ZOS please consider dissolving ball groups

Gilvoth

maboleth wrote: »

Or making their life harder at least.

They stress the server in one tiny place far too much, are not using any strategy for taking keeps or fighting the war at Cyrodiil and are quite big annoyance to everyone else.
People waste time taking these pests out and are missing other defenses or attacks.

Ball groups should do battlegrounds actually, not AvA. Please conisder it @ZOS_BrianWheeler

i think they have been trying to do that, and that sadly there just isn't a solution or answer to it.
from what i have seen the developers seem to have worked on exactly that for several years.
if they go heavy handed on that it could do harm to eso.

HankTwo

ThePedge wrote: »

Any changes they so to groups will negatively impact the PuGs already struggling to take them down.

No, this honestly is not true. As listed earlier there are certain things that set ball groups apart from random zergs. Nerfing such aspects of ball group play would neither impact random zergs nor small scale all that much.

Minnesinger

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Minnesinger wrote: »

I have always held high respect for the good ballgoups. Having played in many of them to bust zergs and coordinate risky battles. Today I saw a ball group of decent players and low cp and to my surprise the HoTs and all that stuff made them unkillable. In my previous experience the mixmaxing and the right roles were the key to success let alone the thought of some players put in the group setup. Now it feels the game is quite broken and they made ballgroups strong no matter how much experience or skill they have.

Ironically it's actually easier than ever to kill or disrupt groups, it just requires some level of coordination and good timing/knowledge of how groups play.

I am not sure the irony is there when a group of soloers can´t get one of the ballgroup members down. Sure in my case I have to say they couldn´t kill anyone either but constant spam of buffs and heals made them invinsible. If they are build for tankiness I am sure it is fairly easy. The group like yours is totally different case.

Grimlok_S

The only solution is to remove grouping altogether, while keeping healing restricted to your group.

No sets, no skills, just light attack slaps.

Faded

Grimlok_S wrote: »

The only solution is to remove grouping altogether, while keeping healing restricted to your group.

No sets, no skills, just light attack slaps.

Give them a few months.

idk

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? I'm not against groups, whatsoever, even though I play solo most of the time. And not against zergs either. But ball groups. The mechanics of it, endless heals and toxic trolling without doing anything for the game.

You know, it's funny how in the game itself people that actually play Cyrodiil (attacking keeps, defending, scrolls, strategy, battling etc.) HATE ball groups. And I wrote this post on behalf of those players in Cyrodiil, knowing it's futile, but at least to try.

But here, on forums, it's like - shoot the messenger. Alright. Shoot.

How does Zos determine when a group is not doing anything for the game? From what I see here it sounds like any group that an average group cannot kill regardless of their skill level and quality of leadership.

I have yet to find this plague of ball groups.

You obviously can’t see the forest from the trees.

Quote from Rich Lambert;
“ However, one foundational issue remains. At some point, we crossed a threshold where most players in PvP were able to cast endless AOE abilities, without ever running out of resources. This is done through player knowledge, builds and group mechanics – resulting in a constant stream of AOEs with many players never using any other type of ability.

This is not what we intended, but part of the fun of Elder Scrolls games is designing a build that has unexpected and powerful results, and we allowed it. However, as this behavior grew more prevalent, we reached a point where casting so many continuous AOE abilities in such a small area started to overwhelm the server process for that area, leading to situations where the "lag meter" spikes and the server becomes unresponsive for a period of time.”

But I know you are aware of this. Until there are solid fixes for the lag, the best solution in the short term should be to limit ballgroups as they are both broken OP, and also the largest cause of performance issues in Cyro.

Nothing in here defines a group that contributes nothing to the game which is what OP said defined a ball group.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? I'm not against groups, whatsoever, even though I play solo most of the time. And not against zergs either. But ball groups. The mechanics of it, endless heals and toxic trolling without doing anything for the game.

You know, it's funny how in the game itself people that actually play Cyrodiil (attacking keeps, defending, scrolls, strategy, battling etc.) HATE ball groups. And I wrote this post on behalf of those players in Cyrodiil, knowing it's futile, but at least to try.

But here, on forums, it's like - shoot the messenger. Alright. Shoot.

How does Zos determine when a group is not doing anything for the game? From what I see here it sounds like any group that an average group cannot kill regardless of their skill level and quality of leadership.

I have yet to find this plague of ball groups.

You obviously can’t see the forest from the trees.

Quote from Rich Lambert;
“ However, one foundational issue remains. At some point, we crossed a threshold where most players in PvP were able to cast endless AOE abilities, without ever running out of resources. This is done through player knowledge, builds and group mechanics – resulting in a constant stream of AOEs with many players never using any other type of ability.

This is not what we intended, but part of the fun of Elder Scrolls games is designing a build that has unexpected and powerful results, and we allowed it. However, as this behavior grew more prevalent, we reached a point where casting so many continuous AOE abilities in such a small area started to overwhelm the server process for that area, leading to situations where the "lag meter" spikes and the server becomes unresponsive for a period of time.”

But I know you are aware of this. Until there are solid fixes for the lag, the best solution in the short term should be to limit ballgroups as they are both broken OP, and also the largest cause of performance issues in Cyro.

ZOS said that before the Cyrodiil testing. During the testing, ZOS tried everything they could to nerf ball groups and found that nothing made a big difference in performance.

At this point, I don't know what you really do to ban ball groups. Tightly organized groups with set roles and gear are simply the most efficient tactic available for large group combat in Cyrodiil. Do you outlaw using voice comms?

You could further reduce group size to 6, if we agree that the alliance cross healing removal, and reduced group size from 24 to 12 helped get the game playable, at least outside prime time, we need to continue in this direction until we at least have basic functionality during peak hours. This helps balance the insane buffs that are so easy to maintain in 12 man ballstacks. Give a chance to somewhat compete against them in sub-optimized and solo players, help split combat to different areas of the map, and hopefully help performance. At least until we have more appropriate performance fixes. I’m not saying anything needs to be a permanent change.

Until we have a functional and balanced environment in Cyro, it’s popularity is destined to continue in decline.

Zos specifically stated that none of the testings offered a significant reduction to the server performance issue and that would include all the testing with the smaller group size. Zos also made clear they chose to reduce the group size and healing because they liked the behavior changes so this change was not to improve performance.

Perhaps not, but it does constitute an argument against a playstyle that degrades performance a great deal. And a lot of players first hand experiences show an agreement to that statement.

As for Gina’s statement;
"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."

She clearly states that the tests provided an average of a 25% reduction in the magnitude of server frame spikes, so to say otherwise is not true. She also states that “while these improvements look good on a spread sheet, they do not have a significant enough improvement on the overall player experience”, not to be confused with performance. Which I’m sure we can all agree with , as the overall player experience isn’t close to where it should be, for any of our play styles.

So your entire argument against any further limitations hinges on the argument of whether or not the limitations were made to influence “behavioural changes” and not “reduce server frame spikes”.

If you cannot define the playstyle any better than "they do nothing for the game" then there is nothing to target.

And thanks for pointing out that the specific reason Zos reduced the group size and limited healing to those in your group for behavioral reasons. If it was one of the better results from the testing they would have noted that. Considering they did not it is pure speculation and grasping at straws to suggest otherwise. As such an argument for further limitations is sketchy at best.

Edit: Considering Zos is suggesting that the use, or overuse, of some AoE skills, is a significant culprit to the server issues it would make more sense to figure out how to reduce the server load from those skills. We know for a fact those skills are more complicated to calculate today than they were six years ago. We know this because Zos has moved client-side checks to the server-side as well as added more calculations to effect each skill via CP and new buffs and debuffs.

So it would seem much more logical for Zos to figure out how to manage what they do with this game than to blame players for learning how to actually play the game.

Joy_Division

Faded wrote: »

Grimlok_S wrote: »

The only solution is to remove grouping altogether, while keeping healing restricted to your group.

No sets, no skills, just light attack slaps.

Give them a few months.

