and that would pretty much makes this a non-issue anyway.

The information we know is that removing cross healing to alliance members, and reducing grp sizes to 12 had a significant effect on improving performance. So then it stands to reason that reducing these further would have an even greater effect on performance. Would you be interested in finding out?

Source?

ZOS specifically said the improvements from all their tests looked good in a spreadsheet but did not have a significant improvement in performance.

Your whole basis for limiting groups further seems to be based on flawed conclusions. If you said 4 man groups would change player behaviour, then you might be on to something.

Source!!?
The fact the game is playable when ballgroups log off. The fact that removing cross alliance healing and cutting group size in half improved performance a great deal!

Or are we saying these things didn’t do anything?

badmojo

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

Please point out where in Joy's statement they actually suggest BGs would be like BG's if group size was capped at 4?

Joy_Division wrote: »

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?.

Does that not suggest that if I want 4 man groups in Cyro so bad I may as well play BG's. It's kind of a non point anyway. I would absolutely love if we could have any size group, and our faction allies could buff and heal each other. But we can't, and we know why, and we also know what helped, but we are all also unwilling to juts go a step further. You, joy, and many other people don't actually care about Cyro performance it seems. If it plays fine for you at all hours why are you even here? Why did you feel the need to comment?

That does not answer the question I asked.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

If we are going to be serious then your question I quoted insinuates Joy said something they did not.

Regardless, we lack actual information that suggests the idea would have a significant impact on the game's performance. Add to that Zos was only interested in testing only a smaller group of 12-man. It would stand to reason that Zos would see 4-man cap for Cyrodiili not make any sense and that would pretty much makes this a non-issue anyway.

The information we know is that removing cross healing to alliance members, and reducing grp sizes to 12 had a significant effect on improving performance. So then it stands to reason that reducing these further would have an even greater effect on performance. Would you be interested in finding out?

Source?

ZOS specifically said the improvements from all their tests looked good in a spreadsheet but did not have a significant improvement in performance.

Your whole basis for limiting groups further seems to be based on flawed conclusions. If you said 4 man groups would change player behaviour, then you might be on to something.

Source!!?
The fact the game is playable when ballgroups log off. The fact that removing cross alliance healing and cutting group size in half improved performance a great deal!

Or are we saying these things didn’t do anything?

I honestly dont know if performance has improved after their changes. I have barely played since the changes were implemented, and I usually play early morning so performance is rarely an issue when pop is so low.

I am only going by what ZOS reported after the tests. Did your read it?

Are you claims based on your observations? How do you know the changes are the reason for the percieved improvement in performance? What about all the other posts here on the forums reporting that performance is as bad as it was before the changes?

You are saying the changes have improved performance like its a fact, but you have provided no evidence to support that other than you saying so.

Why should we take your word over the people running the tests and analyzing the data?

NeillMcAttack

badmojo wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

Please point out where in Joy's statement they actually suggest BGs would be like BG's if group size was capped at 4?

Joy_Division wrote: »

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?.

Does that not suggest that if I want 4 man groups in Cyro so bad I may as well play BG's. It's kind of a non point anyway. I would absolutely love if we could have any size group, and our faction allies could buff and heal each other. But we can't, and we know why, and we also know what helped, but we are all also unwilling to juts go a step further. You, joy, and many other people don't actually care about Cyro performance it seems. If it plays fine for you at all hours why are you even here? Why did you feel the need to comment?

That does not answer the question I asked.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

If we are going to be serious then your question I quoted insinuates Joy said something they did not.

Regardless, we lack actual information that suggests the idea would have a significant impact on the game's performance. Add to that Zos was only interested in testing only a smaller group of 12-man. It would stand to reason that Zos would see 4-man cap for Cyrodiili not make any sense and that would pretty much makes this a non-issue anyway.

The information we know is that removing cross healing to alliance members, and reducing grp sizes to 12 had a significant effect on improving performance. So then it stands to reason that reducing these further would have an even greater effect on performance. Would you be interested in finding out?

Source?

ZOS specifically said the improvements from all their tests looked good in a spreadsheet but did not have a significant improvement in performance.

