i pray they make it 50 people mAX per alliance.
we need caps lowered, there is way too many people and massive lagg and high ping.
it only makes sence to lower the caps -
fewer people = less lagg and bad high ping.
drzycki_ESO wrote: »The lag on Friday night was still really bad but the gameplay was much more fun. It was nice to not see any ball groups. They may have been there but I didn't see any.
Please don't lower the population cap. Having a large population is what makes Cyrodiil wars fun.
Maybe the new servers will help.
techyeshic wrote: »The balance between classes is much better without proc sets and it is really fun. Please consider disabling proc sets in PvP altogether or make a campaign in which these sets are disabled.
They need to do it differently or try something different. Who knows? Maybe their cross healing removal had more effect than they thought? Or someone in a group I run with mentioned; without procs, a certain kind of player feels forced to bunch up more and that healing helps do that.
I really like not having procs, but the lag is really bad.
It would be interesting to see if the proc sets AND the cross-healing (outside of groups) both gets disabled.
If I would decide between both options, I would definitively go for removing proc sets altogether, as they just add so much to the imbalance between classes. Once I entered a BG after cyrodiil and it was just so less fun, where tanky builds run around all the time, not requiring any sort of defensive abilities. I understand that variation is cool, but at this point they just create a too large variety of "non-supervised" setups, some of which are cheesy enough to just spam 2 skills and be effective.
Proc sets are removing a large part of the player skill. Without these sets ALL people actually need to cast a few defensive abiliites here and there and need to think about setting up combos to burst people down.
Regarding lag:
I usually got lag whenever the entire red or blue server shows off at a certain keep (being AD from day 1). But besides of this there are also situations in which I am away of a large battle (3 factions fighting for vole), and still have lag during these times, for example during small scale or fighting resource guards. I guess this is somehow related to the servers and a final solution must also include to improving the code at its core.
Nordic__Knights wrote: »BigBearPaw wrote: »10 pm and PC-eu Grayhost is unplayable just like before the test.. Maybe it's time to assume servers ARE the MAIN problem?
or it could be animation canceling that causing it.
its worth looking into.
AC is an big factor but no one well say it because then they have to fix the longest running bug in the game that became skill lol
well said.
thank you for the honesty.
it has been my belief all along that it is the servers and also the animation canceling that causes lagg.
(or maybe the 2 combined)
but that does not mean im right, is just my theory, and i could very well be wrong.
it would have to be tested and examined to tell if true or not.
Your theory has a major whole though:
There is usually less animation canceling going on in ball groups than in solo / small scale gameplay. Yet severe lags only occur when ball groups are around and thus less animation canceling going on.
In addition lag reduces the potential for animation canceling, so if your theory was true the problem would fix itself automatically and then the cycle should start again. Yet the problem persists as long as the ball groups are around. And disappears with the ball groups dissolving.
Flangdoodle wrote: »Turning off proc sets has made no difference whatsoever- and might have somehow actually made the lag/crashes worse. We crash every time we get to a keep where a large scale battle is happening. When we arrive at the outer walls half the group is kicked offline.
I'd like to see a test where they turn off all add-ons.
techyeshic wrote: »Ok so hear me out on this. You have 2 CP Campaigns. How about you turn off double AP. Make one of those no-proc, the other proc. See if the community goes naturally to the one they want and have a side by side comparison.
ZOS doesn't realize how their nonsense test system damage this game's pvp even more. There is a reason test servers exist but they keep ruining the pvp experience on live servers by trying pointless tests. If you can't reach enough participants in tests servers for these tests maybe it's because nobody wants this limitations ZOS.
ZOS is trying so hard to prevent themselves from spending money and upgrading servers. PvP cooldowns didn't change anything, then this proc set removal also didn't change anything, but instead of upgrading they are still thinking more ways to remove things from game and hope it will suddenly solve every issue in Cyrodiil.
ZOS keep it in mind people are playing this game for what it offers, when you constantly try removing features how will that effect playercount.
Even though this proc set removal didn't solve a single issue, let's say it was succesful do you guys really think people would be ok with just having 10 sets to use. Stop killing pvp with these pointless tests while lag is already ruining all the fun and instead of testing stuff on live servers start using the money we pay and try actual solutions.
techyeshic wrote: »Ok so hear me out on this. You have 2 CP Campaigns. How about you turn off double AP. Make one of those no-proc, the other proc. See if the community goes naturally to the one they want and have a side by side comparison.