Nah, the proc gear is gonna stay no matter what

Ralamil

maboleth wrote: »

Or making their life harder at least.

They stress the server in one tiny place far too much, are not using any strategy for taking keeps or fighting the war at Cyrodiil and are quite big annoyance to everyone else.
People waste time taking these pests out and are missing other defenses or attacks.

Ball groups should do battlegrounds actually, not AvA. Please conisder it @ZOS_BrianWheeler

You, and the devs inability to actually fix this deeply broken game, are what's wrong with PVP these days.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Minnesinger wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Minnesinger wrote: »

I have always held high respect for the good ballgoups. Having played in many of them to bust zergs and coordinate risky battles. Today I saw a ball group of decent players and low cp and to my surprise the HoTs and all that stuff made them unkillable. In my previous experience the mixmaxing and the right roles were the key to success let alone the thought of some players put in the group setup. Now it feels the game is quite broken and they made ballgroups strong no matter how much experience or skill they have.

Ironically it's actually easier than ever to kill or disrupt groups, it just requires some level of coordination and good timing/knowledge of how groups play.

I am not sure the irony is there when a group of soloers can´t get one of the ballgroup members down. Sure in my case I have to say they couldn´t kill anyone either but constant spam of buffs and heals made them invinsible. If they are build for tankiness I am sure it is fairly easy. The group like yours is totally different case.

Because approaching the fight like fighting a solo player or Xv1ing someone down isn't the way to kill a group of players. Groups like mine spend quite some time trying different strategies /gear/ compositions to make the most of our setups. Players who put in similar dedication to making a variety of builds would also do better against us than just "a group of solo players"

NeillMcAttack

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? I'm not against groups, whatsoever, even though I play solo most of the time. And not against zergs either. But ball groups. The mechanics of it, endless heals and toxic trolling without doing anything for the game.

You know, it's funny how in the game itself people that actually play Cyrodiil (attacking keeps, defending, scrolls, strategy, battling etc.) HATE ball groups. And I wrote this post on behalf of those players in Cyrodiil, knowing it's futile, but at least to try.

But here, on forums, it's like - shoot the messenger. Alright. Shoot.

How does Zos determine when a group is not doing anything for the game? From what I see here it sounds like any group that an average group cannot kill regardless of their skill level and quality of leadership.

I have yet to find this plague of ball groups.

You obviously can’t see the forest from the trees.

Quote from Rich Lambert;
“ However, one foundational issue remains. At some point, we crossed a threshold where most players in PvP were able to cast endless AOE abilities, without ever running out of resources. This is done through player knowledge, builds and group mechanics – resulting in a constant stream of AOEs with many players never using any other type of ability.

This is not what we intended, but part of the fun of Elder Scrolls games is designing a build that has unexpected and powerful results, and we allowed it. However, as this behavior grew more prevalent, we reached a point where casting so many continuous AOE abilities in such a small area started to overwhelm the server process for that area, leading to situations where the "lag meter" spikes and the server becomes unresponsive for a period of time.”

But I know you are aware of this. Until there are solid fixes for the lag, the best solution in the short term should be to limit ballgroups as they are both broken OP, and also the largest cause of performance issues in Cyro.

Nothing in here defines a group that contributes nothing to the game which is what OP said defined a ball group.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? I'm not against groups, whatsoever, even though I play solo most of the time. And not against zergs either. But ball groups. The mechanics of it, endless heals and toxic trolling without doing anything for the game.

You know, it's funny how in the game itself people that actually play Cyrodiil (attacking keeps, defending, scrolls, strategy, battling etc.) HATE ball groups. And I wrote this post on behalf of those players in Cyrodiil, knowing it's futile, but at least to try.

But here, on forums, it's like - shoot the messenger. Alright. Shoot.

How does Zos determine when a group is not doing anything for the game? From what I see here it sounds like any group that an average group cannot kill regardless of their skill level and quality of leadership.

I have yet to find this plague of ball groups.

You obviously can’t see the forest from the trees.

Quote from Rich Lambert;
“ However, one foundational issue remains. At some point, we crossed a threshold where most players in PvP were able to cast endless AOE abilities, without ever running out of resources. This is done through player knowledge, builds and group mechanics – resulting in a constant stream of AOEs with many players never using any other type of ability.

This is not what we intended, but part of the fun of Elder Scrolls games is designing a build that has unexpected and powerful results, and we allowed it. However, as this behavior grew more prevalent, we reached a point where casting so many continuous AOE abilities in such a small area started to overwhelm the server process for that area, leading to situations where the "lag meter" spikes and the server becomes unresponsive for a period of time.”

But I know you are aware of this. Until there are solid fixes for the lag, the best solution in the short term should be to limit ballgroups as they are both broken OP, and also the largest cause of performance issues in Cyro.

ZOS said that before the Cyrodiil testing. During the testing, ZOS tried everything they could to nerf ball groups and found that nothing made a big difference in performance.

At this point, I don't know what you really do to ban ball groups. Tightly organized groups with set roles and gear are simply the most efficient tactic available for large group combat in Cyrodiil. Do you outlaw using voice comms?

You could further reduce group size to 6, if we agree that the alliance cross healing removal, and reduced group size from 24 to 12 helped get the game playable, at least outside prime time, we need to continue in this direction until we at least have basic functionality during peak hours. This helps balance the insane buffs that are so easy to maintain in 12 man ballstacks. Give a chance to somewhat compete against them in sub-optimized and solo players, help split combat to different areas of the map, and hopefully help performance. At least until we have more appropriate performance fixes. I’m not saying anything needs to be a permanent change.

Until we have a functional and balanced environment in Cyro, it’s popularity is destined to continue in decline.

Zos specifically stated that none of the testings offered a significant reduction to the server performance issue and that would include all the testing with the smaller group size. Zos also made clear they chose to reduce the group size and healing because they liked the behavior changes so this change was not to improve performance.

Perhaps not, but it does constitute an argument against a playstyle that degrades performance a great deal. And a lot of players first hand experiences show an agreement to that statement.

As for Gina’s statement;
"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."

She clearly states that the tests provided an average of a 25% reduction in the magnitude of server frame spikes, so to say otherwise is not true. She also states that “while these improvements look good on a spread sheet, they do not have a significant enough improvement on the overall player experience”, not to be confused with performance. Which I’m sure we can all agree with , as the overall player experience isn’t close to where it should be, for any of our play styles.

So your entire argument against any further limitations hinges on the argument of whether or not the limitations were made to influence “behavioural changes” and not “reduce server frame spikes”.

If you cannot define the playstyle any better than "they do nothing for the game" then there is nothing to target.

And thanks for pointing out that the specific reason Zos reduced the group size and limited healing to those in your group for behavioral reasons. If it was one of the better results from the testing they would have noted that. Considering they did not it is pure speculation and grasping at straws to suggest otherwise. As such an argument for further limitations is sketchy at best.

Edit: Considering Zos is suggesting that the use, or overuse, of some AoE skills, is a significant culprit to the server issues it would make more sense to figure out how to reduce the server load from those skills. We know for a fact those skills are more complicated to calculate today than they were six years ago. We know this because Zos has moved client-side checks to the server-side as well as added more calculations to effect each skill via CP and new buffs and debuffs.

So it would seem much more logical for Zos to figure out how to manage what they do with this game than to blame players for learning how to actually play the game.

This is what you claimed;
Zos specifically stated that none of the testings offered a significant reduction to the server performance issue and that would include all the testing with the smaller group size. Zos also made clear they chose to reduce the group size and healing because they liked the behavior changes so this change was not to improve performance.

Yet Gina clearly stated that there was a significant reduction in server ping spikes averaging about 25% less. You are being continually disingenuous with your arguments on this issue. And I have previously stated that your argument on this hinges on a belief that the limitations were solely made for “behavioral” reasons and not a quick band-aid fix for the major performance issues we struggled with since U25. As such it’s pointless going around in circles on this topic with you.