Your whole basis for limiting groups further seems to be based on flawed conclusions. If you said 4 man groups would change player behaviour, then you might be on to something.

Source!!?
The fact the game is playable when ballgroups log off. The fact that removing cross alliance healing and cutting group size in half improved performance a great deal!

Or are we saying these things didn’t do anything?

I honestly dont know if performance has improved after their changes. I have barely played since the changes were implemented, and I usually play early morning so performance is rarely an issue when pop is so low.

I am only going by what ZOS reported after the tests. Did your read it?

Are you claims based on your observations? How do you know the changes are the reason for the percieved improvement in performance? What about all the other posts here on the forums reporting that performance is as bad as it was before the changes?

You are saying the changes have improved performance like its a fact, but you have provided no evidence to support that other than you saying so.

Why should we take your word over the people running the tests and analyzing the data?

Ask any of the players that play in prime time if they want alliance cross healing back, if they do, they haven’t been paying attention.
You don’t have to believe me, but ZOS know, most of the players that are willing to accept the reality understand it.

This is actually frustrating, you say you have no experience with performance before and after the tests, then I tell me I don’t know what I am talking about. How can you even give anything to this discussion except to ask for data you know I don’t have access to?

If they changes had no effect, why isn’t everyone begging for the changes to be reverted? What would have been the point in making these limitations? Anyone that says the game is the same before and after the limitations is a liar, or a fool!

badmojo

I never said I have no expierence with performance before the changes. And I never said you dont know what you are talking about.

If you cant handle some pushback on your claims why make a thread about it?

Why isnt everyone begging for the changes to be reverted? Well, a number of us are and have been since they were announced. Have you been following the threads about it? Also, a good number of people benefit from these changes so they dont want them reverted wheather or not they have any performance benefits.

What is the point of ZOS making these restrictions if not for performance? I ask again, have you read their post from after the tests? The sticky threads at the top of this forum have a lot of relevent information. I assume you have not read them, because otherwise you would know that their justification for the changes was that they liked the "behavioural changes" they saw during the tests.

I guess the thing I can add to this discussion is pointing out that your claims are contrary to what ZOS has stated.

NeillMcAttack

"I honestly dont know if performance has improved after their changes. I have barely played since the changes were implemented, and I usually play early morning so performance is rarely an issue when pop is so low.

I am only going by what ZOS reported after the tests. Did your read it?"

So you do have experience or no?

Of course I read it. I read most things put forward by the devs. But that statement is pure PR speak. And the only conclusion that can be drawn from it is that further changes are needed because the game can no longer handle it's original design. You can take my word for it or not, but we all can't be right. Either performance did improve with the changes or it didn't? But the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

If I had proof that reducing group size further improved performance a great deal for all those players that play during campaign lock, would you support implementing it?

badmojo

No, I do not have experience with the post-changes performance. Their changes turned me away from continuing to play this game. I do not like the direction (or lack of) they are going with Cyrodiil and since that's the only part of this game that kept me playing, I decided to cancel my subscription and have almost stopped playing entirely. I mostly follow discussions about Cyrodiil and these tests on the forums because I spent so much time playing this game that I am still interested to see what happens next.

I do however have a lot of experience with the performance prior to their changes. I've played this game since beta and have watched the performance in Cyrodiil get progressively worse and worse over the years. I have also seen a shift towards a group only mindset from the developers, and have been vocal about my dislike for it over the years. This all started with purge and rapids going group only and snowballed from there. So, when I see claims that these group only healing and reduced group size changes are for performance, even after ZOS has confirmed they are not, then I can't really sit by and remain silent. Maybe you are correct and performance has improved since the changes, but I believe this is the direction they've wanted to go for years, this performance improvement motivation was merely an excuse to implement their changes.


Now, about the suggestion to reduce group sizes to 4. I don't think I could ever support such a change. But I also stopped playing because they removed the ability to heal allies, so a group of 4 or a group of 12 really doesn't make much difference to me.

