Merge the servers to stop the games player population dying

Poss

Not every sever is dead, evidently there are some servers blooming with players. Xbox EU here and our server is struggling. I’ve considered hopping over to NA but I simply do not have the motivation to start afresh. All my toons, sticker book, collections, titles are all over here. Almost 10 years of grinding.

I don’t know the technical aspects of merging/syncing progress between servers but something needs to be considered otherwise Xbox EU will die completely

Anifaas

Some areas seem deader than others. Do you want to fight dragons in Elsweyr? There's often lots of people doing such and it makes the game feel alive.

How about playing musical instruments and dancing in front of wayshrines? It's often quite a party.

Do you want to farm a world boss from recent content for a chance at a lead that won't drop anyway? Crickets, and it makes the world feel empty.

So I think one's perception of a dead server can be affected by the type of content you do. From my perspective, while farming the miserable Walking Nightmare for the Liminal Glass Lead over the past month, the game is dead. I usually have to farm it alone or if I'm lucky with one other straggler.

From my daughter's point of view the game is bustling with all the housing parties and RP guild activities.

Braffin

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Maitsukas wrote: »

I see two major issues related to names:

1. Character names being shared. There are people that don't want a forced name change, no matter how long they've played with those characters. Who would take priority of keeping it?
2. Guild names being shared. These cannot be changed by players without disbanding a guild first.

How would you work around these problems to keep everyone satisfied?

I don't see a problem with shared character names. There are more than one "John Smith" or "Hans Maier" in RL too. There is no need for uniquely named characters.

Guild names are a different topic tho. I can't think of a solution for that atm.

People irl also have some sort of identifier, like Social Security numbers or something, so even if there are a bunch of people with the same name irl they have ways of telling those people apart for identification purposes (for things like bank accounts, government aid like grants, etc).

In ESO that unique identification IS the character name, since only one iteration can exist on each server.

.

Nope, that's not correct. The unique identification is somehow done by class (probably class+nb) according to zos. They revealed that as official reason for not being able to implement class change tokens.

There are plenty of reasons not to do crossplay. This thread once again convinced me of that. But character names aren't one of them.

what are your reasons to not do crossplay, since the benefits overhelm ?

I'm mainly concerned about the databases and zos' ability to merge them. If this isn't done flawlessly, there is major and irreversible damage done to the game. And I don't have enough trust in their skills tbh, as the failed code rework and the amount of consistent or recurring bugs (not even talk about newly added ones) is far too high imo.

There is also a more personal reason, I admit:

I don't see any overwhelming benefits tbh. I play on pc eu and nothing would change for me.

Except I'd would loose a bunch of friends to play with and some useful QoL, if add-ons were deactivated to enable crossplay between pc and consoles and cater to the "add-ons are cheating" crowd found on the latter.

Oh wait, I wouldn't, because I'd simply stop playing the game too.

But without meaning it mean, which part of merge consoles with consoles did you not understand?
I said multiple times pc servers are fine.

You are aware, that the discussion evolved, aren't you?

People are talking about all (im)possible things regarding crossplay/crosssave in this thread since page 1 and not every single post in it is meant to reply directly to the OP.

Besides that, I don't see how my main reason for being against a merge wouldn't affect consoles. Do you think, there are no databases? Well, you're wrong then.

Wildberryjack

Kiyakotari wrote: »

So for those of us who play on both servers, and have max'd out character counts...how would this work?

The only way I see would be we can choose which characters to keep and the rest go poof. Then everything we had on each realm is combined. If we have it twice, like a house or mount, we end up with only one. All mats, furnishings, and the like are combined in total - nothing is deleted. Honestly I'd be ok with this, I don't have time to play my EU characters anymore.

Quackery

ESO_CenturionPlayer wrote: »

don’t merge servers imo, attract the player base back to the game who left because of all the really bad decisions made over the years.

listen to the suggestions of veteran players and stop chasing quick cash new players who were never into the elder scrolls anyway. just passing players who aren’t connected to the game.

Be realistic, it won't happen. The only way to bring "life" back to console servers is my merging them.

MISTFORMBZZZ

Quackery wrote: »

ESO_CenturionPlayer wrote: »

don’t merge servers imo, attract the player base back to the game who left because of all the really bad decisions made over the years.

listen to the suggestions of veteran players and stop chasing quick cash new players who were never into the elder scrolls anyway. just passing players who aren’t connected to the game.