As for AOE changes, yes, I can see them changing a lot of these skills, in fact, ALL of these skills may need changing. Because if they change only sap-essence spam, everyone will spam whirling blades, if they change only rapid regen, everyone will spam springs, you see where I am going with this (And where does this leave PVE). The players will always seek the easiest means of outputting the most damage to the most enemies, while maintaining the most possible heals. And because of player knowledge and understanding of the game, this could be a road with no end, that “fixes” very little, until we are playing a totally different game. Which is actually my argument all along when I have spoken about the starting point being a place of functionality and balance. It is then easier to introduce power back to the players, instead of starting down a path that ends up changing every AOE skill in the game.
You are blindly supporting a very one dimensional gameplay style, as I don’t think you realize what you are willing to sacrifice to maintain it.

Minnesinger

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Minnesinger wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Minnesinger wrote: »

I have always held high respect for the good ballgoups. Having played in many of them to bust zergs and coordinate risky battles. Today I saw a ball group of decent players and low cp and to my surprise the HoTs and all that stuff made them unkillable. In my previous experience the mixmaxing and the right roles were the key to success let alone the thought of some players put in the group setup. Now it feels the game is quite broken and they made ballgroups strong no matter how much experience or skill they have.

Ironically it's actually easier than ever to kill or disrupt groups, it just requires some level of coordination and good timing/knowledge of how groups play.

I am not sure the irony is there when a group of soloers can´t get one of the ballgroup members down. Sure in my case I have to say they couldn´t kill anyone either but constant spam of buffs and heals made them invinsible. If they are build for tankiness I am sure it is fairly easy. The group like yours is totally different case.

Because approaching the fight like fighting a solo player or Xv1ing someone down isn't the way to kill a group of players. Groups like mine spend quite some time trying different strategies /gear/ compositions to make the most of our setups. Players who put in similar dedication to making a variety of builds would also do better against us than just "a group of solo players"

You are correct. There should be considerable rewards for the good groups that have put a lot of thinking into their playstyle. It used to be so that the top notch guilds fared so much better compared to the average groups. Now it feels that it is much easier to acquire the top performance with the otherwise average players. As a soloer i know better and just leave the healing bot groups alone. There is no reward wasting time on them. Yet I hope it wouldn´t be so

VaranisArano

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? I'm not against groups, whatsoever, even though I play solo most of the time. And not against zergs either. But ball groups. The mechanics of it, endless heals and toxic trolling without doing anything for the game.

You know, it's funny how in the game itself people that actually play Cyrodiil (attacking keeps, defending, scrolls, strategy, battling etc.) HATE ball groups. And I wrote this post on behalf of those players in Cyrodiil, knowing it's futile, but at least to try.

But here, on forums, it's like - shoot the messenger. Alright. Shoot.

How does Zos determine when a group is not doing anything for the game? From what I see here it sounds like any group that an average group cannot kill regardless of their skill level and quality of leadership.

I have yet to find this plague of ball groups.

You obviously can’t see the forest from the trees.

Quote from Rich Lambert;
“ However, one foundational issue remains. At some point, we crossed a threshold where most players in PvP were able to cast endless AOE abilities, without ever running out of resources. This is done through player knowledge, builds and group mechanics – resulting in a constant stream of AOEs with many players never using any other type of ability.

This is not what we intended, but part of the fun of Elder Scrolls games is designing a build that has unexpected and powerful results, and we allowed it. However, as this behavior grew more prevalent, we reached a point where casting so many continuous AOE abilities in such a small area started to overwhelm the server process for that area, leading to situations where the "lag meter" spikes and the server becomes unresponsive for a period of time.”

But I know you are aware of this. Until there are solid fixes for the lag, the best solution in the short term should be to limit ballgroups as they are both broken OP, and also the largest cause of performance issues in Cyro.

Nothing in here defines a group that contributes nothing to the game which is what OP said defined a ball group.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? I'm not against groups, whatsoever, even though I play solo most of the time. And not against zergs either. But ball groups. The mechanics of it, endless heals and toxic trolling without doing anything for the game.

You know, it's funny how in the game itself people that actually play Cyrodiil (attacking keeps, defending, scrolls, strategy, battling etc.) HATE ball groups. And I wrote this post on behalf of those players in Cyrodiil, knowing it's futile, but at least to try.

But here, on forums, it's like - shoot the messenger. Alright. Shoot.

How does Zos determine when a group is not doing anything for the game? From what I see here it sounds like any group that an average group cannot kill regardless of their skill level and quality of leadership.

I have yet to find this plague of ball groups.

You obviously can’t see the forest from the trees.

Quote from Rich Lambert;
“ However, one foundational issue remains. At some point, we crossed a threshold where most players in PvP were able to cast endless AOE abilities, without ever running out of resources. This is done through player knowledge, builds and group mechanics – resulting in a constant stream of AOEs with many players never using any other type of ability.

This is not what we intended, but part of the fun of Elder Scrolls games is designing a build that has unexpected and powerful results, and we allowed it. However, as this behavior grew more prevalent, we reached a point where casting so many continuous AOE abilities in such a small area started to overwhelm the server process for that area, leading to situations where the "lag meter" spikes and the server becomes unresponsive for a period of time.”

But I know you are aware of this. Until there are solid fixes for the lag, the best solution in the short term should be to limit ballgroups as they are both broken OP, and also the largest cause of performance issues in Cyro.

ZOS said that before the Cyrodiil testing. During the testing, ZOS tried everything they could to nerf ball groups and found that nothing made a big difference in performance.

At this point, I don't know what you really do to ban ball groups. Tightly organized groups with set roles and gear are simply the most efficient tactic available for large group combat in Cyrodiil. Do you outlaw using voice comms?

You could further reduce group size to 6, if we agree that the alliance cross healing removal, and reduced group size from 24 to 12 helped get the game playable, at least outside prime time, we need to continue in this direction until we at least have basic functionality during peak hours. This helps balance the insane buffs that are so easy to maintain in 12 man ballstacks. Give a chance to somewhat compete against them in sub-optimized and solo players, help split combat to different areas of the map, and hopefully help performance. At least until we have more appropriate performance fixes. I’m not saying anything needs to be a permanent change.

Until we have a functional and balanced environment in Cyro, it’s popularity is destined to continue in decline.

Zos specifically stated that none of the testings offered a significant reduction to the server performance issue and that would include all the testing with the smaller group size. Zos also made clear they chose to reduce the group size and healing because they liked the behavior changes so this change was not to improve performance.

Perhaps not, but it does constitute an argument against a playstyle that degrades performance a great deal. And a lot of players first hand experiences show an agreement to that statement.

As for Gina’s statement;
"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."

She clearly states that the tests provided an average of a 25% reduction in the magnitude of server frame spikes, so to say otherwise is not true. She also states that “while these improvements look good on a spread sheet, they do not have a significant enough improvement on the overall player experience”, not to be confused with performance. Which I’m sure we can all agree with , as the overall player experience isn’t close to where it should be, for any of our play styles.

So your entire argument against any further limitations hinges on the argument of whether or not the limitations were made to influence “behavioural changes” and not “reduce server frame spikes”.

If you cannot define the playstyle any better than "they do nothing for the game" then there is nothing to target.

And thanks for pointing out that the specific reason Zos reduced the group size and limited healing to those in your group for behavioral reasons. If it was one of the better results from the testing they would have noted that. Considering they did not it is pure speculation and grasping at straws to suggest otherwise. As such an argument for further limitations is sketchy at best.

Edit: Considering Zos is suggesting that the use, or overuse, of some AoE skills, is a significant culprit to the server issues it would make more sense to figure out how to reduce the server load from those skills. We know for a fact those skills are more complicated to calculate today than they were six years ago. We know this because Zos has moved client-side checks to the server-side as well as added more calculations to effect each skill via CP and new buffs and debuffs.

So it would seem much more logical for Zos to figure out how to manage what they do with this game than to blame players for learning how to actually play the game.