Personally I never really had issues with the poor performance in Cyrodiil. It was one of those things that I noticed, but I never found it game breaking, it was just one of those things you had to get used to if you wanted to play in massive open world battles. Yes, it has gotten worse and worse over the years, and that's a bad sign. But honestly, if there was a campaign where groups only meant markers, and every "group only" ability and set bonus applied to allies (like at launch) then I would still be playing daily. I would gladly take a laggy pure Cyrodiil over any kind of group only healing, reduced numbers, dumbed down version that performed "better". Even if 4 man groups and no ally healing gave everyone the perfect performance we see in our houses, I doubt I'd enjoy it.

But please don't take my pushback on your thread here as merely me not liking your suggestion. I honestly don't believe going to 4 man groups is going to improve performance significantly. To use an analogy, it would be like saying if we cut down on shoplifting, then our crime rate will be significantly improved, while in reality the murders and arson are what is jacking up the crime rate. I don't believe the group size or ally healing, or even server calculations in general are really to blame for our poor Cyordiil performance, it's mostly a result of the sheer number of players coming together during faction stack battles. There are much simpler massive multiplayer games out there which also fall on their face when too many players come together in one place, usually this is solved by spreading players out, but with the design of Cyrodiil being mostly unchanged in the last 6 years, and things still being added that only serve to bring all player on the server together even more often, I doubt ZOS has it in them to make the correct changes needed to solve this issue.

Joy_Division

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

Please point out where in Joy's statement they actually suggest BGs would be like BG's if group size was capped at 4?

Joy_Division wrote: »

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?.

Does that not suggest that if I want 4 man groups in Cyro so bad I may as well play BG's. It's kind of a non point anyway. I would absolutely love if we could have any size group, and our faction allies could buff and heal each other. But we can't, and we know why, and we also know what helped, but we are all also unwilling to juts go a step further. You, joy, and many other people don't actually care about Cyro performance it seems. If it plays fine for you at all hours why are you even here? Why did you feel the need to comment?

That does not answer the question I asked.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

If we are going to be serious then your question I quoted insinuates Joy said something they did not.

Regardless, we lack actual information that suggests the idea would have a significant impact on the game's performance. Add to that Zos was only interested in testing only a smaller group of 12-man. It would stand to reason that Zos would see 4-man cap for Cyrodiili not make any sense and that would pretty much makes this a non-issue anyway.

The information we know is that removing cross healing to alliance members, and reducing grp sizes to 12 had a significant effect on improving performance. So then it stands to reason that reducing these further would have an even greater effect on performance. Would you be interested in finding out?

Source?

ZOS specifically said the improvements from all their tests looked good in a spreadsheet but did not have a significant improvement in performance.

Your whole basis for limiting groups further seems to be based on flawed conclusions. If you said 4 man groups would change player behaviour, then you might be on to something.

Source!!?
The fact the game is playable when ballgroups log off. The fact that removing cross alliance healing and cutting group size in half improved performance a great deal!

Or are we saying these things didn’t do anything?

We aren't saying it. ZOS is.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

In reviewing the data for all the different tests, we did see some marked improvements in performance – on average, there was approximately a 25% reduction in the magnitude of server frame spikes and a slight reduction in the frequency of those spikes. While these improvements look good on a spreadsheet, they do not have a significant enough impact on improving the overall player experience. As a result, we will not be making any major changes at this time.

.

That's even with the cooldowns.

You are seeing what you want to see.

NeillMcAttack

Joy_Division wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

Cyrodiil is spontaneous, engaging, has great scale, and you see a level of passion and commitment from loyal alliance players similar to what you get watching football fans. There is nothing like Cyrodiil gameplay, in any other game on the market. But, and I'd like you to pay attention to this part... IT DOESN'T FUNCTION.

Are you telling me, that if 4 man max group size made primetime play close to perfect, you would be against that change? Why? Would you be interested in trying it out?

Please point out where in Joy's statement they actually suggest BGs would be like BG's if group size was capped at 4?

Joy_Division wrote: »

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?.

Does that not suggest that if I want 4 man groups in Cyro so bad I may as well play BG's. It's kind of a non point anyway. I would absolutely love if we could have any size group, and our faction allies could buff and heal each other. But we can't, and we know why, and we also know what helped, but we are all also unwilling to juts go a step further. You, joy, and many other people don't actually care about Cyro performance it seems. If it plays fine for you at all hours why are you even here? Why did you feel the need to comment?

