How to fix Cyrodiil lag: Cut map and population in half

Skoomah

Cyrodiil works great in non prime time. You know why? Population is half of prime time. So to fix it, just cut population and the map in half.

Knockmaker

I can't prove it but I think the population has already been reduced lately. Besides, such things won't fix it much because BGs, for example, are quite small, yet similar problems are there, too. They should simply review the codes, maybe do something about overabundence of proc sets, which I suspect have more load on calculation, and/or allocate more resources to Cyrodiil.

Also, reduced group size sucks and has zero positive impact on performance on my end. It should be at least 18 if not 24.

Thoragaal

Skoomah wrote: »

Cyrodiil works great in non prime time. You know why? Population is half of prime time. So to fix it, just cut population and the map in half.

Do you remember when they removed trees/bushes and game/critter/animals from Cyrodiil in order to improve the performance?
Or when they later reduced the population?

Now you wanna cut the map in half and reduce the population again? Why would it be different this time around?
Maybe ZOS should just remove abilities all together from Cyrodiil; the "new cyrodiil" like a train of lemmings only allowed to use siege weapons.

VaranisArano

Since you double posted, I'll copy-paste from the other thread:

Gotta love solutions that amount to: "Publicly admit you can't make your flagship PVP zone work as designed, then completely redesign it so it maybe works but only for less players."

Incidentally, let's ignore evidence from Midyear Mayhems past that Cyrodiil can handle large numbers of players just fine when the Devs really need it to...

Doczy

year 2021 new cyrodil.
only 1 scroll each faction
towns are castles now with one resource
and population is 10 for each faction.

just get a good server and everything will be fix

even useless knight online had better performance at 2005

if you dont know how to do ask help from blizzard.

Larcomar

"Cut the population in half?" - I think they already managed that.

relentless_turnip

Don't cut the population any more...
Heals only effecting ally's did improve performance, I refuse to believe that anyone truly believes otherwise. Latency based performance is much better this patch because of this.

Stop all heals from being able to stack i.e. only one rapid regen active on a player.
Give purging an individual cooldown of about 8 secs or so... by that I mean an individual can only purge every 8 secs it won't effect casting purge.
Ball groups will struggle to survive, calculations will be reduced by both their death and their inability to spam and being a healer will become more than spamming one skill. A patch of this and if it is hard to survive(which I don't think it will be) stop damage of the same type stacking too.

Proc sets should scale with offensive stats, meaning you can't stack health or effectively stack proc sets. Just speculation, but surely skills being calculated as well as constant aoe procs is a strain on the server. Heals that scale with max health when it is optimal to stack health, not only has undone the work ZOS did to reduce tankiness, proc sets make such a build meta. Arctic wind for instance will, heal, damage and stun. Couple this with crimson and syvarra's and why would you slot anything else. Stopping this stupid meta makes the point above this one more justifiable.

NeillMcAttack

I would love to see a newly designed Cyro map, the current map was designed with the intention of hundreds of players on screen. There is so much wasted memory, the objectives are too far apart, too many choke points that amount to stalemate encounters until the bridge or gate are collapsed, etc.

I do agree to some degree, performance during prime time should be the number one concern of the devs and the players. Sadly a lot of players seem to think the other way around. They want the largest scale possible regardless of actual gameplay, I know, it’s weird, but to each their own I guess!

relentless_turnip

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

I would love to see a newly designed Cyro map, the current map was designed with the intention of hundreds of players on screen. There is so much wasted memory, the objectives are too far apart, too many choke points that amount to stalemate encounters until the bridge or gate are collapsed, etc.

I do agree to some degree, performance during prime time should be the number one concern of the devs and the players. Sadly a lot of players seem to think the other way around. They want the largest scale possible regardless of actual gameplay, I know, it’s weird, but to each their own I guess!

I still believe large scale is possible, though like you I still find enjoyment in small scale encounters. The large scale encounters that work are awe inspiring and I believe with changes like those I suggested above it could be possible to maintain.

I only suffer significant lag when the ballgroups are online, I can play the campaign pop locked any other time and it is fine, not perfect, but fine.

Miswar

Larcomar wrote: »

"Cut the population in half?" - I think they already managed that.

They propably even exceeded that...

forztr2

Knockmaker wrote: »

I can't prove it but I think the population has already been reduced lately.

I think this too. Even when poplocked I'm not seeing "faction stacks" bigger than 50-60. I would guess the cap is down to 80-100.

Vlad9425

Am I the only one thinking this can’t possibly be a serious suggestion or nah?