This is what you claimed;
Zos specifically stated that none of the testings offered a significant reduction to the server performance issue and that would include all the testing with the smaller group size. Zos also made clear they chose to reduce the group size and healing because they liked the behavior changes so this change was not to improve performance.

Yet Gina clearly stated that there was a significant reduction in server ping spikes averaging about 25% less. You are being continually disingenuous with your arguments on this issue. And I have previously stated that your argument on this hinges on a belief that the limitations were solely made for “behavioral” reasons and not a quick band-aid fix for the major performance issues we struggled with since U25. As such it’s pointless going around in circles on this topic with you.

I have to admit, I'm not understanding this distinction between "player experience" and "performance."

Is it really a performance improvement if it doesn't have a significant enough improvement on the overall player experience to warrant any major changes? Last I checked, spreadsheets didn't play in Cyrodiil. Players do.


I remind you that the full quote is: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/544305/details-for-aoe-testing-in-cyrodiil
"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."

A common sense reading of those two distinct paragraphs is that ZOS saw improvements in certain areas but did not make any major changes based on their spreadsheet performance improvements because their wasn't a significant enough impact on player experience.

Instead, ZOS enabled the changes with the testing elements because they liked the behavioral changes they brought.

If there's a "belief" here, its pretty solidly based in what ZOS told us was their reasoning for not making performance changes and instead because they liked the player behavior. You seem to be the one hypothesizing that its really a quick band-aid fix for the issues since U25 and those server frame spikes.

You have any ZOS quotes to back that up?

Vizirith

As zos has said, either be a ball group or don't pvp. It's also incredibly clear where exactly the lag is coming from, yet zos doesn't do much about it.

Earthewen

maboleth wrote: »

Or making their life harder at least.

They stress the server in one tiny place far too much, are not using any strategy for taking keeps or fighting the war at Cyrodiil and are quite big annoyance to everyone else.
People waste time taking these pests out and are missing other defenses or attacks.

Ball groups should do battlegrounds actually, not AvA. Please conisder it @ZOS_BrianWheeler

One of the problems I see this causing is "What is a ballgroup?" Some people label things differently. I think the greater problem is that recent changes have empowered larger and larger groups. The only thing that can break up the faction stack or zerg is an organized, serious 24-man raid. We now have no 24-man raids. Eliminating cross healing has also given more power to the faction stack or zerg. Solo and small man players no longer benefit from a nearby healer if they need one so they can't take on the ball group either unless they have heals in their group therefore giving up some of their dps just to stay alive.

Whatever behavior ZOS was trying to change, if this is what they wanted then they really should take a second look at this. New players to cyrodiil are not enjoying their experience. Even 12-man groups who just want to run around and stick together are having issues especially with the increased lag every time they get around certain "ball groups".

I will submit to you, ZOS, that the issue isn't the size of the groups (we had big groups with less lag in days gone by), but the increase use of macros and exploited fears and other CCs. The system simply isn't built to take in all the added information when you have a ball group running through a keep and spamming their macros all over the place. 3x or more information is going through a system that cannot handle the load. Either do something about the macroing, or forever forget fixing the lag problem. Everything done so far has done little to fix anything except enable the exploits and macros further.

Earthewen

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Minnesinger wrote: »

I have always held high respect for the good ballgoups. Having played in many of them to bust zergs and coordinate risky battles. Today I saw a ball group of decent players and low cp and to my surprise the HoTs and all that stuff made them unkillable. In my previous experience the mixmaxing and the right roles were the key to success let alone the thought of some players put in the group setup. Now it feels the game is quite broken and they made ballgroups strong no matter how much experience or skill they have.

Ironically it's actually easier than ever to kill or disrupt groups, it just requires some level of coordination and good timing/knowledge of how groups play.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Minnesinger wrote: »

I have always held high respect for the good ballgoups. Having played in many of them to bust zergs and coordinate risky battles. Today I saw a ball group of decent players and low cp and to my surprise the HoTs and all that stuff made them unkillable. In my previous experience the mixmaxing and the right roles were the key to success let alone the thought of some players put in the group setup. Now it feels the game is quite broken and they made ballgroups strong no matter how much experience or skill they have.

Ironically it's actually easier than ever to kill or disrupt groups, it just requires some level of coordination and good timing/knowledge of how groups play.

I agree that coordination and good timing is important here. But when you are limited to only 12 people in your group which makes the number of total groups in a faction less overall, then that is doubly difficult. The problem with these changes that ZOS has implemented is that there are only a certain number of experienced and/or really good raid leads. Some of those people don't even want to lead anymore because of the difficulties that ZOS has presented to PvP guilds/groups. Some have left the game entirely which narrows the field even further. With that in mind, fewer groups are equipped to take down the ball groups as defined by any size group that runs around keeps or open field spamming CC's until their ulties are full and mowing down smaller groups or frozen people who got caught in exploited fears or the ultimate skills themselves.

As long as these groups can exploit the stacked HOTs and CCs, utilize macros and exploits, and run unhindered through helpless players who can get no immunity from any CCs EVER, this kind of playing will continue to deteriorate the fun of new players who will not stay in cyro.

Earthewen

Vizirith wrote: »

As zos has said, either be a ball group or don't pvp. It's also incredibly clear where exactly the lag is coming from, yet zos doesn't do much about it.

I have to agree with you. However, I've also discovered that there are some "ball groups" where the lag isn't present. Specific ball groups seem to bring the lag with them where ever they go. I think it would be much wiser to ask ourselves why only specific groups? There should be some kind of investigation as to why that is. Are these groups doing more macros overall and therefore causing more server stress? I would think that would be worthwhile to look at. Would it be that current fear exploit or other CC exploits are causing increased stress on the servers? I would think that would be a great place to start as far as fixing the problems. Fix the things that are already against the TOS and we might see an increase in performance.

During the testing phases, some of the ball groups simply were not in Cyro. That's why doing anything based on the 2 months of testing isn't a solution as it is based on inaccurate data.

Kordai

Earthewen wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

Or making their life harder at least.

They stress the server in one tiny place far too much, are not using any strategy for taking keeps or fighting the war at Cyrodiil and are quite big annoyance to everyone else.
People waste time taking these pests out and are missing other defenses or attacks.

Ball groups should do battlegrounds actually, not AvA. Please conisder it @ZOS_BrianWheeler

One of the problems I see this causing is "What is a ballgroup?" Some people label things differently. I think the greater problem is that recent changes have empowered larger and larger groups. The only thing that can break up the faction stack or zerg is an organized, serious 24-man raid. We now have no 24-man raids. Eliminating cross healing has also given more power to the faction stack or zerg. Solo and small man players no longer benefit from a nearby healer if they need one so they can't take on the ball group either unless they have heals in their group therefore giving up some of their dps just to stay alive.

Whatever behavior ZOS was trying to change, if this is what they wanted then they really should take a second look at this. New players to cyrodiil are not enjoying their experience. Even 12-man groups who just want to run around and stick together are having issues especially with the increased lag every time they get around certain "ball groups".

I will submit to you, ZOS, that the issue isn't the size of the groups (we had big groups with less lag in days gone by), but the increase use of macros and exploited fears and other CCs. The system simply isn't built to take in all the added information when you have a ball group running through a keep and spamming their macros all over the place. 3x or more information is going through a system that cannot handle the load. Either do something about the macroing, or forever forget fixing the lag problem. Everything done so far has done little to fix anything except enable the exploits and macros further.

The larger pug groups aren't that big of an issue for solo/small scale players or in terms of lag. There aren't always multiple healers in every pug group, stacking buffs/hots, rolling all aoe abilities. That's ball groups. If there are no ball groups on, I've very rarely gotten lag. One ball group? Lag.

Cross-healing simply allowed people to surf with the ball group. It didn't help all that much with solo or small scale because there typically wasn't all that much healing flying around from dedicated group healers. Who ran radiating regen solo? Healing springs? Removal of cross-healing, while a buff to solo and small-scale players was more of a buff to ball groups. Who do you think will win 12 solo players or a 12 man ball group. While ofc the 12 man group should win curtesy of sets and coordination, skill plays almost no role.

