12 person group limit? Whaaaaaat?

gariondavey

Say no to this change!!

ZOS_GinaBruno

Hi everyone,

First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.

As some of you have guessed, this change ultimately comes down to performance. We’ve been continually looking at ways to improve performance and stability across the game and we found reducing the group size was an effective way to ensure there would be fewer situations where you hit critical memory. Additionally, there’s a fair amount of data that has to be exchanged on the backend for every person in your group. By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us on this topic. We appreciate it, and we hope this helps provide additional context for the change.

gariondavey

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,

First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.

As some of you have guessed, this change ultimately comes down to performance. We’ve been continually looking at ways to improve performance and stability across the game and we found reducing the group size was an effective way to ensure there would be fewer situations where you hit critical memory. Additionally, there’s a fair amount of data that has to be exchanged on the backend for every person in your group. By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us on this topic. We appreciate it, and we hope this helps provide additional context for the change.

Well thank you for the reply @ZOS_GinaBruno
Even though I dislike and don't agree with this change, communicating like this is appreciated. Please communicate more with us on the forums.

TequilaFire

It has been apparent to all who group up in Cyrodiil that "the way data is exchanged on the backend' between group members has been the elephant in the room affecting performance.
Fixing this group code should of been a priority from the beginning.

Epona222

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,

First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.

As some of you have guessed, this change ultimately comes down to performance. We’ve been continually looking at ways to improve performance and stability across the game and we found reducing the group size was an effective way to ensure there would be fewer situations where you hit critical memory. Additionally, there’s a fair amount of data that has to be exchanged on the backend for every person in your group. By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us on this topic. We appreciate it, and we hope this helps provide additional context for the change.

Thank you for the response.

Could we at least please have a custom chat channel feature - some way to invite people into a channel for social events, or to co-ordinate between groups of 12?

(I know people can use Discord for this sort of thing, but not everyone is on Discord, not everyone has 2 monitors to have Discord up on another screen - and before anyone answers "use voice chat then" - I am hearing impaired as are several of our guildies, having text chat to co-ordinate large social events is vital - we used to be able to do this in group chat.)

A custom/invite chat channel in game would go a long way to making up for the loss of larger groups.

EDIT: It could be a guild feature, with certain ranks of the GM's choosing having permissions to start a large group chat for the guild or to invite both guildies and those outside the guild to join in)

Sorries

This is going to be so difficult during Guild Housing Tours. We already need to split the group when we move to the 12 person houses, but we use group chat to communicate where there is space for the next person to visit. I can't even imagine it as well with the 6 person houses.

Savina

While this is the response I expected, it still does not make any sense. I can only assume that you mean performance gains on ZoS’s end because the 12-man in Cyrodiil has not shown any performance gains on the player end of things.

The 12-man group in Cyrodiil did not stop faction stacking or large groups from running, guilds just run 4-6 groups instead of 2-3 groups. Reduced group size in overland content will not stop guild like mine from bring 50 people to kill world bosses, attack dolmens or having 100 of our members taking up space in one instance of Daggerfall when we have our guild meetings.

I know my guild will adjust, we have adjusted in Cyrodiil and we will continue to make our events work one way or another for our 400+ member social guild. I sympathize with the RP guilds and their leadership which are going to be the most affected by the 12-man group limit. Smaller to midsize social guilds are also going to have a harder time as they attempt to adjust.

I hope these performance gains that ZoS sees are real and not just players leaving the game. Many players are becoming more and more alienated with every update by a company that is becoming famous for “HEY LOOK a new shiny for you” do not mind the increased crown prices, all the bugs, or the QoL things we continue to take away from you as a player just look at the new shiny.

I do thank you @ZOS_GinaBruno for the response and I will make the excuses for ZoS to our guilds members as I always do with this kind of unwanted change. We will adjust and still manage to have fun with our friends and guildmates. However, I hope ZoS realizes that some guilds will not adjust, and some players are coming closer and closer to the last straw as performance does not appear to be getting any better on the player side of things. Eventually a real performance increase needs to happen, or ZoS becomes the company that cried wolf one to many times.

Coorbin

This is going to be a serious impedance for the thousands of PC players who are in large roleplaying guilds. What a terrible mistake to ignore the pleas of customers for what is unlikely to move the needle in terms of performance. We have people playing on potato-esque computers and they are just fine in 24 person groups. We don't need more "performance" - we need convenience.

ThayanKnight

I would agree that this change will not impact performance in any noticeable way at the cost of driving off guilds that focus on larger roleplaying events. As Epona said, the ability to add custom chat channels would at least soften the blow that taking away the ease of organizing of the group features. I am the Guild Master for a guild of 200+ roleplayers, not including our 2 sister guilds, representing nearly 800 players combined.

Event organization will be a nightmare and will definitely drive off the less dedicated roleplay guilds. Do we have events that spill over 24? Certainly, a couple times per week, but we have to structure those differently and it makes it agonizing. Do we have events over 12? Every. Single. Night. I would ask that at the very least, some low-impact option like added chat channels be added.

ofalo

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,

First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.