Be realistic, it won't happen. The only way to bring "life" back to console servers is my merging them.

Exactly and it has to happen now before even a server merge wont help anymore

xosaara137ox

I like the idea, but there are too many holes that would make it hard for Zos to implement something.

I have 20 chars on NA and 5 on EU, do those 5 characters and all their things disappear to the void because my NA account is out of room?

I have crown store purchases that are the same on both, do I get some crowns back for the overlapping purchases? I even have a radiant apex on EU that I also have on NA, what would compensation for that look like or do I lose those gems also?

It would require a lot of database merging, and a lot of overlap can cause issues in that area — and depending on the player there can be a ton of overlap.

Four_Fingers

Well Xbox isn't doing as well at hardware sales as the PS5 either.
On PS5 NA Daggerfall was chock full of players at 8:00 AM on a Wednesday morning.
We have had queues in the 50's all week for PvP as well, but that is skewed because of the test.
So sounds like MS/ZOS has some marketing to do, especially in EU because they put off the EU problems for so long.
People are also waiting for more story type content release and a lot of my guildies are lost in the Infinite Archive. lol

Tyrant_Tim

@Ph1p, what the site provides is an accurate way of comparing population between MMOs when taking their popularity in mind, there’s a reason buzz has a direct correlation to sales, if nobody is talking about your product, it’s not selling.

From your own link;

Ph1p

Tyrant_Tim wrote: »

@Ph1p, what the site provides is an accurate way of comparing population between MMOs when taking their popularity in mind, there’s a reason buzz has a direct correlation to sales, if nobody is talking about your product, it’s not selling.

The site does not provide “an accurate way of comparing population … taking their popularity in mind”. It provides a comparison of community activity/engagement on Reddit, which can have a positive or negative relation to sales or in-game population. Therefore, drawing direct conclusions from this site is often highly inaccurate, as stated in the first sentence in your screenshot.

So while a very low score is clearly a bad sign, you have no idea what’s behind Guild Wars 2 and MapleStory being scored higher than ESO. Is it because they actually have more players? Or are people raging because a popular community manager was fired? By the way, 3 of the top 5 MapleStory discussions this month are about the latter. Does this mean it’s doing better than ESO?

Daalin

Hi. XBOX EU player here. I dont have any problem with server populaton. Yes, if i do some business example in Rimmen or Arkhatanz caverns, its quite empty, but even there i can met some lonely traveller like I. Vivec City, Elden Root or other hub area is always crowded. Activity queue is also does not cause problems to me. So to me, my server is fine.

o_Primate_o

They could reduce the number of instances for zones, that would be a simpler fix id assume. No more "so-and-so is in a different instance of Craglorn, travel to player?" More players in an instance.

Tyrant_Tim

@Ph1p, that’s a resounding yes, player interest and engagement is part of the puzzle of population, regardless of the topic.

One can simply look through old threads to see that these forums were once a more active and lively place, yet most people got bored and moved on, and nobody can blame them.

When you compare the total active users on Steam today to 2014, then compare the peak player count of ESO on Steam averaged throughout last November with the average peak for November 2014, you can make the assessment that while Steam grew exponentially, ESO declined in population and interest.

Now, if you read the entire thread, you would have seen that I already made reference to ESO’s active player count on Steam and the ridiculously high number of players using the platform.

I’m not going to waste my time doing the work of comparing the growth of Steam over the years with the decline of ESO on their platform because I believe that the OP’s concerns have merit, and if your plan is to invalidate them, you’re gonna need to try a little harder than attacking one of the many examples that can be found to support his claim, so I’ll leave that task to you.

I’m actually so confident that when you find that information it will adamantly support every claim here that ESO is in desperate need of a change, that I’m dropping the mic and walking out on this thread.

SilverBride

Tyrant_Tim wrote: »

When you compare the total active users on Steam today to 2014, then compare the peak player count of ESO on Steam averaged throughout last November with the average peak for November 2014, you can make the assessment that while Steam grew exponentially, ESO declined in population and interest.

How many PC players use Steam as compared to how many that don't? How many of those players that stopped playing through Steam are still playing, just not through Steam any more?