Vizirith

Earthewen wrote: »

Vizirith wrote: »

As zos has said, either be a ball group or don't pvp. It's also incredibly clear where exactly the lag is coming from, yet zos doesn't do much about it.

I have to agree with you. However, I've also discovered that there are some "ball groups" where the lag isn't present. Specific ball groups seem to bring the lag with them where ever they go. I think it would be much wiser to ask ourselves why only specific groups? There should be some kind of investigation as to why that is. Are these groups doing more macros overall and therefore causing more server stress? I would think that would be worthwhile to look at. Would it be that current fear exploit or other CC exploits are causing increased stress on the servers? I would think that would be a great place to start as far as fixing the problems. Fix the things that are already against the TOS and we might see an increase in performance.

During the testing phases, some of the ball groups simply were not in Cyro. That's why doing anything based on the 2 months of testing isn't a solution as it is based on inaccurate data.

I haven't noticed any specific ball groups where lag isn't present. But 12 people in the same guild a ball group does not make. You also don't have any lag with small scale players, simply because of the difference in builds. Small scale players usually still use some single target abilities and often don't stack sets or hots (besides vigor).

HankTwo

Earthewen wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

Or making their life harder at least.

They stress the server in one tiny place far too much, are not using any strategy for taking keeps or fighting the war at Cyrodiil and are quite big annoyance to everyone else.
People waste time taking these pests out and are missing other defenses or attacks.

Ball groups should do battlegrounds actually, not AvA. Please conisder it @ZOS_BrianWheeler

One of the problems I see this causing is "What is a ballgroup?" Some people label things differently. I think the greater problem is that recent changes have empowered larger and larger groups. The only thing that can break up the faction stack or zerg is an organized, serious 24-man raid. We now have no 24-man raids. Eliminating cross healing has also given more power to the faction stack or zerg. Solo and small man players no longer benefit from a nearby healer if they need one so they can't take on the ball group either unless they have heals in their group therefore giving up some of their dps just to stay alive.

I disagree. The healing changes were buffs for any form of organized group play, including small scale and arguably true solo play as well. In small groups, a lot of heals are now far more reliable, which is much better than some randoms heals you got from an ungrouped healer nearby.

Tammany

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Because approaching the fight like fighting a solo player or Xv1ing someone down isn't the way to kill a group of players. Groups like mine spend quite some time trying different strategies /gear/ compositions to make the most of our setups. Players who put in similar dedication to making a variety of builds would also do better against us than just "a group of solo players"

Implying player has to work hard to kill your ragtag of heal stacking boys who did nothing but find designated spell spammers to be in their party for X hours. You are requesting too much to pay for your low effort game style.
Like come on, we were not able to drop ballblobs down as pugs, later called two bomblades and they have cleared ballgroup in faregyll within 5 seconds. You call that dedicated pvp, i name that as poorest balance i hav ever seen in mmorpg game. Being able to stack multiple hots on one target looks real in a game with target lock system so enemy players can coordinate, lock your frame and drop one by one with assisting fire, meanwhile in ESO you can hot yourself to teeth but never being focused hard due to no target system.

Teamplay must be based around teamwork, not around team gearing and buff stacking.
I mean, it is. In every game but eso.

Kartalin

Tammany wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Because approaching the fight like fighting a solo player or Xv1ing someone down isn't the way to kill a group of players. Groups like mine spend quite some time trying different strategies /gear/ compositions to make the most of our setups. Players who put in similar dedication to making a variety of builds would also do better against us than just "a group of solo players"

Implying player has to work hard to kill your ragtag of heal stacking boys who did nothing but find designated spell spammers to be in their party for X hours. You are requesting too much to pay for your low effort game style.
Like come on, we were not able to drop ballblobs down as pugs, later called two bomblades and they have cleared ballgroup in faregyll within 5 seconds. You call that dedicated pvp, i name that as poorest balance i hav ever seen in mmorpg game. Being able to stack multiple hots on one target looks real in a game with target lock system so enemy players can coordinate, lock your frame and drop one by one with assisting fire, meanwhile in ESO you can hot yourself to teeth but never being focused hard due to no target system.

Teamplay must be based around teamwork, not around team gearing and buff stacking.
I mean, it is. In every game but eso.

The fact that you think randoms can be pulled in from zone chat to fulfill a specific role tells us you have no idea what it is you are talking about. That you also think teamwork has nothing to do with it further emphasizes this point.

NeillMcAttack

VaranisArano wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? I'm not against groups, whatsoever, even though I play solo most of the time. And not against zergs either. But ball groups. The mechanics of it, endless heals and toxic trolling without doing anything for the game.

You know, it's funny how in the game itself people that actually play Cyrodiil (attacking keeps, defending, scrolls, strategy, battling etc.) HATE ball groups. And I wrote this post on behalf of those players in Cyrodiil, knowing it's futile, but at least to try.

But here, on forums, it's like - shoot the messenger. Alright. Shoot.

How does Zos determine when a group is not doing anything for the game? From what I see here it sounds like any group that an average group cannot kill regardless of their skill level and quality of leadership.

I have yet to find this plague of ball groups.

You obviously can’t see the forest from the trees.

Quote from Rich Lambert;
“ However, one foundational issue remains. At some point, we crossed a threshold where most players in PvP were able to cast endless AOE abilities, without ever running out of resources. This is done through player knowledge, builds and group mechanics – resulting in a constant stream of AOEs with many players never using any other type of ability.

This is not what we intended, but part of the fun of Elder Scrolls games is designing a build that has unexpected and powerful results, and we allowed it. However, as this behavior grew more prevalent, we reached a point where casting so many continuous AOE abilities in such a small area started to overwhelm the server process for that area, leading to situations where the "lag meter" spikes and the server becomes unresponsive for a period of time.”

But I know you are aware of this. Until there are solid fixes for the lag, the best solution in the short term should be to limit ballgroups as they are both broken OP, and also the largest cause of performance issues in Cyro.

Nothing in here defines a group that contributes nothing to the game which is what OP said defined a ball group.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? I'm not against groups, whatsoever, even though I play solo most of the time. And not against zergs either. But ball groups. The mechanics of it, endless heals and toxic trolling without doing anything for the game.

You know, it's funny how in the game itself people that actually play Cyrodiil (attacking keeps, defending, scrolls, strategy, battling etc.) HATE ball groups. And I wrote this post on behalf of those players in Cyrodiil, knowing it's futile, but at least to try.

But here, on forums, it's like - shoot the messenger. Alright. Shoot.

How does Zos determine when a group is not doing anything for the game? From what I see here it sounds like any group that an average group cannot kill regardless of their skill level and quality of leadership.

I have yet to find this plague of ball groups.

You obviously can’t see the forest from the trees.

Quote from Rich Lambert;
“ However, one foundational issue remains. At some point, we crossed a threshold where most players in PvP were able to cast endless AOE abilities, without ever running out of resources. This is done through player knowledge, builds and group mechanics – resulting in a constant stream of AOEs with many players never using any other type of ability.

This is not what we intended, but part of the fun of Elder Scrolls games is designing a build that has unexpected and powerful results, and we allowed it. However, as this behavior grew more prevalent, we reached a point where casting so many continuous AOE abilities in such a small area started to overwhelm the server process for that area, leading to situations where the "lag meter" spikes and the server becomes unresponsive for a period of time.”

But I know you are aware of this. Until there are solid fixes for the lag, the best solution in the short term should be to limit ballgroups as they are both broken OP, and also the largest cause of performance issues in Cyro.

ZOS said that before the Cyrodiil testing. During the testing, ZOS tried everything they could to nerf ball groups and found that nothing made a big difference in performance.

At this point, I don't know what you really do to ban ball groups. Tightly organized groups with set roles and gear are simply the most efficient tactic available for large group combat in Cyrodiil. Do you outlaw using voice comms?