As some of you have guessed, this change ultimately comes down to performance. We’ve been continually looking at ways to improve performance and stability across the game and we found reducing the group size was an effective way to ensure there would be fewer situations where you hit critical memory. Additionally, there’s a fair amount of data that has to be exchanged on the backend for every person in your group. By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us on this topic. We appreciate it, and we hope this helps provide additional context for the change.

What's the point of giving feedback if it will be ignored anyway? This directly affects how my guild functions in large group events. We've been RPing with group sizes over 12 for years now. This throws a spanner into so many of your player's work to keep the game alive and thriving. Please... Don't do this to us. Don't make things harder for us to organize and have fun for the sake of 'performance' that won't actually be improved anyway...

Nuketastic2300

Yeah, as an RPer I can back what others have been saying. This change is gonna really mess up with RP events that get good turnouts. For example, I DM for my RP guild and I've always used group chat to handle things like rolls, DM posts, etc.. Now if I get a turnout over 12 its gonna make things a LOT harder to actually organize, manage, and make sure everyone is on the same page and having fun. I hope at the very least we'll see a noticeable improvement to performance to try and make this even somewhat worth it, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

gariondavey

Ironically, roleplayers are who spend the most on the game. So this move will only hurt zos financially. XD

hands0medevil

gariondavey wrote: »

Ironically, roleplayers are who spend the most on the game. So this move will only hurt zos financially. XD

no it wont, they will accept it and deal with it.

DerAlleinTiger

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,

First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.

Thank you for responding with some information on this. Things would be a lot less frustrating for us if we got this from the start more often. That being said, nothing I say here is against the community team because you can only work with what you're given and the big decisions aren't up to you.

With all due respect, however, this is utterly brainless and illogical reasoning from the development side. Utterly, utterly brainless. PvP already has 12 man groups at most, so that's not even a factor (though I hear they want 24 man groups back now anyway and saw no combat performance improvement at all). As far as PvE combat goes, the most people you can have in non-overland content is 12 anyway with trials. Everything else is either 4-man or solo. So even if this actually miraculously caused an increase in combat performance, trials groups wouldn't even notice.

That leaves only one thing: Overland. It's pretty rare to see groups of more than 3 or 4, let alone 12, running around questing. I'm sure it's happened, but extremely rarely. The only reason to use those big groups is for world bosses and insurgent activities (dolmens, dragons, geysers, harrowstorms, etc.). When you go to those fights you WANT A BIG GROUP. That is literally the entire point. We go into a dragon fight EXPECTING to see an FPS dip. We don't go to the Alik'r dolmen farm expecting buttery smooth framerates. We go there to farm dolmens, not look at pretty graphics. These activities are the only ones that use the big groups outside social events, and their entire POINT is the big groups.

This is literally a fix for an issue that does not exist, that mostly hurts the only pepople it's meant to help. There is literally no logic to it at all.

If you have such a bad rig that you are maxing out your memory and crashing from 24 man groups then two things: 1. You're probably going to crash from high player dragon fights anyway. 2. There's a simple solution - don't get into giant groups. Get your daily share and get out, then follow them around. Or find another group. Instead now there will be NO group to join to start with because it'll be maxed at twelve.

This solves NOTHING and hurts the exact people it's supposed to help, plus all the social players and roleplayers. This is absurdly broken logic.

Jaraal

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.

And yet in Cyrodiil, where this change was first implemented, the performance has gotten worse, not better.

Can you elaborate on this?

gariondavey

hands0medevil wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

Ironically, roleplayers are who spend the most on the game. So this move will only hurt zos financially. XD

no it wont, they will accept it and deal with it.

So you are telling me if 100 people quit over this (not an outrageous idea) that it won't hurt the company's bottom line, when those are some of the people who spend the most on the game?
To be clear, I don't rp, or run in groups bigger than 12 in pve, or pay for eso+, or buy crowns. I just think this is a bad idea and one that will hurt the company financially.

Elsonso

Jaraal wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.

And yet in Cyrodiil, where this change was first implemented, the performance has gotten worse, not better.

Can you elaborate on this?

Maybe the two things are unrelated.

In any case, we got a reply from ZOS in this thread. This is like winning both the Powerball and MegaMillions jackpots twice in the same week, with no one else winning. During a full moon. After being hit by lightning. You expect a reply?

Jaraal

gariondavey wrote: »

So you are telling me if 100 people quit over this (not an outrageous idea) that it won't hurt the company's bottom line...?

It's not the people quitting over this change that will hurt the bottom line. It's the continuous erosion of corporate goodwill and reputation by chronically diminishing the player experience to "improve performance" that will hurt them the most in the long run.

Elsonso wrote: »

You expect a reply?

No, I expected an excuse. And that's exactly what we got.

MasterSpatula

The priority should be on fixing whatever it is about 24-person groups that's causing performance hits, not extending a harmful change to even more of the game.