Reverb

100% do NOT want. If you’re looking for small fights on a small map, do Battlegrounds. The cyro population has been reduced (at least) twice since launch, and I suspect it was further reduced without telling us. The result is a much less dynamic map, and less engaging gameplay overall, and just as much or more lag than when pops were double the current cap.

BalticBlues

Comparing release and today,
they already did cut population serveral times.

Last weekend on PS4 EU,
when 3 bar AD opened the scroll gate on a 2 bar DC,
over about 20 mins only ca. 30 AD showed up and only 10 DC defended the scroll.
Playing on 2 bar DC, there were to even enough people to build a ram to get back Warden...

From my experience, I would say that on PS4 EU
1 bar probably means up to 20-25 people playing.
2 bars probably means up to 40-50 people playing.
3 bars probably means up to 60-75 people playing.
ZOS, it would be great to see the actual player numbers, not just the bars...

Having such low population now for performance reasons,
ZOS probably also halved the maximal group size recently.
Otherwise people would have noticed quickly how few max groups you can build.

Compared to the BIG RELEASE WARS, today it feels like SMALL SCALE BATTLES.
After a while you even know almost all names of people you encounter...
The world became small, didn't it?

VaranisArano

Vlad9425 wrote: »

Am I the only one thinking this can’t possibly be a serious suggestion or nah?

Poe's Law. Even if the OP didn't mean it seriously, I've seen similar ideas put out there in all seriousness.

Knockmaker

Vlad9425 wrote: »

Am I the only one thinking this can’t possibly be a serious suggestion or nah?

I also hope that the op was being ironic. The existing changes have already done more harm to Cyrodiil than good. Because of reduced group sizes, it is really difficult to successfully siege a keep unless the entire group is made of pros. Previously, it was possible to help newbies/randoms to learn stuff in cyro, because the large group size could tolerate a few newbies Now, it isn't possible due to very limited numbers. See zos? It ended doing exactly what you didn't want: pushing new players away. Not to mention that cross healing thing also pushes them out of cyro since they can't find groups and can't do anything solo, either.

This highy-suspected decreased pop cap is also negatively impacting everyone's experience, since Cyro is pretty much empty now and dull. It stimulates a vicious cycle because when a faction has low pop, ppl tend to do nothing and leave to find more ppl there when they return. However, many ppl do the same and results in one faction having lower pop nearly all the time. And with lower pop cap and reduced groups sizes combined, the regular, experienced players become more important. When those few experienced people are not around, that absence is felt more deeply and map becomes even duller since they are not around to lead their ever-reduced groups and since there are already fewer people in Cyrodiil. And most of those players have already stopped playing. You were talking about making the game more newb friendly and not elitist, close the skill gap and sorts things, zos, right? There you go. Newbs can't do a thing now. It's even more difficult for them to be included.

Changing game mechanics for a hot fix to a bigger problem is a baffling example of short sightedness. These had almost no positive impact to gameplay whatsoever so far Except for 5-10ms less latency and that's probably due to cross healing thing, not the rest. They could have looked a their codes, or maybe even test the proc sets, if not improving servers. But they seem to have selected the most marginal methods as fixes.

I could have listed a lot more. But, I have lost my faith in zos that they'll even read and not just read and ignore, so it's not worth it.

NeillMcAttack

relentless_turnip wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

I would love to see a newly designed Cyro map, the current map was designed with the intention of hundreds of players on screen. There is so much wasted memory, the objectives are too far apart, too many choke points that amount to stalemate encounters until the bridge or gate are collapsed, etc.

I do agree to some degree, performance during prime time should be the number one concern of the devs and the players. Sadly a lot of players seem to think the other way around. They want the largest scale possible regardless of actual gameplay, I know, it’s weird, but to each their own I guess!

I still believe large scale is possible, though like you I still find enjoyment in small scale encounters. The large scale encounters that work are awe inspiring and I believe with changes like those I suggested above it could be possible to maintain.

I only suffer significant lag when the ballgroups are online, I can play the campaign pop locked any other time and it is fine, not perfect, but fine.

I agree with all your propositions and conclusions. I just don’t think ZOS are capable of removing heal stacking, if they could it just seems like such a no-brainer that it would have been introduced by now. I’m sure Zeni have their own ideas on ways they can move forward but I can almost guarantee, just by what we have learned, that cross healing hurt performance, and reducing group size along with the cross healing limitation helped performance a great deal. And just to reiterate your point, anyone that claims otherwise has clearly not been paying attention.
With that, I think Zeni will continue in this direction, or likely as Rich mentioned, change a whole host of abilities and how they function, to make them more “performant”.
The scale Cyro was designed for is quite simply not possible to achieve any longer. The original design had almost all calculations and input processes on our own machines, long before CP, and the thousands of effects added since. That is the simple truth. The only way ZOS can hope to maintain the current scale even, is the re-design of the map, the redesign of skills, and further reduction in group size. I honestly don’t feel that there is anything you can only achieve with group size of 12 that can’t be achieved with group sizes of 6 max. Cross alliance healing is not coming back unless the network and servers are upgraded a great deal, and even then, Cyro is still too complex to process as efficiently as would be required.