You could further reduce group size to 6, if we agree that the alliance cross healing removal, and reduced group size from 24 to 12 helped get the game playable, at least outside prime time, we need to continue in this direction until we at least have basic functionality during peak hours. This helps balance the insane buffs that are so easy to maintain in 12 man ballstacks. Give a chance to somewhat compete against them in sub-optimized and solo players, help split combat to different areas of the map, and hopefully help performance. At least until we have more appropriate performance fixes. I’m not saying anything needs to be a permanent change.

Until we have a functional and balanced environment in Cyro, it’s popularity is destined to continue in decline.

Zos specifically stated that none of the testings offered a significant reduction to the server performance issue and that would include all the testing with the smaller group size. Zos also made clear they chose to reduce the group size and healing because they liked the behavior changes so this change was not to improve performance.

Perhaps not, but it does constitute an argument against a playstyle that degrades performance a great deal. And a lot of players first hand experiences show an agreement to that statement.

As for Gina’s statement;
"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."

She clearly states that the tests provided an average of a 25% reduction in the magnitude of server frame spikes, so to say otherwise is not true. She also states that “while these improvements look good on a spread sheet, they do not have a significant enough improvement on the overall player experience”, not to be confused with performance. Which I’m sure we can all agree with , as the overall player experience isn’t close to where it should be, for any of our play styles.

So your entire argument against any further limitations hinges on the argument of whether or not the limitations were made to influence “behavioural changes” and not “reduce server frame spikes”.

If you cannot define the playstyle any better than "they do nothing for the game" then there is nothing to target.

And thanks for pointing out that the specific reason Zos reduced the group size and limited healing to those in your group for behavioral reasons. If it was one of the better results from the testing they would have noted that. Considering they did not it is pure speculation and grasping at straws to suggest otherwise. As such an argument for further limitations is sketchy at best.

Edit: Considering Zos is suggesting that the use, or overuse, of some AoE skills, is a significant culprit to the server issues it would make more sense to figure out how to reduce the server load from those skills. We know for a fact those skills are more complicated to calculate today than they were six years ago. We know this because Zos has moved client-side checks to the server-side as well as added more calculations to effect each skill via CP and new buffs and debuffs.

So it would seem much more logical for Zos to figure out how to manage what they do with this game than to blame players for learning how to actually play the game.

This is what you claimed;
Zos specifically stated that none of the testings offered a significant reduction to the server performance issue and that would include all the testing with the smaller group size. Zos also made clear they chose to reduce the group size and healing because they liked the behavior changes so this change was not to improve performance.

Yet Gina clearly stated that there was a significant reduction in server ping spikes averaging about 25% less. You are being continually disingenuous with your arguments on this issue. And I have previously stated that your argument on this hinges on a belief that the limitations were solely made for “behavioral” reasons and not a quick band-aid fix for the major performance issues we struggled with since U25. As such it’s pointless going around in circles on this topic with you.

I have to admit, I'm not understanding this distinction between "player experience" and "performance."

Is it really a performance improvement if it doesn't have a significant enough improvement on the overall player experience to warrant any major changes? Last I checked, spreadsheets didn't play in Cyrodiil. Players do.


I remind you that the full quote is: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/544305/details-for-aoe-testing-in-cyrodiil
"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."

A common sense reading of those two distinct paragraphs is that ZOS saw improvements in certain areas but did not make any major changes based on their spreadsheet performance improvements because their wasn't a significant enough impact on player experience.

Instead, ZOS enabled the changes with the testing elements because they liked the behavioral changes they brought.

If there's a "belief" here, its pretty solidly based in what ZOS told us was their reasoning for not making performance changes and instead because they liked the player behavior. You seem to be the one hypothesizing that its really a quick band-aid fix for the issues since U25 and those server frame spikes.

You have any ZOS quotes to back that up?

So they say they are not making any significant changes and then make the biggest change Cyro PvP has ever seen. I think we should all be pretty worried at what ZOS deems significant.
Anyway, let's forget Gina's statement which I don't believe should be this open to interpretation, but it is PR speak, so, I guess it is what it is.

If we turned cross alliance healing on in the morning. Do you believe performance and the player experience would change significantly? And do you think either of those would be positive or negative?
Serious questions now. It may help us understand the differences between what you deem "player experience" and perhaps we can de-couple it from performance. Because in my eyes;

"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."

This statement is simply stating that they understand that these changes aren't ideal solutions to Cyro, but they intend to go deeper in the future.
When we understand that NOBODY, you me or anyone, were gonna be happy with this. Yet they NEEDED to happen. And it is up to you to believe that they were for "behavioral" reasons, or that the official statement was to be that. "We see no other means of making Cyro somewhat playable right now". A little bit of critical thinking, and basic understanding of PR, you would have to conclude that "Behavioral Changes" was just that, PR speak.

Greasytengu

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

If we turned cross alliance healing on in the morning. Do you believe performance and the player experience would change significantly? And do you think either of those would be positive or negative?
Serious questions now. It may help us understand the differences between what you deem "player experience" and perhaps we can de-couple it from performance. Because in my eyes;

Well, I dont think turning on out of group heals would hurt performance any, the heals still have to check for targets regardless if there is only one viable.

Say I have a heal that hits up to 6 people, but im ungrouped but in a zerg, the ability still has to look for 6 targets to hit regardless if im in a group or not. So that one cast has to check every single person in its radius to see if can apply, and knowing the spaghetti coding were dealing with, it might not even be constrained to radius.

The problem is in the coding sadly.

NeillMcAttack

Greasytengu wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

If we turned cross alliance healing on in the morning. Do you believe performance and the player experience would change significantly? And do you think either of those would be positive or negative?
Serious questions now. It may help us understand the differences between what you deem "player experience" and perhaps we can de-couple it from performance. Because in my eyes;

Well, I dont think turning on out of group heals would hurt performance any, the heals still have to check for targets regardless if there is only one viable.

Say I have a heal that hits up to 6 people, but im ungrouped but in a zerg, the ability still has to look for 6 targets to hit regardless if im in a group or not. So that one cast has to check every single person in its radius to see if can apply, and knowing the spaghetti coding were dealing with, it might not even be constrained to radius.

The problem is in the coding sadly.

So a spell having to check 12 people or 25 people before it decides who needs it most, as that is what it does, hence the term 'smart' healing, makes no difference on server ping. And all the other smart heals, healing ward, cauterize, rapid regen that players slot as self heals.... these always just applying to the caster instead of doing radius checks make little difference. Can you not remember the performance prior to the limitations? It was brutal.

Greasytengu

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Greasytengu wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

If we turned cross alliance healing on in the morning. Do you believe performance and the player experience would change significantly? And do you think either of those would be positive or negative?
Serious questions now. It may help us understand the differences between what you deem "player experience" and perhaps we can de-couple it from performance. Because in my eyes;

Well, I dont think turning on out of group heals would hurt performance any, the heals still have to check for targets regardless if there is only one viable.

Say I have a heal that hits up to 6 people, but im ungrouped but in a zerg, the ability still has to look for 6 targets to hit regardless if im in a group or not. So that one cast has to check every single person in its radius to see if can apply, and knowing the spaghetti coding were dealing with, it might not even be constrained to radius.

The problem is in the coding sadly.

So a spell having to check 12 people or 25 people before it decides who needs it most, as that is what it does, hence the term 'smart' healing, makes no difference on server ping. And all the other smart heals, healing ward, cauterize, rapid regen that players slot as self heals.... these always just applying to the caster instead of doing radius checks make little difference. Can you not remember the performance prior to the limitations? It was brutal.

I honestly cant remember performance improving at any time since I started playing, its been a consistent downward slide. Every attempt at improving performance has only lead to decreased performance, or in the best case, no change at all.

And as far as I know, any ability that has to make a check to see who it hits will check every potential target in its radius even if it only applies to one person. Its a very inefficient way of coding.

But consider this, both healing and damage AOEs have to make these sort of checks, as do many procs from sets. that is ALOT of checks to make.

