12 person group limit? Whaaaaaat?

indigojulze

Must say I am not happy about this.
I do not see who benefits from this change?
I run this game on a Frankenstein rig with a cracked disc, what performance issues?

Are the pvp and console baby's crying over 59 fps with 400 players on screen at the same time?

Reduce the size, FIX your code, increase the size again.

Please please let this be a stop-gap measure while you fix the real problem.

VaranisArano

indigojulze wrote: »

Must say I am not happy about this.
I do not see who benefits from this change?
I run this game on a Frankenstein rig with a cracked disc, what performance issues?

Are the pvp and console baby's crying over 59 fps with 400 players on screen at the same time?

Reduce the size, FIX your code, increase the size again.

Please please let this be a stop-gap measure while you fix the real problem.

Before you go blaming PVP for this, consider that we've already been at 12-man groups since Markarth and our performance still sucks.

ZOS chose to expand this to PVE for their own reasons.

Lord_Bashu

Yea this is not on PvP, this does nothing to help performance. Also if Cyro not on a different server then.. well Huston..i.e. cyro should not impact any other server.

JoeCapricorn

I will say I think the "performance" reason is a load of bologna because groups have been limited to 24 since launch

I was hopeful that ZOS would see that this change would be harmful, but I guess they will let it go live anyway.

This is one instance where they really should listen to OUR FEEDBACK and take OUR FEEDBACK into consideration rather than blowing us off entirely over some vague prescription of "for performance".

Elsonso

JoeCapricorn wrote: »

I will say I think the "performance" reason is a load of bologna because groups have been limited to 24 since launch

Putting it bluntly, I am fairly sure that the group reduction from 24 to 12 is to improve performance so that they can add companions, which in their testing, hurt performance in large group situations.

DocFrost72

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6989406#Comment_6989406

From that thread;

Hi all,

Just posted an update in the main stickied thread, but wanted to cross-post here as well for extra visibility.

As we approach the end of our scheduled tests, we’ve determined that we’d like to run at least two more tests to gather additional data, which are outlined below. Our goal here is to see how a combination of changes from previous tests affect the performance, as we’ve found they have not had a significant impact individually.
October 19 - 26:
Shared global AoE cooldown with a 3 second timer
Group size limited to 12 in Cyrodiil
Ally-targeted abilities only applied to group members
October 26 – November 2:
Shared global AoE cooldown with a 3 second timer
Group size limited to 12 in Cyrodiil
Ally-targeted abilities only applied to group members
Global ramping cost per successive AoE cast by 50%/100%/150%
Regen decrease per successive AoE cast by 33%/66%/99%
Our current plan is to disable all tests and double AP once Update 28 launches for PC on November 2. At that time, we’ll need to take some time to analyze the data collected from all the tests and determine next steps. Once we have a better idea of what that entails, we’ll let everyone know.

I'm not sure what to believe, now.

Sanctum74

Elsonso wrote: »

JoeCapricorn wrote: »

I will say I think the "performance" reason is a load of bologna because groups have been limited to 24 since launch

Putting it bluntly, I am fairly sure that the group reduction from 24 to 12 is to improve performance so that they can add companions, which in their testing, hurt performance in large group situations.

Then it would make sense to stop adding things that ruin performance instead of taking away things that people enjoy and don’t affect performance.

VaranisArano

Sanctum74 wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

JoeCapricorn wrote: »

I will say I think the "performance" reason is a load of bologna because groups have been limited to 24 since launch

Putting it bluntly, I am fairly sure that the group reduction from 24 to 12 is to improve performance so that they can add companions, which in their testing, hurt performance in large group situations.

Then it would make sense to stop adding things that ruin performance instead of taking away things that people enjoy and don’t affect performance.

They can't. Extra features like Companions are the only reason that Chapters are sold for cash and not included in ESO+, instead of being treated like the DLC that they really are. ZOS cannot stop making new features because they've painted themselves into that corner.

It's pretty clear to me that the Companions are decidedly underbaked, neither meeting the hopes of the Devs as initially described to players nor performing well in terms of game performance, judging by the emergency testing on the PTS that might further reduce the usefulness of Companions.