Not all servers are experiencing low populations. If it was due to a waning interest in ESO then all servers should be experiencing this, but they aren't.

DMuehlhausen

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

DMuehlhausen wrote: »

Somebody doesn't understand how the servers work. Everyone logs into the same mega server. Then broken into instances of areas. If nobody is there it's cause they aren't playing on console. "Merging" wouldn't do anything.

Yes it would. If certain activities are empty and group finders dont work cuz there is nobody to fill the group this has nothing to do with instances.

Merging = bigger playerbase = activity

No it wouldn't. Zones are separated by instances. If you want those instances merged that's fine but then they will have to go through and build new servers again because the instances wouldn't be able to handle the load. This is litterally what I do for a living supporting servers for remote users. It's all about load balance. Once instance 1 hits a certain % (or however they have it set) it starts putting people in another instance and so on. You start putting those together and the hardware won't be able to handle it and everything will be like the old school Cyrodil where you couldn't even move.

Log out and back in a few times and you will probably get put into different instances as people log in and out or leave zones, or get shifted around to level out the load.

Twohothardware

DMuehlhausen wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

DMuehlhausen wrote: »

Somebody doesn't understand how the servers work. Everyone logs into the same mega server. Then broken into instances of areas. If nobody is there it's cause they aren't playing on console. "Merging" wouldn't do anything.

Yes it would. If certain activities are empty and group finders dont work cuz there is nobody to fill the group this has nothing to do with instances.

Merging = bigger playerbase = activity

No it wouldn't. Zones are separated by instances. If you want those instances merged that's fine but then they will have to go through and build new servers again because the instances wouldn't be able to handle the load. This is litterally what I do for a living supporting servers for remote users. It's all about load balance. Once instance 1 hits a certain % (or however they have it set) it starts putting people in another instance and so on. You start putting those together and the hardware won't be able to handle it and everything will be like the old school Cyrodil where you couldn't even move.

Log out and back in a few times and you will probably get put into different instances as people log in and out or leave zones, or get shifted around to level out the load.

Instances are rarely full on PlayStation NA outside of one or two zones during a holiday event. I can swap characters or join other players in guilds and it’s always the same instance with the same player names there. I played back when there was higher player counts and remember what it’s like there actually being multiple instances of players in zones and what we have now is nowhere close.

Crossplay has nothing to do with merging instances, it has to do with bolstering the population so there actually is multiple instances of players in every zone again. It will greatly speed up the Group Finder and it will repopulate the Cyrodiil campaigns.

Tandor

Tyrant_Tim wrote: »

One can simply look through old threads to see that these forums were once a more active and lively place, yet most people got bored and moved on, and nobody can blame them.

I don't know how far back you're going, but it's possible that you're going back to when the forums were more active and lively up until the time when ZOS improved the game so much (by popular acclamation and commercial reality) that most people switched from participating in the forum to playing the game.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been very committed to both the game and the forums since launch but who is now increasingly bored with the forum and often thinking of moving on from it, while remaining wholly committed to the game. Maybe that will convert for me into a 2024 Resolution. The forum has become very formulaic in the sense that threads are entirely predictable as is the moderation. I don't know what stage ZOS are in their resetting of the forums and review of the moderation, but both are desperately needed early in the new year in my view. Some (not me) will doubtless also say that about the game, of course!

Elsonso

Twohothardware wrote: »

Instances are rarely full on PlayStation NA outside of one or two zones during a holiday event. I can swap characters or join other players in guilds and it’s always the same instance with the same player names there. I played back when there was higher player counts and remember what it’s like there actually being multiple instances of players in zones and what we have now is nowhere close.

Appearances can be deceiving. There is a lot of trickery and illusion going on with how the megaserver places us with people as we enter a zone, and as others enter a zone we are in. Not only has this changed over time, but players tend to change how they play over time. Both of these can change how the server places players, and how many players might appear to be around.

This is why I generally discount anecdotal observations related to visible players in the game and how it relates to server population. Maybe it is like looking through a toilet paper tube, maybe it isn't. People don't realize what they can't see, so they can't know for sure. In the end, it isn't very useful information.