If, and it’s a big ‘IF’, Zeni actually care about Cyro performance, which, let’s be honest, why would they, most players don’t as long as they can spam AOE’s in a massive stack, sacrifices will have to be made. Sacrifices that the playerbase seem incapable of understanding. So it’s a fair guess, that we will have very little changes that amount to any significant performance improvements.

TineaCruris

Cyrodiil population has already been cut in half once, then cut in half again already. Cyro population is already about 25% of what it once was.

How about they cut the PvE zone population in half two times over so that cyro performance doesn't suffer so radically?

JimmyJuJu

TineaCruris wrote: »

Cyrodiil population has already been cut in half once, then cut in half again already. Cyro population is already about 25% of what it once was.

How about they cut the PvE zone population in half two times over so that cyro performance doesn't suffer so radically?

Serious question here: would you pay an extra amount on your ESO+ membership for a better Cyrodiil experience?

I think I would, but only a little more. But I also think there are so few players left in Cyro, it wouldn't amount to much for ZOS.

twev

Skoomah wrote: »

Cyrodiil works great in non prime time. You know why? Population is half of prime time. So to fix it, just cut population and the map in half.

You propose decreasing the size of cyrodiil population/instance, and multiplying the number of instances spun up?

And with a smaller map and population - they'd just reduce the size of the server space/CPU resources allocated to each instance.
The accounting department wouldn't justify paying more for hardware leases for additional designed smaller population instances.
We'd be back to square one.

Just my 'back of the bar napkin calculation' and opinion.

VaranisArano

JimmyJuJu wrote: »

TineaCruris wrote: »

Cyrodiil population has already been cut in half once, then cut in half again already. Cyro population is already about 25% of what it once was.

How about they cut the PvE zone population in half two times over so that cyro performance doesn't suffer so radically?

Serious question here: would you pay an extra amount on your ESO+ membership for a better Cyrodiil experience?

I think I would, but only a little more. But I also think there are so few players left in Cyro, it wouldn't amount to much for ZOS.

The flip side of that, and the question more often asked, is: "Why am I paying anything at all for something that doesn't work very well? "

Shortly followed by: "Why should I pay more for something that should be working in the first place?"

Sure, we can theorize that whatever ZOS does during Midyear Mayhem costs money that's worth it short-term for the event but not worth it to them long-term to help Cyrodiil performance. But, I mean, what do I have to pay for ZOS to fix the "stuck in combat" bug? Is it really a matter of money at this point and, if it is, why are we crowdfunding it from players instead of ZOS investing in their game?

JimmyJuJu

VaranisArano wrote: »

JimmyJuJu wrote: »

TineaCruris wrote: »

Cyrodiil population has already been cut in half once, then cut in half again already. Cyro population is already about 25% of what it once was.

How about they cut the PvE zone population in half two times over so that cyro performance doesn't suffer so radically?

Serious question here: would you pay an extra amount on your ESO+ membership for a better Cyrodiil experience?

I think I would, but only a little more. But I also think there are so few players left in Cyro, it wouldn't amount to much for ZOS.

The flip side of that, and the question more often asked, is: "Why am I paying anything at all for something that doesn't work very well? "

Shortly followed by: "Why should I pay more for something that should be working in the first place?"

Sure, we can theorize that whatever ZOS does during Midyear Mayhem costs money that's worth it short-term for the event but not worth it to them long-term to help Cyrodiil performance. But, I mean, what do I have to pay for ZOS to fix the "stuck in combat" bug? Is it really a matter of money at this point and, if it is, why are we crowdfunding it from players instead of ZOS investing in their game?

This is a fair point - and I agree in principle. But it's pretty clear that pvp is not the cash cow. Moving ESO from a subscription to F2P model was probably the death knell for pvp because the focus was shifted from an all-inclusive experience to a focus on the money-making cohort. Let's get real here: that cohort is pve.

To your point though, if I thought paying a bit more on my ESO+ would result in a better pvp experience, I would do it. Even if I should already be getting a better experience. But - based on history - it would probably be throwing good money after bad. Though...I would still do it for a while anyway.