But there's no way that ZOS can say "Hey, we're sorry, Companions clearly need more time in the oven. We need to wait until Q3 or Q4." They've already marketed and sold Blackwood. They are going to roll out Companions, no matter how flawed and no matter how much they have to cripple core game systems like group size in order to make room for them. Then hope and pray they can fix the most reviled aspects by Q3 and Q4 in order to make up for bad press on release.

I don't know if Companions is the main drive for the reduction in group size...but not releasing Companions is not an option for ZOS. They have to preserve their revenue stream from new features and Chapters, even at the expense of core gameplay for social groups of all types.

Arunei

gariondavey wrote: »

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.

As an RPer, I can tell you that we aren't exactly the people who spend the most money. None of us but ZOS knows what "group" of players spends the most, but I'm fairly certain a lot of people who spend a bunch on this game aren't RPers. And even if they are, one hundred players quitting is a drop of water in an ocean considering the thousands and thousands of players who are in the game. Those 100 people might not even be ones buying stuff from the store to begin with, regardless of whether they RP a lot or just play the content.

Don't get me wrong, this change is absolutely bass-ackwards imo, because...instead of having a larger group sending data to the server and all, aren't you just going to know have a bunch of smaller groups sending roughly the same amount of data at a time? A group of 20 players communicates more data than two groups of 12 and 8? It doesn't make any sense to me, and granted I know nothing of coding so maybe this really is the case, but it feels like an excuse. Performance seems to be the excuse for a lot of stuff, and yet we rarely see performance improving.

You shouldn't have to make your game more restricting and complicated for it to run better, ZOS.

EDIT: Accidentally a word.

Sanctum74

VaranisArano wrote: »

Sanctum74 wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

JoeCapricorn wrote: »

I will say I think the "performance" reason is a load of bologna because groups have been limited to 24 since launch

Putting it bluntly, I am fairly sure that the group reduction from 24 to 12 is to improve performance so that they can add companions, which in their testing, hurt performance in large group situations.

Then it would make sense to stop adding things that ruin performance instead of taking away things that people enjoy and don’t affect performance.

They can't. Extra features like Companions are the only reason that Chapters are sold for cash and not included in ESO+, instead of being treated like the DLC that they really are. ZOS cannot stop making new features because they've painted themselves into that corner.

It's pretty clear to me that the Companions are decidedly underbaked, neither meeting the hopes of the Devs as initially described to players nor performing well in terms of game performance, judging by the emergency testing on the PTS that might further reduce the usefulness of Companions.

But there's no way that ZOS can say "Hey, we're sorry, Companions clearly need more time in the oven. We need to wait until Q3 or Q4." They've already marketed and sold Blackwood. They are going to roll out Companions, no matter how flawed and no matter how much they have to cripple core game systems like group size in order to make room for them. Then hope and pray they can fix the most reviled aspects by Q3 and Q4 in order to make up for bad press on release.

I don't know if Companions is the main drive for the reduction in group size...but not releasing Companions is not an option for ZOS. They have to preserve their revenue stream from new features and Chapters, even at the expense of core gameplay for social groups of all types.

I agree to a point, but at the very least they could have excluded companions from groups instead of excluding actual paying customers. The group size change doesn’t affect me directly since I mainly play solo in cyrodill, but it has affected the campaign since many players left since the change.

It’s a shame to see so many day 1 players leave, but it also affects new players since they are no longer able to get in a group so they leave pvp discouraged. Now we are going to see the same thing happen to pve. People already rage about fake roles in dungeons and this will just exacerbate that as well as affecting rpg, dolmen, auctions, cat farmers, guild events, etc.

Elsonso

Sanctum74 wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

JoeCapricorn wrote: »

I will say I think the "performance" reason is a load of bologna because groups have been limited to 24 since launch

Putting it bluntly, I am fairly sure that the group reduction from 24 to 12 is to improve performance so that they can add companions, which in their testing, hurt performance in large group situations.

Then it would make sense to stop adding things that ruin performance instead of taking away things that people enjoy and don’t affect performance.