Food for thought... it is likely a goal of the megaserver to keep overland players in the same zone apart, not together. Most PCs and consoles would melt trying to render a thousand players if they happened to be in the same "instance" of the bank. They have to be kept apart to prevent that. The fact that it is not "full" to us could simply be "nominal" to ZOS. We have no way to know how many players ZOS wants in the bubble around us, or whether that number is the same today as it was last year.

Twohothardware wrote: »

Crossplay has nothing to do with merging instances, it has to do with bolstering the population so there actually is multiple instances of players in every zone again. It will greatly speed up the Group Finder and it will repopulate the Cyrodiil campaigns.

I am fairly confident that the group and dungeon finder are server-wide and have nothing to do with the number of players in a zone. Crossplay will help in that more players will be using these tools. I don't think it matters which zone they are standing in when they do.

As for Cyrodiil, call me cynical, but I think that the main problem with Cyrodiil campaign population is Cyrodiil, not server population. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go into Cyrodiil. Having 100 horses instead of 50 won't change that.

Twohothardware

Elsonso wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Instances are rarely full on PlayStation NA outside of one or two zones during a holiday event. I can swap characters or join other players in guilds and it’s always the same instance with the same player names there. I played back when there was higher player counts and remember what it’s like there actually being multiple instances of players in zones and what we have now is nowhere close.

Appearances can be deceiving. There is a lot of trickery and illusion going on with how the megaserver places us with people as we enter a zone, and as others enter a zone we are in. Not only has this changed over time, but players tend to change how they play over time. Both of these can change how the server places players, and how many players might appear to be around.

This is why I generally discount anecdotal observations related to visible players in the game and how it relates to server population. Maybe it is like looking through a toilet paper tube, maybe it isn't. People don't realize what they can't see, so they can't know for sure. In the end, it isn't very useful information.

Food for thought... it is likely a goal of the megaserver to keep overland players in the same zone apart, not together. Most PCs and consoles would melt trying to render a thousand players if they happened to be in the same "instance" of the bank. They have to be kept apart to prevent that. The fact that it is not "full" to us could simply be "nominal" to ZOS. We have no way to know how many players ZOS wants in the bubble around us, or whether that number is the same today as it was last year.

Twohothardware wrote: »

Crossplay has nothing to do with merging instances, it has to do with bolstering the population so there actually is multiple instances of players in every zone again. It will greatly speed up the Group Finder and it will repopulate the Cyrodiil campaigns.

I am fairly confident that the group and dungeon finder are server-wide and have nothing to do with the number of players in a zone. Crossplay will help in that more players will be using these tools. I don't think it matters which zone they are standing in when they do.

As for Cyrodiil, call me cynical, but I think that the main problem with Cyrodiil campaign population is Cyrodiil, not server population. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go into Cyrodiil. Having 100 horses instead of 50 won't change that.

There's a percentage of players on every platform playing in at least the main Cyrodiil campaign. From what I've seen all three platforms have around 3 bars on each Alliance during prime time for the one main Campaign. Crossplay between consoles or Crossplay between consoles and PC is going to combine all of those players that are already currently playing in Cyrodiil and that is going to double or triple PvP numbers regardless if Cyrodiil is popular right now.

MISTFORMBZZZ

Also while a lot of yous are discussing the technical aspects, you dont see its not on us to make it possible. Its on zos.

Other games did manage it ans eso needs it so zos needs to manage it too.

The technical aspects are not on us to handle, we bring the money to a living game so they can work with it.

Tandor

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Instances are rarely full on PlayStation NA outside of one or two zones during a holiday event. I can swap characters or join other players in guilds and it’s always the same instance with the same player names there. I played back when there was higher player counts and remember what it’s like there actually being multiple instances of players in zones and what we have now is nowhere close.

Appearances can be deceiving. There is a lot of trickery and illusion going on with how the megaserver places us with people as we enter a zone, and as others enter a zone we are in. Not only has this changed over time, but players tend to change how they play over time. Both of these can change how the server places players, and how many players might appear to be around.

This is why I generally discount anecdotal observations related to visible players in the game and how it relates to server population. Maybe it is like looking through a toilet paper tube, maybe it isn't. People don't realize what they can't see, so they can't know for sure. In the end, it isn't very useful information.