VaranisArano

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? I'm not against groups, whatsoever, even though I play solo most of the time. And not against zergs either. But ball groups. The mechanics of it, endless heals and toxic trolling without doing anything for the game.

You know, it's funny how in the game itself people that actually play Cyrodiil (attacking keeps, defending, scrolls, strategy, battling etc.) HATE ball groups. And I wrote this post on behalf of those players in Cyrodiil, knowing it's futile, but at least to try.

But here, on forums, it's like - shoot the messenger. Alright. Shoot.

How does Zos determine when a group is not doing anything for the game? From what I see here it sounds like any group that an average group cannot kill regardless of their skill level and quality of leadership.

I have yet to find this plague of ball groups.

You obviously can’t see the forest from the trees.

Quote from Rich Lambert;
“ However, one foundational issue remains. At some point, we crossed a threshold where most players in PvP were able to cast endless AOE abilities, without ever running out of resources. This is done through player knowledge, builds and group mechanics – resulting in a constant stream of AOEs with many players never using any other type of ability.

This is not what we intended, but part of the fun of Elder Scrolls games is designing a build that has unexpected and powerful results, and we allowed it. However, as this behavior grew more prevalent, we reached a point where casting so many continuous AOE abilities in such a small area started to overwhelm the server process for that area, leading to situations where the "lag meter" spikes and the server becomes unresponsive for a period of time.”

But I know you are aware of this. Until there are solid fixes for the lag, the best solution in the short term should be to limit ballgroups as they are both broken OP, and also the largest cause of performance issues in Cyro.

Nothing in here defines a group that contributes nothing to the game which is what OP said defined a ball group.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

idk wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? I'm not against groups, whatsoever, even though I play solo most of the time. And not against zergs either. But ball groups. The mechanics of it, endless heals and toxic trolling without doing anything for the game.

You know, it's funny how in the game itself people that actually play Cyrodiil (attacking keeps, defending, scrolls, strategy, battling etc.) HATE ball groups. And I wrote this post on behalf of those players in Cyrodiil, knowing it's futile, but at least to try.

But here, on forums, it's like - shoot the messenger. Alright. Shoot.

How does Zos determine when a group is not doing anything for the game? From what I see here it sounds like any group that an average group cannot kill regardless of their skill level and quality of leadership.

I have yet to find this plague of ball groups.

You obviously can’t see the forest from the trees.

Quote from Rich Lambert;
“ However, one foundational issue remains. At some point, we crossed a threshold where most players in PvP were able to cast endless AOE abilities, without ever running out of resources. This is done through player knowledge, builds and group mechanics – resulting in a constant stream of AOEs with many players never using any other type of ability.

This is not what we intended, but part of the fun of Elder Scrolls games is designing a build that has unexpected and powerful results, and we allowed it. However, as this behavior grew more prevalent, we reached a point where casting so many continuous AOE abilities in such a small area started to overwhelm the server process for that area, leading to situations where the "lag meter" spikes and the server becomes unresponsive for a period of time.”

But I know you are aware of this. Until there are solid fixes for the lag, the best solution in the short term should be to limit ballgroups as they are both broken OP, and also the largest cause of performance issues in Cyro.

ZOS said that before the Cyrodiil testing. During the testing, ZOS tried everything they could to nerf ball groups and found that nothing made a big difference in performance.

At this point, I don't know what you really do to ban ball groups. Tightly organized groups with set roles and gear are simply the most efficient tactic available for large group combat in Cyrodiil. Do you outlaw using voice comms?

You could further reduce group size to 6, if we agree that the alliance cross healing removal, and reduced group size from 24 to 12 helped get the game playable, at least outside prime time, we need to continue in this direction until we at least have basic functionality during peak hours. This helps balance the insane buffs that are so easy to maintain in 12 man ballstacks. Give a chance to somewhat compete against them in sub-optimized and solo players, help split combat to different areas of the map, and hopefully help performance. At least until we have more appropriate performance fixes. I’m not saying anything needs to be a permanent change.

Until we have a functional and balanced environment in Cyro, it’s popularity is destined to continue in decline.

Zos specifically stated that none of the testings offered a significant reduction to the server performance issue and that would include all the testing with the smaller group size. Zos also made clear they chose to reduce the group size and healing because they liked the behavior changes so this change was not to improve performance.

Perhaps not, but it does constitute an argument against a playstyle that degrades performance a great deal. And a lot of players first hand experiences show an agreement to that statement.

As for Gina’s statement;
"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."

She clearly states that the tests provided an average of a 25% reduction in the magnitude of server frame spikes, so to say otherwise is not true. She also states that “while these improvements look good on a spread sheet, they do not have a significant enough improvement on the overall player experience”, not to be confused with performance. Which I’m sure we can all agree with , as the overall player experience isn’t close to where it should be, for any of our play styles.

So your entire argument against any further limitations hinges on the argument of whether or not the limitations were made to influence “behavioural changes” and not “reduce server frame spikes”.

If you cannot define the playstyle any better than "they do nothing for the game" then there is nothing to target.

And thanks for pointing out that the specific reason Zos reduced the group size and limited healing to those in your group for behavioral reasons. If it was one of the better results from the testing they would have noted that. Considering they did not it is pure speculation and grasping at straws to suggest otherwise. As such an argument for further limitations is sketchy at best.

Edit: Considering Zos is suggesting that the use, or overuse, of some AoE skills, is a significant culprit to the server issues it would make more sense to figure out how to reduce the server load from those skills. We know for a fact those skills are more complicated to calculate today than they were six years ago. We know this because Zos has moved client-side checks to the server-side as well as added more calculations to effect each skill via CP and new buffs and debuffs.

So it would seem much more logical for Zos to figure out how to manage what they do with this game than to blame players for learning how to actually play the game.

This is what you claimed;
Zos specifically stated that none of the testings offered a significant reduction to the server performance issue and that would include all the testing with the smaller group size. Zos also made clear they chose to reduce the group size and healing because they liked the behavior changes so this change was not to improve performance.

Yet Gina clearly stated that there was a significant reduction in server ping spikes averaging about 25% less. You are being continually disingenuous with your arguments on this issue. And I have previously stated that your argument on this hinges on a belief that the limitations were solely made for “behavioral” reasons and not a quick band-aid fix for the major performance issues we struggled with since U25. As such it’s pointless going around in circles on this topic with you.

I have to admit, I'm not understanding this distinction between "player experience" and "performance."

Is it really a performance improvement if it doesn't have a significant enough improvement on the overall player experience to warrant any major changes? Last I checked, spreadsheets didn't play in Cyrodiil. Players do.


I remind you that the full quote is: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/544305/details-for-aoe-testing-in-cyrodiil
"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."

A common sense reading of those two distinct paragraphs is that ZOS saw improvements in certain areas but did not make any major changes based on their spreadsheet performance improvements because their wasn't a significant enough impact on player experience.

Instead, ZOS enabled the changes with the testing elements because they liked the behavioral changes they brought.

If there's a "belief" here, its pretty solidly based in what ZOS told us was their reasoning for not making performance changes and instead because they liked the player behavior. You seem to be the one hypothesizing that its really a quick band-aid fix for the issues since U25 and those server frame spikes.

You have any ZOS quotes to back that up?

So they say they are not making any significant changes and then make the biggest change Cyro PvP has ever seen. I think we should all be pretty worried at what ZOS deems significant.
Anyway, let's forget Gina's statement which I don't believe should be this open to interpretation, but it is PR speak, so, I guess it is what it is.

If we turned cross alliance healing on in the morning. Do you believe performance and the player experience would change significantly? And do you think either of those would be positive or negative?
Serious questions now. It may help us understand the differences between what you deem "player experience" and perhaps we can de-couple it from performance. Because in my eyes;

"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."

This statement is simply stating that they understand that these changes aren't ideal solutions to Cyro, but they intend to go deeper in the future.
When we understand that NOBODY, you me or anyone, were gonna be happy with this. Yet they NEEDED to happen. And it is up to you to believe that they were for "behavioral" reasons, or that the official statement was to be that. "We see no other means of making Cyro somewhat playable right now". A little bit of critical thinking, and basic understanding of PR, you would have to conclude that "Behavioral Changes" was just that, PR speak.