Yes, it would. It is possible that they have hit some sort of performance cap in some areas of the game. Every new system we get in that area will now have to come with a concession so that performance remains relatively the same.

VaranisArano wrote: »

make up for bad press on release.

They are not going to have bad press on release because of a reduction in group size. They will have bad press on release due to the sheer number of bugs and things that are broken on launch day, but won't start to be fixed for two weeks because that is their patch schedule.

VaranisArano

Elsonso wrote: »

Sanctum74 wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

JoeCapricorn wrote: »

I will say I think the "performance" reason is a load of bologna because groups have been limited to 24 since launch

Putting it bluntly, I am fairly sure that the group reduction from 24 to 12 is to improve performance so that they can add companions, which in their testing, hurt performance in large group situations.

Then it would make sense to stop adding things that ruin performance instead of taking away things that people enjoy and don’t affect performance.

Yes, it would. It is possible that they have hit some sort of performance cap in some areas of the game. Every new system we get in that area will now have to come with a concession so that performance remains relatively the same.

VaranisArano wrote: »

make up for bad press on release.

They are not going to have bad press on release because of a reduction in group size. They will have bad press on release due to the sheer number of bugs and things that are broken on launch day, but won't start to be fixed for two weeks because that is their patch schedule.

I was referring to bad press about Companions, and gradually adjusting the most reviled aspects of Companions, not the reduction in group size.

neferpitou73

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.

This is the exact opposite of what you told us when you made the change in Cyrodiil (what were those behavioral changes you liked again?). Of course this turned out so well there....

I'll take this as an admission ZOS has no idea how to fix the problem and is just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

Of course the one thing they'll never try is actually investing in the server infrastructure.

Elsonso

VaranisArano wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Sanctum74 wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

JoeCapricorn wrote: »

I will say I think the "performance" reason is a load of bologna because groups have been limited to 24 since launch

Putting it bluntly, I am fairly sure that the group reduction from 24 to 12 is to improve performance so that they can add companions, which in their testing, hurt performance in large group situations.

Then it would make sense to stop adding things that ruin performance instead of taking away things that people enjoy and don’t affect performance.

Yes, it would. It is possible that they have hit some sort of performance cap in some areas of the game. Every new system we get in that area will now have to come with a concession so that performance remains relatively the same.

VaranisArano wrote: »

make up for bad press on release.

They are not going to have bad press on release because of a reduction in group size. They will have bad press on release due to the sheer number of bugs and things that are broken on launch day, but won't start to be fixed for two weeks because that is their patch schedule.

I was referring to bad press about Companions, and gradually adjusting the most reviled aspects of Companions, not the reduction in group size.

Companions will generally be positive news, though. It is like housing, with fewer limitations and more utility.

JoeCapricorn

This change does not benefit performance. This change will not benefit ESO. It will hurt the game, it will hurt social and RP guilds, it will reduce accessibility for disabled players, and when it goes live, there is going to be a fight.

It might not stop me from playing this game, but it will hurt many of the guilds I am in, and for that I promise to never stop fighting, never stop bringing it up, until this HARMFUL change is reversed!!!

You hear me? @ZOS_GinaBruno

THIS CHANGE WILL HURT US, PLEASE DO NOT HURT US

Viana

While I appreciate the strive for better performance, I feel that this is spoiling the ship for a ha'port of tar. There should be other ways to improve performance than hindering players to play together in a game that is meant to be a multiplayer game.

That said, if reducing the group size is really necessary, please add a possibility for closed chat with larger groups of players that can replace the current functionality of group chat. This is what players need in the end to enjoy the game together and a means to chat with a larger group of people without spamming world chat is urgently needed to keep the current quality of gameplay for several sub-communities of the ESO player base - as can be seen by the length and popularity of this chat.

Jaraal

DocFrost72 wrote: »

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6989406#Comment_6989406

From that thread;

Hi all,

Just posted an update in the main stickied thread, but wanted to cross-post here as well for extra visibility.