Food for thought... it is likely a goal of the megaserver to keep overland players in the same zone apart, not together. Most PCs and consoles would melt trying to render a thousand players if they happened to be in the same "instance" of the bank. They have to be kept apart to prevent that. The fact that it is not "full" to us could simply be "nominal" to ZOS. We have no way to know how many players ZOS wants in the bubble around us, or whether that number is the same today as it was last year.

Twohothardware wrote: »

Crossplay has nothing to do with merging instances, it has to do with bolstering the population so there actually is multiple instances of players in every zone again. It will greatly speed up the Group Finder and it will repopulate the Cyrodiil campaigns.

I am fairly confident that the group and dungeon finder are server-wide and have nothing to do with the number of players in a zone. Crossplay will help in that more players will be using these tools. I don't think it matters which zone they are standing in when they do.

As for Cyrodiil, call me cynical, but I think that the main problem with Cyrodiil campaign population is Cyrodiil, not server population. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go into Cyrodiil. Having 100 horses instead of 50 won't change that.

There's a percentage of players on every platform playing in at least the main Cyrodiil campaign. From what I've seen all three platforms have around 3 bars on each Alliance during prime time for the one main Campaign. Crossplay between consoles or Crossplay between consoles and PC is going to combine all of those players that are already currently playing in Cyrodiil and that is going to double or triple PvP numbers regardless if Cyrodiil is popular right now.

Well that would certainly be a good way to increase the complaints about lag and skills not firing in Cyrodiil!

Ph1p

Tyrant_Tim wrote: »

When you compare the total active users on Steam today to 2014, then compare the peak player count of ESO on Steam averaged throughout last November with the average peak for November 2014, you can make the assessment that while Steam grew exponentially, ESO declined in population and interest.

Thank you, I appreciate the feedback and did as you asked using SteamDB:
Steam had about 32.1 million users in Nov 2023, compared to 9.4 million in Nov 2014. That's an increase of +240%. ESO on Steam had a peak player count of 19'637 in Nov 2023, compared to 1'187 in Nov 2014. That's an increase of +1550%. Not sure where you're getting your confidence to "drop the mic" with these specific numbers... Why didn't you simply point at the obvious decline of ESO on Steam post-COVID?

Tyrant_Tim wrote: »

I’m not going to waste my time doing the work of comparing the growth of Steam over the years with the decline of ESO on their platform because I believe that the OP’s concerns have merit, and if your plan is to invalidate them, you’re gonna need to try a little harder than attacking one of the many examples that can be found to support his claim, so I’ll leave that task to you.

I'm not commenting on the OP's claims, which may indeed have merit. I'm challenging the use of MMO Population and other similar sources. I obviously won't convince you, and that's fine. It's still a nice tracker of community activity and can suggest some trends. But everyone else should know that it's numbers are basically useless. See spoiler below for an example with EVE Online, which publishes real player data, allowing for an actual comparison.

This is the MMO Population data for EVE Online over the past 5 years:


And here is the actual player count from the game itself:


While some trends match, like the COVID highs during mid-2020 to late 2021, many peaks or troughs don't. For example, MMO Population data inexplicably bottoms out during Mar/Apr 2022 and the game obviously didn't die. It shows a 2x increase in Feb 2023, when player numbers were actually flat. When player numbers actually declined in mid-2021, MMO shows a significant peak.

And the absolute numbers don't make any sense whatsoever. Current monthly players are comparable to those 5 years ago, but MMO Population's shows a massive drop of 40%. Sure, player numbers were higher during COVID, but not by factor of almost 3x...

Elsonso

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

As for Cyrodiil, call me cynical, but I think that the main problem with Cyrodiil campaign population is Cyrodiil, not server population. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go into Cyrodiil. Having 100 horses instead of 50 won't change that.

There's a percentage of players on every platform playing in at least the main Cyrodiil campaign. From what I've seen all three platforms have around 3 bars on each Alliance during prime time for the one main Campaign. Crossplay between consoles or Crossplay between consoles and PC is going to combine all of those players that are already currently playing in Cyrodiil and that is going to double or triple PvP numbers regardless if Cyrodiil is popular right now.

The other thing to think about is that in a crossplay environment, the "main Cyrodiil campaign" would simply be locked (max pop) and they would have to open other campaigns if they wanted more people to play concurrently. Cyrodiil caps would not change under crossplay, as the caps are there to limit the number of people in the campaign.