Hope springs eternal. At least until I move on to something better

VaranisArano

JimmyJuJu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

JimmyJuJu wrote: »

TineaCruris wrote: »

Cyrodiil population has already been cut in half once, then cut in half again already. Cyro population is already about 25% of what it once was.

How about they cut the PvE zone population in half two times over so that cyro performance doesn't suffer so radically?

Serious question here: would you pay an extra amount on your ESO+ membership for a better Cyrodiil experience?

I think I would, but only a little more. But I also think there are so few players left in Cyro, it wouldn't amount to much for ZOS.

The flip side of that, and the question more often asked, is: "Why am I paying anything at all for something that doesn't work very well? "

Shortly followed by: "Why should I pay more for something that should be working in the first place?"

Sure, we can theorize that whatever ZOS does during Midyear Mayhem costs money that's worth it short-term for the event but not worth it to them long-term to help Cyrodiil performance. But, I mean, what do I have to pay for ZOS to fix the "stuck in combat" bug? Is it really a matter of money at this point and, if it is, why are we crowdfunding it from players instead of ZOS investing in their game?

This is a fair point - and I agree in principle. But it's pretty clear that pvp is not the cash cow. Moving ESO from a subscription to F2P model was probably the death knell for pvp because the focus was shifted from an all-inclusive experience to a focus on the money-making cohort. Let's get real here: that cohort is pve.

To your point though, if I thought paying a bit more on my ESO+ would result in a better pvp experience, I would do it. Even if I should already be getting a better experience. But - based on history - it would probably be throwing good money after bad. Though...I would still do it for a while anyway.

Hope springs eternal. At least until I move on to something better

I can see that. Certainly, PVE is where ZOS makes its money.

On the other hand, that sort of makes it worse. PVP doesn't need new content or periodic updates to Cyrodiil or Battlegrounds the way PVE players need new dungeons, trials, and zones. ZOS isn't spending money on new Battleground maps or Cyrodiil changes.

All we need is for our content to work at a decent level of performance. And ZOS can't even maintain that.

twev

JimmyJuJu wrote: »

This is a fair point - and I agree in principle. But it's pretty clear that pvp is not the cash cow. Moving ESO from a subscription to F2P model was probably the death knell for pvp because the focus was shifted from an all-inclusive experience to a focus on the money-making cohort. Let's get real here: that cohort is pve.

To your point though, if I thought paying a bit more on my ESO+ would result in a better pvp experience, I would do it. Even if I should already be getting a better experience. But - based on history - it would probably be throwing good money after bad. Though...I would still do it for a while anyway.

Hope springs eternal. At least until I move on to something better

Tactical combat against AI gets stale after a while.
Many gamers get tired of endless 'go there, pick up XXX and bring it back here' for some more gold and XP to level a character above the 810 cap that isn't useful in any way.

One basic reason PvP isn't raking in the bux is that it's broken so badly that a lot of the players who would migrate there for end-game after PvE got to be mundane are otherwise not sticking around for it or are actually fleeing the game for human/human combat that works in other games.

dotme

relentless_turnip wrote: »

Don't cut the population any more...
Heals only effecting ally's did improve performance, I refuse to believe that anyone truly believes otherwise.

Even ZOS?

...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...

Source: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7011951/#Comment_7011951

I do agree with you that further cutting the population isn't the answer. The big differentiator between Cyrodiil and other PvP games, at least for us console players, is the sheer scale of the fights. That differentiator has been severely diminished as time goes by due to worsening performance, even with lower pop caps.

L_Nici

Cyrodiils population has been reduced so much over the time...it won't fix the issue, it just delays it.

Crash427

I think cutting population has maybe had the reverse effect. Now there are so few people it often feels like there's only one or two fights going on at a time. Everyone just goes to those fights and what's left of the population ends up stacked in one or two places.

Khajiitihaswares

I do not think another population cut will do it... Last time they spung up more hardware and Cyrodill was running fine. Then they returned or ended lease for new hardware and performance went back to square one... This might be a game engine limitation they can not code around and maybe forced to buy more hardware but if their higher ups say "NO." Then the dev's hands are tied trying find ways to improve it.

eovogtb16_ESO

They already cut population in half years ago.

ccfeeling

They should asking for professional help.

madman65

Ran Cyrodiil again tonight and the bandwidth hit almost 6000 kb but as soon as I left and done a random dungeon it bottomed to like 40 kb. I know alot of interaction goes on but the game used 12 gb of data, that`s alot.

https://imgur.com/a/tZnhUj7