As we approach the end of our scheduled tests, we’ve determined that we’d like to run at least two more tests to gather additional data, which are outlined below. Our goal here is to see how a combination of changes from previous tests affect the performance, as we’ve found they have not had a significant impact individually.
October 19 - 26:
Shared global AoE cooldown with a 3 second timer
Group size limited to 12 in Cyrodiil
Ally-targeted abilities only applied to group members
October 26 – November 2:
Shared global AoE cooldown with a 3 second timer
Group size limited to 12 in Cyrodiil
Ally-targeted abilities only applied to group members
Global ramping cost per successive AoE cast by 50%/100%/150%
Regen decrease per successive AoE cast by 33%/66%/99%
Our current plan is to disable all tests and double AP once Update 28 launches for PC on November 2. At that time, we’ll need to take some time to analyze the data collected from all the tests and determine next steps. Once we have a better idea of what that entails, we’ll let everyone know.

I'm not sure what to believe, now.

Poor Gina. They tell her what to post, and guess who gets to look bad when the stories conflict?

Elsonso

Jaraal wrote: »

Poor Gina. They tell her what to post, and guess who gets to look bad when the stories conflict?

Elsonso wrote: »

If Gina trots out and says, "Yup, group size to 12 is because of performance", will you nod with understanding and wander off in search of some other bit of trivia? Will you dig in and demand more? Argue? Dispute the claim? Rage?

So, dispute the claim.

Jaraal

Elsonso wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Poor Gina. They tell her what to post, and guess who gets to look bad when the stories conflict?

Elsonso wrote: »

If Gina trots out and says, "Yup, group size to 12 is because of performance", will you nod with understanding and wander off in search of some other bit of trivia? Will you dig in and demand more? Argue? Dispute the claim? Rage?

So, dispute the claim.

To what end? ZOS is gonna do what ZOS is gonna do regardless of whether it makes sense or is in direct conflict with earlier statements. They could tell us that they are reducing group size to 12 because the moon is made of green cheese and it wouldn't matter one bit.

Elsonso

Jaraal wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Poor Gina. They tell her what to post, and guess who gets to look bad when the stories conflict?

Elsonso wrote: »

If Gina trots out and says, "Yup, group size to 12 is because of performance", will you nod with understanding and wander off in search of some other bit of trivia? Will you dig in and demand more? Argue? Dispute the claim? Rage?

So, dispute the claim.

To what end? ZOS is gonna do what ZOS is gonna do regardless of whether it makes sense or is in direct conflict with earlier statements. They could tell us that they are reducing group size to 12 because the moon is made of green cheese and it wouldn't matter one bit.

No, I mean that this is the approach you are already taking.

DocFrost72

Jaraal wrote: »

DocFrost72 wrote: »

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6989406#Comment_6989406

From that thread;

Hi all,

Just posted an update in the main stickied thread, but wanted to cross-post here as well for extra visibility.

As we approach the end of our scheduled tests, we’ve determined that we’d like to run at least two more tests to gather additional data, which are outlined below. Our goal here is to see how a combination of changes from previous tests affect the performance, as we’ve found they have not had a significant impact individually.
October 19 - 26:
Shared global AoE cooldown with a 3 second timer
Group size limited to 12 in Cyrodiil
Ally-targeted abilities only applied to group members
October 26 – November 2:
Shared global AoE cooldown with a 3 second timer
Group size limited to 12 in Cyrodiil
Ally-targeted abilities only applied to group members
Global ramping cost per successive AoE cast by 50%/100%/150%
Regen decrease per successive AoE cast by 33%/66%/99%
Our current plan is to disable all tests and double AP once Update 28 launches for PC on November 2. At that time, we’ll need to take some time to analyze the data collected from all the tests and determine next steps. Once we have a better idea of what that entails, we’ll let everyone know.

I'm not sure what to believe, now.

Poor Gina. They tell her what to post, and guess who gets to look bad when the stories conflict?

This is my big concern, too. Gina isn't the one making decisions, and she's the one in here interacting with us. Not a good combo, especially if people don't know she's not responsible for the changes they don't like.

Olauron

The real question is where exactly there will be the performance increase when using two 12-player character groups instead of one 24-player character group.
Character visuals, positioning, skill and set visuals, health transmitted to other players? No, just the same.
Combat effects? With the reversal of group-only effects the answer is no.
Emotes and mementos? Again, just the same.
Text chat? Bingo. Then again, why not start with the zone chat? It should be much more stressful for performance than group chat.