That does not answer the question I asked.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I'm not on board the hate train.

But what I don;t understand from people like you who hate ball groups, lag, and advocate limiting groups to 4 is why don;t you just play battlegrounds?

It doesn't lag, no ball groups, it's the group size you want, in short it's exactly what you are asking for.

But nope, apparently not good enough for you.

Lemme take a wild stab as to why you wont que into system already in the game that has what you are looking for: Battlegrounds is meh and Cyrodill is a lot more fun? Am I right?

Then stop asking ZOS to turn Cyrodiil into Battlegrounds. Group of 4 can take a flag. They can;t take a keep! It's bad enough with ZOS's dumb changes I have to watch my "allies" die under enemy oils because I can't heal them or I have to watch tower humpers heal and buff each other while I can;t do the same, but at least I can log into a selfish class and there is some semblance of AvAvA and occasionally a good keep fight happens. As it is, if these 12-person LFG groups meet any opposition at all they're pretty much useless.

Do you really think that Cyro would be like BG's if groups were capped at 4? Let's try to be serious here.

If we are going to be serious then your question I quoted insinuates Joy said something they did not.

Regardless, we lack actual information that suggests the idea would have a significant impact on the game's performance. Add to that Zos was only interested in testing only a smaller group of 12-man. It would stand to reason that Zos would see 4-man cap for Cyrodiili not make any sense and that would pretty much makes this a non-issue anyway.

The information we know is that removing cross healing to alliance members, and reducing grp sizes to 12 had a significant effect on improving performance. So then it stands to reason that reducing these further would have an even greater effect on performance. Would you be interested in finding out?

Source?

ZOS specifically said the improvements from all their tests looked good in a spreadsheet but did not have a significant improvement in performance.

Your whole basis for limiting groups further seems to be based on flawed conclusions. If you said 4 man groups would change player behaviour, then you might be on to something.

Source!!?
The fact the game is playable when ballgroups log off. The fact that removing cross alliance healing and cutting group size in half improved performance a great deal!

Or are we saying these things didn’t do anything?

We aren't saying it. ZOS is.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

In reviewing the data for all the different tests, we did see some marked improvements in performance – on average, there was approximately a 25% reduction in the magnitude of server frame spikes and a slight reduction in the frequency of those spikes. While these improvements look good on a spreadsheet, they do not have a significant enough impact on improving the overall player experience. As a result, we will not be making any major changes at this time.

.

That's even with the cooldowns.

You are seeing what you want to see.

All that statement means is that they need further changes, which is exactly the point of this post. If you take that to mean that they believe the removal of cross alliance healing made no difference to performance, why did they do it? And why did they reduce group size?
Major changes are coming, and it won't be in favor of the status quo!
And what server do you play on? Because I can't imagine someone that plays regularly in Cyro thinking that performance didn't improve with the limitations they implemented.

NeillMcAttack

badmojo wrote: »

No, I do not have experience with the post-changes performance. Their changes turned me away from continuing to play this game. I do not like the direction (or lack of) they are going with Cyrodiil and since that's the only part of this game that kept me playing, I decided to cancel my subscription and have almost stopped playing entirely. I mostly follow discussions about Cyrodiil and these tests on the forums because I spent so much time playing this game that I am still interested to see what happens next.

I do however have a lot of experience with the performance prior to their changes. I've played this game since beta and have watched the performance in Cyrodiil get progressively worse and worse over the years. I have also seen a shift towards a group only mindset from the developers, and have been vocal about my dislike for it over the years. This all started with purge and rapids going group only and snowballed from there. So, when I see claims that these group only healing and reduced group size changes are for performance, even after ZOS has confirmed they are not, then I can't really sit by and remain silent. Maybe you are correct and performance has improved since the changes, but I believe this is the direction they've wanted to go for years, this performance improvement motivation was merely an excuse to implement their changes.