Harry_Toes

LunaFlora wrote: »

which served on which platform is supposedly dying?

ps eu is very full and busy regularly.
and if you see less people in zone chat making trial groups that's because we have the group finder!

crossplay would be nice, but it's not really necessary

PC NA is pretty full also. I'm kind of spoiled by wait times for PUG dungeons if I'm going as a tank or healer. If the wait is more than 2 minutes (rare, but happens during off hours) I leave the queue to go do other things.

The common crafting areas in Vivec City and Leyawiin are usually very busy, as are the main trader hubs in Rawlkha, Wayrest and Mournhold, not to mention Belkarth.

Twohothardware

Elsonso wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

As for Cyrodiil, call me cynical, but I think that the main problem with Cyrodiil campaign population is Cyrodiil, not server population. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go into Cyrodiil. Having 100 horses instead of 50 won't change that.

There's a percentage of players on every platform playing in at least the main Cyrodiil campaign. From what I've seen all three platforms have around 3 bars on each Alliance during prime time for the one main Campaign. Crossplay between consoles or Crossplay between consoles and PC is going to combine all of those players that are already currently playing in Cyrodiil and that is going to double or triple PvP numbers regardless if Cyrodiil is popular right now.

The other thing to think about is that in a crossplay environment, the "main Cyrodiil campaign" would simply be locked (max pop) and they would have to open other campaigns if they wanted more people to play concurrently. Cyrodiil caps would not change under crossplay, as the caps are there to limit the number of people in the campaign.

They were just running a Cyrodiil stress test to see if they could raise the pop caps, but even if they stay the same, there are two other 30-day campaigns that are empty right now. Back in the day, we used to have two full campaigns running, and now we only have one during prime time.

Also, the point of getting more players in Cyrodiil is to keep the main campaign locked for longer than just a few hours at night. At this moment in the afternoon on PlayStation NA, we have Ebonheart with 3 bars, AD with 2, and DC with only 1. That lets EP run up a big score all day until prime time, when the numbers even out.

MISTFORMBZZZ

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

As for Cyrodiil, call me cynical, but I think that the main problem with Cyrodiil campaign population is Cyrodiil, not server population. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go into Cyrodiil. Having 100 horses instead of 50 won't change that.

There's a percentage of players on every platform playing in at least the main Cyrodiil campaign. From what I've seen all three platforms have around 3 bars on each Alliance during prime time for the one main Campaign. Crossplay between consoles or Crossplay between consoles and PC is going to combine all of those players that are already currently playing in Cyrodiil and that is going to double or triple PvP numbers regardless if Cyrodiil is popular right now.

The other thing to think about is that in a crossplay environment, the "main Cyrodiil campaign" would simply be locked (max pop) and they would have to open other campaigns if they wanted more people to play concurrently. Cyrodiil caps would not change under crossplay, as the caps are there to limit the number of people in the campaign.

They were just running a Cyrodiil stress test to see if they could raise the pop caps, but even if they stay the same, there are two other 30-day campaigns that are empty right now. Back in the day, we used to have two full campaigns running, and now we only have one during prime time.

Also, the point of getting more players in Cyrodiil is to keep the main campaign locked for longer than just a few hours at night. At this moment in the afternoon on PlayStation NA, we have Ebonheart with 3 bars, AD with 2, and DC with only 1. That lets EP run up a big score all day until prime time, when the numbers even out.

if they merged the servers all campaigns would be full probably again

Elsonso

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

As for Cyrodiil, call me cynical, but I think that the main problem with Cyrodiil campaign population is Cyrodiil, not server population. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go into Cyrodiil. Having 100 horses instead of 50 won't change that.

There's a percentage of players on every platform playing in at least the main Cyrodiil campaign. From what I've seen all three platforms have around 3 bars on each Alliance during prime time for the one main Campaign. Crossplay between consoles or Crossplay between consoles and PC is going to combine all of those players that are already currently playing in Cyrodiil and that is going to double or triple PvP numbers regardless if Cyrodiil is popular right now.