JoeCapricorn

It's back-end stuff like the health level of each group member, but still I don't see how that can affect performance. Some add-ons are able to read more data from each group member as well, such as what loot they acquire.

It's a bologna excuse.

Elsonso

Olauron wrote: »

The real question is where exactly there will be the performance increase when using two 12-player character groups instead of one 24-player character group.
Character visuals, positioning, skill and set visuals, health transmitted to other players? No, just the same.
Combat effects? With the reversal of group-only effects the answer is no.
Emotes and mementos? Again, just the same.
Text chat? Bingo. Then again, why not start with the zone chat? It should be much more stressful for performance than group chat.

We don't know enough about how the backend systems work to be able to itemize things and then cross them off like you are doing.

However, we do know that the information processed between group members is not exactly the same as what you get just by being next to them, ungrouped. I believe that they have said as much when talking about Cyrodiil performance.

Elvenheart

I have an idea...Dinner Party! <jazz hands>

Olauron

JoeCapricorn wrote: »

It's back-end stuff like the health level of each group member, but still I don't see how that can affect performance. Some add-ons are able to read more data from each group member as well, such as what loot they acquire.

Health is already shown even to non-grouped players, so it should be something else. Magicka and stamina? I don't remember whether it is possible to turn it on for all allies around.

As for the loot, it is good observation, yet I have two thoughts about it.
1) During the "kill the dragons" event I faced a number of performance issues, but all those were during the fight with the dragon, and the more movements (position changing) and the higher the combined APM were, the worse was the performance. Once the dragon was dead, performance was ideal, even though players were looting the corpse. Movement, skills and LAs were the problem (and maybe - maybe - the dragon behaviour procedure requires more time to calculate the next "move" when there are more targets around, but this is not affected by the group size again).
2) Anything that is not shown to the player in the default UI is useless for those who don't use add-ons (but they at least theoretically can make use of it) and for console players.

Elsonso wrote: »

Olauron wrote: »

The real question is where exactly there will be the performance increase when using two 12-player character groups instead of one 24-player character group.
Character visuals, positioning, skill and set visuals, health transmitted to other players? No, just the same.
Combat effects? With the reversal of group-only effects the answer is no.
Emotes and mementos? Again, just the same.
Text chat? Bingo. Then again, why not start with the zone chat? It should be much more stressful for performance than group chat.

We don't know enough about how the backend systems work to be able to itemize things and then cross them off like you are doing.

However, we do know that the information processed between group members is not exactly the same as what you get just by being next to them, ungrouped. I believe that they have said as much when talking about Cyrodiil performance.

Well, the question is how much is actually needed. If (if, because there is no data for us as players) existing features are cut because of something that simply can't be used (like loot transmitting from example above), it is hardly fair.

WiseSky

I VOTE NO
WE NEE 24 People for Guild Events

Agalloch

Savina wrote: »

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.

You are right! Said too see ZOS cancel a feature available since launch. They should let the group size 24 . This is a MMO after all.. or is transforming in other thing?
They should upgrade their servers and let the group size at 24.

By reducing the group size ..they are killing their own MMO .

Some way ...they want us to play more solo ..What is the purpose off companions? Why they reduce the group size?
To make us play more solo than grouped ....

Too bad ESO slowly become a solo multiplayer game ...

merevie

It will suck about 8 months.
Then it won't. Going by PvP...

-people value the spot -they turn up on time, they're prepared and you don't have 6 of them off afk needing catching up later

-voice coms are more relaxed -people can talk without it being impossible/they get to know each other

-the people who rock up late and have to find new friends are motivated to scroll through their friend's list -guilds grow -people step up and run things which takes pressure of crowns

-stuff takes much less time to do/less goes wrong

24 people is impersonal - 12 not so much - it'll grow on you, maybe

Jazraena

'Grow' on you?

12 people just means a few RP events I've been part of would not have been possible without irritating back-and-forth message copying, extra time investment and in some cases an outright lack of an OOC chat channel accessible to everyone involved. This can't 'grow' on you.