Now, about the suggestion to reduce group sizes to 4. I don't think I could ever support such a change. But I also stopped playing because they removed the ability to heal allies, so a group of 4 or a group of 12 really doesn't make much difference to me.

Personally I never really had issues with the poor performance in Cyrodiil. It was one of those things that I noticed, but I never found it game breaking, it was just one of those things you had to get used to if you wanted to play in massive open world battles. Yes, it has gotten worse and worse over the years, and that's a bad sign. But honestly, if there was a campaign where groups only meant markers, and every "group only" ability and set bonus applied to allies (like at launch) then I would still be playing daily. I would gladly take a laggy pure Cyrodiil over any kind of group only healing, reduced numbers, dumbed down version that performed "better". Even if 4 man groups and no ally healing gave everyone the perfect performance we see in our houses, I doubt I'd enjoy it.

But please don't take my pushback on your thread here as merely me not liking your suggestion. I honestly don't believe going to 4 man groups is going to improve performance significantly. To use an analogy, it would be like saying if we cut down on shoplifting, then our crime rate will be significantly improved, while in reality the murders and arson are what is jacking up the crime rate. I don't believe the group size or ally healing, or even server calculations in general are really to blame for our poor Cyordiil performance, it's mostly a result of the sheer number of players coming together during faction stack battles. There are much simpler massive multiplayer games out there which also fall on their face when too many players come together in one place, usually this is solved by spreading players out, but with the design of Cyrodiil being mostly unchanged in the last 6 years, and things still being added that only serve to bring all player on the server together even more often, I doubt ZOS has it in them to make the correct changes needed to solve this issue.

It doesn't matter what you 'believe' will improve performance, but I hope you are ready for big changes next year. And if you haven't agreed with any made so far, I'm fairly certain you won't be happy with what is coming.

But I do agree on one point, a major re-design of the map would be great. This map was designed around a game that simply doesn't exist anymore.

badmojo

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

It doesn't matter what you 'believe' will improve performance

You 'believe' further reducing the group size will improve performance. You also 'believe' that ZOS was misleading us in their statement about their reasons for implementing the changes they did. Does what you believe matter?

Also, I've noticed you like to throw out "improve performance" as if that's a goal. Most reduction changes will undoubtedly improve performance, but will it have any significant impact on player experience is the more important thing to focus on. We could improve performance by a factor of ten, but if the player experience still becomes noticeably bad during large battles then why are we hacking away at the game we enjoy? Basically, if the changes that are supposed to fix performance do not completely eliminate the server lag during large battles, why make them?

Did the changes you are cheering about here and asking for more of, completely eliminate all server lag during large faction stack battles? Reports from other players say no.

Ranger209

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »
Just posted this in the main thread, but wanted to cross-post to ensure it's seen and can be discussed here.

First, we wanted to thank you all again for participating in Cyrodiil the last couple months while we held the various tests with AoE abilities. We know it was challenging to play at times, but running these tests on a live environment was the best way for us to test various hypotheses.

In reviewing the data for all the different tests, we did see some marked improvements in performance – on average, there was approximately a 25% reduction in the magnitude of server frame spikes and a slight reduction in the frequency of those spikes. While these improvements look good on a spreadsheet, they do not have a significant enough impact on improving the overall player experience. As a result, we will not be making any major changes at this time.

That said, there were a few elements from the various tests that we’ve decided to enable for both PC and console for the foreseeable future, as we liked the behavioral changes they brought. Starting on Monday, November 9 for consoles and November 16 for PC, we will be limiting group sizes in Cyrodiil to 12 players, and all ally-targeted abilities will only apply to those in your group.

As for next steps, we’re going to take some time to consider future tests we’d like to run; none of these will occur until sometime after the new year. We’ll be sure to let everyone know what types of tests we’ve decided on next and will reconvene here in early 2021.

---

They have stated right here that all tests proved on average marked improvements in performance including the one they implemented. They also state that it is not a significant enough of an impact for overall player experience. Then they say they are taking time to consider what future testing they will run.

There is an improvement in performance that many can see and feel, and no it is not significant enough, but it is still there. Where they go from here is not yet clear, but they are still actively pursuing it.