Thirteen people showing up to a guild event should not be a cause for organizational fiascos. You're removing important functionality from the game. Avoiding that should be a top priority.

Elsonso

Jaraal wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

You expect a reply?

No, I expected an excuse. And that's exactly what we got.

Meh. It is obvious that reducing the group size from 24 to 12 will be a performance improvement. Water is wet, and nothing is going to change that. The real question is whether that matters, and apparently, it did not matter in Cyrodiil.

xv1_me

If it helps performance please make 1 person groups the maximum please, ty.

Jaraal

Elsonso wrote: »

Meh. It is obvious that reducing the group size from 24 to 12 will be a performance improvement.

In what way? You still have the same number of people in the same small area at the same time. Group limited skills still have caps on how many people they can hit. And buffs and heals with no limits will still affect players in your own group, players in other groups, and solo players as well. Every single player will be sending the same number of calculations to the server regardless of group status.

Please explain to me how it improves performance?

Savina

Jaraal wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

So you are telling me if 100 people quit over this (not an outrageous idea) that it won't hurt the company's bottom line...?

It's not the people quitting over this change that will hurt the bottom line. It's the continuous erosion of corporate goodwill and reputation by chronically diminishing the player experience to "improve performance" that will hurt them the most in the long run.

This, exactly THIS

Elsonso

Jaraal wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Meh. It is obvious that reducing the group size from 24 to 12 will be a performance improvement.

In what way? You still have the same number of people in the same small area at the same time. Group limited skills still have caps on how many people they can hit. And buffs and heals with no limits will still affect players in your own group, players in other groups, and solo players as well. Every single player will be sending the same number of calculations to the server regardless of group status.

Please explain to me how it improves performance?

Increased level of communication between group members that exceeds the information that is normally passed between the same number of ungrouped people.

Jaraal

Elsonso wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Meh. It is obvious that reducing the group size from 24 to 12 will be a performance improvement.

In what way? You still have the same number of people in the same small area at the same time. Group limited skills still have caps on how many people they can hit. And buffs and heals with no limits will still affect players in your own group, players in other groups, and solo players as well. Every single player will be sending the same number of calculations to the server regardless of group status.

Please explain to me how it improves performance?

Increased level of communication between group members that exceeds the information that is normally passed between the same number of ungrouped people.

So instead of just the people in your group reading the communication, now people will have to use /zone to communicate between smaller groups.... and instead of 24 people getting the information now it will be 100+ who have to process it?

I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to the extra chat spam if it's not my event/raid.

Elsonso

Jaraal wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Meh. It is obvious that reducing the group size from 24 to 12 will be a performance improvement.

In what way? You still have the same number of people in the same small area at the same time. Group limited skills still have caps on how many people they can hit. And buffs and heals with no limits will still affect players in your own group, players in other groups, and solo players as well. Every single player will be sending the same number of calculations to the server regardless of group status.

Please explain to me how it improves performance?

Increased level of communication between group members that exceeds the information that is normally passed between the same number of ungrouped people.

So instead of just the people in your group reading the communication, now people will have to use /zone to communicate between smaller groups.... and instead of 24 people getting the information now it will be 100+ who have to process it?

I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to the extra chat spam if it's not my event/raid.

Yup. I don't agree with them on the group size decision. My guess is that the next 6 months will be evaluation. It will be interesting to see if they stick with it after review.

MasterWarrior

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,

First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.

As some of you have guessed, this change ultimately comes down to performance. We’ve been continually looking at ways to improve performance and stability across the game and we found reducing the group size was an effective way to ensure there would be fewer situations where you hit critical memory. Additionally, there’s a fair amount of data that has to be exchanged on the backend for every person in your group. By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us on this topic. We appreciate it, and we hope this helps provide additional context for the change.

If it improves performance then please keep this change. If it doesn't, and it's only marginal please revert back to 24 max party size.

VaranisArano

Why not just say "It's for performance reasons" from the beginning?

When we talk about long delayed, too little, too late communication, ZOS, this is the sort of thing we're talking about.

It shouldn't take pulling teeth to get a simple explanation of a reason that was true when you first announced the changes.

Anyways, thanks for letting us know before it goes Live. I really hope we actually see some improvements.

Sanctum74

If anything performance has gotten worse since the group size change in cyrodill, not sure what difference it will make in pve.

JoeCapricorn

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,

First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.

As some of you have guessed, this change ultimately comes down to performance. We’ve been continually looking at ways to improve performance and stability across the game and we found reducing the group size was an effective way to ensure there would be fewer situations where you hit critical memory. Additionally, there’s a fair amount of data that has to be exchanged on the backend for every person in your group. By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us on this topic. We appreciate it, and we hope this helps provide additional context for the change.

I really think you should POSTPONE this change and find some way to implement shared chat, such that guild leaders can still organize large events and won't be shafted by this change, and then limit full-feature groups. But don't just rip something out without something to replace it, please!