This has nothing to do with whether the players like proc sets or not. The first post in this thread says they are removing procs to see if it has any effect on performance. Adding another campaign would lessen the server load, and I think that would not be in line with their current goals.
Lots of people talking about whether procs should be in PvP or not. But I assure you that they are not interested how the players feel about that, and will do whatever they were going to do anyway. And you can be certain that there is no profit in limiting players to 19 old sets that don't help sell DLC.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news..... but proc sets are here to stay.
techyeshic wrote: »techyeshic wrote: »Ok so hear me out on this. You have 2 CP Campaigns. How about you turn off double AP. Make one of those no-proc, the other proc. See if the community goes naturally to the one they want and have a side by side comparison.
This has nothing to do with whether the players like proc sets or not. The first post in this thread says they are removing procs to see if it has any effect on performance. Adding another campaign would lessen the server load, and I think that would not be in line with their current goals.
Lots of people talking about whether procs should be in PvP or not. But I assure you that they are not interested how the players feel about that, and will do whatever they were going to do anyway. And you can be certain that there is no profit in limiting players to 19 old sets that don't help sell DLC.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news..... but proc sets are here to stay.
That has nothing to do with what I was saying. All I was trying to say is double AP incentivises more people than normal to be on so.i question how much performance is impacted by that. There seems to be enough players that say they like the combat of no proc to where the double AP may not be necessary.
Of course; I wonder how much we all would really like it if the proc dependent players weren't there to beat up on.
Joy_Division wrote: »Another thing that makes me skeptical was the announcement during the reveal that ZOs is getting new servers - FINALLY - but somehow this is not expected to have an impact on performance. Wut? Is the equipment being downgraded? Does this mean the brunt of our complaints - the server - has been misdirected all this time? Is it the coding/programming that is the issue here? If so, how exactly is it even possible to address that without reprograming the entire game? If new servers aren't expected to fix the lag, and we already know all these restricted tests didn't either, that doesn't inspire confidence.
Since it doesn;t look like the capacity for increase server calculations is never going to happen (I dunno why; when ESO launched I had a flip phone and Youtube restricted me to 10 minute videos that took hours to upload), I think it would be better served to try and spread out the calculations we do put on the server, that is, not have everyone at the same spot during the same time. Again we have 7 years of player behavior as a guide: we stood in ques of over 100+ people just to join the laggiest default CP campaign even though the game played reasonably well in the other campaigns that had openings. Let's not kid ourselves, our behavior is not going to change as long as the map, rewards system, AvAvA routines stay as they were in 2014. There has to be interesting and engaging reasons to use the 85% of the map we ignore and there aren't any. We need permanent compelling reasons to go off the beaten path, that have fights, potential rewards, and just have interesting things to do. This way, at least the calculations are spread out with regard to distance and time, and thus the potential to avoid imposing restrictive gameplay features we don;t like and no need to redesign entire classes just so they can function in PvP setting that's going to be very different from what these classes were originally designed for.
But in terms of the argument of "we need reasons to not pile up in one place and ignore the rest of the map and that would help" - they've already done that. Multiple times. It hasn't helped. The now-destroyable milegates and bridges, the three capturable towns, the addition of the extra outposts - again and again, they've added other locations intended to draw players out to other objectives. And it's never drawn enough folks away. Yes, solo folks and small groups will go off and capture towns or outposts, resources, etc. But most players still pile up at one or two objectives.
No one's gonna like what I'm about to say - but one of the big reasons a lot of folks stay where the big fights are is... AP. AP and the desire to earn it is part of what's killing Cyrodiil. Folks want to stay where the big AP gains are. Second? Folks want to be where the fights are. PvDooring is looked down upon and laughed at - and it doesn't earn anyone anywhere near the amount of AP a good fight does,. which goes back to the AP gain motivation.
Meh. The big fights are fun. Win or lose, they've always been fun. Devs can do whatever they want with AP rewards, people are going where the fun is. They're also the most easily accessible kind of fight, you look at the map and head for the action. You don't need a guild, a group leader, or even a common language, just go fight.
In typical ZOS fashion they'll intentionally make fun things less fun to "create interesting choices" but when they remove that essential and unique bit of the Cyro experience, they kill the thing they're trying to save. I hope they'll take care to avoid that. It's already pretty bad with the population cap so low.
Gameplay didn't break Cyrodiil and changes to gameplay won't fix it. It's depressing to see the game get so warped trying to work around technical failures.