"So they say they are not making any significant changes and then make the biggest change Cyro PvP has ever seen."

This feels pretty disingenuous, because you ignored the topic shift between paragraphs.
1. Performance improvements look good on spreadsheet but don't result in significant player experience improvement = no major changes
2. ZOS liked behavioral changes during tests = major changes


"Anyway, let's forget Gina's statement which I don't believe should be this open to interpretation, but it is PR speak, so, I guess it is what it is."

Okay, well, I'm glad we cleared up that you believe that ZOS is lying about their reasoning (you can call it PR speak, but that's the nice term IMO), and that they did the opposite of what they said: making the changes for performance reasons, and that behavioral changes are just an excuse. And you evidence as such is basicslly saying "well if you would just think critically, you'd agree with me."

Look, you pointed out that a lot of the opposition to these changes come from the perception that they were done for behavioral reasons, not performance reasons. That perception comes directly from ZOS' descriptions of why they made those changes - the plain reading of it, not the "it is PR speak" version.

I'm sure a lot more players would be supportive of the changes if ZOs had actually made the changes for performance reasons. I know I would be! But they didnt; they said they made them for behavioral reasons. (That's true they said it whether you believe them or not.) And those behavioral changes came with problems (stronger ball groups, destroying informal grouping).

So, no, I won't forget about what the people with the data said about why they made the changes they did.


When I think of "performance" coupled to "overall player experience" in Cyrodiil, I think of lag, crashing, bugs, and skills delayed, not firing, or desynced. So it sounds to me like ZOS saw a 25% reduction in server frame spikes or so, which looks great on a spreadsheet, but that wasn't having a significant enough impact on the player side of things to be worth implementing major changes yet.

Which makes sense. Cyrodiil is complex and server frame spikes alone can't be responsible for the lag, crashing, bugs, and skills delayed, not firing, or desynced. We shouldn't expect ZOS to find a silver bullet. And that's effectively what happened - ZOS admitted that their testing didn't find a silver bullet enough to improve the player experience, but hey, they did see some behavioral changes they liked, so they are doing major changes anyways.

Anecdotally, some players may see improvements with the changes to group size and healing, but overall, the recurring lag, crashes, bugs, and skill problems that plague Cyrodiil haven't seen a significant improvement in the "overall player experience...just like ZOS said they wouldn't. If anything, the complaints that ZOS still needs to consider dissolving ball groups to improve performance give anecdotal evidence that those problems weren't significantly addressed. After all, ZOS' behavioral changes did nothing to the sort of ball group who farms PUGs in a back keep by themselves, so the folks who blame them for performance issues should have expected the performance problems to continue.

For what its worth, I'm in the "ZOS, were you trying to make ball groups stronger? Why? No, they don't need help." Party when it comes to these changes. The only reason I can come up with is that ZOS really liked the smaller group sizes and pushing players to LFG, and then hoped that limiting ball groups to 12 players would lower their ability to sustain infinite AOEs as Rich described. (Spoiler alert: it did not, as anyone who's fought a farming 12-man ball group could have told them.)

Joy_Division

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

If we turned cross alliance healing on in the morning. Do you believe performance and the player experience would change significantly? And do you think either of those would be positive or negative?

No. It would suck just as it does now just as it does in update 24 which you seem to think was something desirable, just as it sucked every since ZOS moved a ton of stuff server side during the lighting patch.

Every time I have tried to log onto Grey Host since these changes, I stick around for about 20 minutes and log off because performance sucks. Every time! Stop saying it improved. Stop saying we're going in the right direction. It sucks. As long as organized groups can spam away to their hearts content, it does not matter if you make Pugging in this game a miserable experience by compelling them to join these 12 person groups that accomplish nothing but getting farmed unless they faction stack.

When we understand that NOBODY, you me or anyone, were gonna be happy with this. Yet they NEEDED to happen. And it is up to you to believe that they were for "behavioral" reasons, or that the official statement was to be that. "We see no other means of making Cyro somewhat playable right now". A little bit of critical thinking, and basic understanding of PR, you would have to conclude that "Behavioral Changes" was just that, PR speak.

No, what NEEDED to happen was for ZOS to stop being miserly and actually hire a PvP dev to make fundamental changes in the map, the way AvAvA functions, and all the other things that were designed 10 years ago that have no relevance now because the game changed so much. How can you honestly or "ciritically" think that ZOS is going to go deeper when they don;t even have a PvP developer investigating the problems or thinking of reform? . How naïve can one get? You're swallowing what ZOS spoon-feeds us because you want to believe it;s heading somehwere even though there is zero evidence from the past 6 years of ZOS making visible progress in that direction and they are too cheap to actually hire someone for that purpose.

Right now, they're just throwing spaghetti against a wall hoping some quick band-aid fix that restricts how we play and somehow get rid of enough calculations so that they can claim they did something.

Theignson

Earthe is right-- not all groups cause "lag stun", which is when a ball group gets within 40 m of you and you freeze, then they stun/fear/lightning/snare you all at once, you can't move, you can't break free, you can't dodge roll, and you can't use abilities. Then they kill you with their ultis while you are completely helpless due to server unresponsiveness.

Anyone who PvPs as a solo or outside a ball group has experienced this effect from certain ball groups.

Only the "best" ball groups do this. In contrast, I've played against aka baka many times where they have 24-36 players, ep has 24 or so, we are able to fight pretty well, abilities work, I can break free and fight them.

But when Tyr or Drac show up, and a couple other of the best groups, you cannot use abilities, they lag stun you and just farm pugs.

I think maybe these ball groups do not realize that they are doing this to other players. In their mind, they have devised exceptionally tuned groups that can just destroy pugs with out taking any harm. They spend a lot of time working out effective group combos, gear setups, and skill sequences.

It just so happens that the most effective ball group strategy causes "lag stun" which gives the ball groups an unfair advantage. You wouldn't know this unless you were, eg a solo facing a ball group (my usual situation). The ball groups don't run solo against themselves. They don't know what is happening on the receiving end. (This is just my theory. Its possible they know exactly what effect they are having. After all, these are some of the people who understand the game the best).

The reason for "lag stun" was stated by ZOS:
"we reached a point where casting so many continuous AOE abilities in such a small area started to overwhelm the server process for that area, leading to situations where the "lag meter" spikes and the server becomes unresponsive for a period of time.”

It will never happen, because people love to run in the security of groups supporting them, but i would like to see ZOS abolish ALL group skills, but allow grouping of any size for coordination purposes. Then you would see a very different game, and solos or pugs would have a much more even chance against any group.

Crash427

Primetime cyro is lag the other person to death or be lagged to death. Ballgroups do it with fewer people, mostlyqq. Some of the people I see complaining about ballgroups causing lag are the same people I've seen in stacks 70 deep hiding behind ballgroups from the own faction. Got a hate whisper from a guy just last night that is in a guild known for running multiple groups even before the cut to 12. Said guild was stacked with a ballgroup at the time of that fight too.

All that said I would agree, lag is consistently worse around some specific groups. Maybe certain sets are causing problems again, maybe those groups are just better at keeping HOTs up than others. Maybe it's just luck. I've fought groups before who thought they were lagging and we were fine but in our group we felt like it was the opposite.

None of it matters when the game gets so bad I can't even light attack guards even though there are no ballgroups on.

Faded

Theignson wrote: »

It will never happen, because people love to run in the security of groups supporting them, but i would like to see ZOS abolish ALL group skills, but allow grouping of any size for coordination purposes. Then you would see a very different game, and solos or pugs would have a much more even chance against any group.

Yeah, that would be a very different game.

I guess it's not worse than the two-rulesets *** they're doing right now - at least it would be a level playing field - but it's the same philosophy: burning the house down to kill the termites. At that point why not just literally play a different game. Many have much better development and support.