The other thing to think about is that in a crossplay environment, the "main Cyrodiil campaign" would simply be locked (max pop) and they would have to open other campaigns if they wanted more people to play concurrently. Cyrodiil caps would not change under crossplay, as the caps are there to limit the number of people in the campaign.

They were just running a Cyrodiil stress test to see if they could raise the pop caps, but even if they stay the same, there are two other 30-day campaigns that are empty right now. Back in the day, we used to have two full campaigns running, and now we only have one during prime time.

Also, the point of getting more players in Cyrodiil is to keep the main campaign locked for longer than just a few hours at night. At this moment in the afternoon on PlayStation NA, we have Ebonheart with 3 bars, AD with 2, and DC with only 1. That lets EP run up a big score all day until prime time, when the numbers even out.

if they merged the servers all campaigns would be full probably again

They would likely be full. The next question is how long are you willing to wait to get into one of them so they remain that way?

Twohothardware

Elsonso wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

As for Cyrodiil, call me cynical, but I think that the main problem with Cyrodiil campaign population is Cyrodiil, not server population. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go into Cyrodiil. Having 100 horses instead of 50 won't change that.

There's a percentage of players on every platform playing in at least the main Cyrodiil campaign. From what I've seen all three platforms have around 3 bars on each Alliance during prime time for the one main Campaign. Crossplay between consoles or Crossplay between consoles and PC is going to combine all of those players that are already currently playing in Cyrodiil and that is going to double or triple PvP numbers regardless if Cyrodiil is popular right now.

The other thing to think about is that in a crossplay environment, the "main Cyrodiil campaign" would simply be locked (max pop) and they would have to open other campaigns if they wanted more people to play concurrently. Cyrodiil caps would not change under crossplay, as the caps are there to limit the number of people in the campaign.

They were just running a Cyrodiil stress test to see if they could raise the pop caps, but even if they stay the same, there are two other 30-day campaigns that are empty right now. Back in the day, we used to have two full campaigns running, and now we only have one during prime time.

Also, the point of getting more players in Cyrodiil is to keep the main campaign locked for longer than just a few hours at night. At this moment in the afternoon on PlayStation NA, we have Ebonheart with 3 bars, AD with 2, and DC with only 1. That lets EP run up a big score all day until prime time, when the numbers even out.

if they merged the servers all campaigns would be full probably again

They would likely be full. The next question is how long are you willing to wait to get into one of them so they remain that way?

They're fully capable of opening more Campaigns when the active player count requires it. They do this already during the Whitestrake's Mayhem event.

katanagirl1

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

As for Cyrodiil, call me cynical, but I think that the main problem with Cyrodiil campaign population is Cyrodiil, not server population. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go into Cyrodiil. Having 100 horses instead of 50 won't change that.

There's a percentage of players on every platform playing in at least the main Cyrodiil campaign. From what I've seen all three platforms have around 3 bars on each Alliance during prime time for the one main Campaign. Crossplay between consoles or Crossplay between consoles and PC is going to combine all of those players that are already currently playing in Cyrodiil and that is going to double or triple PvP numbers regardless if Cyrodiil is popular right now.

The other thing to think about is that in a crossplay environment, the "main Cyrodiil campaign" would simply be locked (max pop) and they would have to open other campaigns if they wanted more people to play concurrently. Cyrodiil caps would not change under crossplay, as the caps are there to limit the number of people in the campaign.

They were just running a Cyrodiil stress test to see if they could raise the pop caps, but even if they stay the same, there are two other 30-day campaigns that are empty right now. Back in the day, we used to have two full campaigns running, and now we only have one during prime time.

Also, the point of getting more players in Cyrodiil is to keep the main campaign locked for longer than just a few hours at night. At this moment in the afternoon on PlayStation NA, we have Ebonheart with 3 bars, AD with 2, and DC with only 1. That lets EP run up a big score all day until prime time, when the numbers even out.

if they merged the servers all campaigns would be full probably again

They would likely be full. The next question is how long are you willing to wait to get into one of them so they remain that way?

They're fully capable of opening more Campaigns when the active player count requires it. They do this already during the Whitestrake's Mayhem event.

Players still wait for their home campaign for hours during the PvP event and the new campaigns sit empty.

Twohothardware

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

As for Cyrodiil, call me cynical, but I think that the main problem with Cyrodiil campaign population is Cyrodiil, not server population. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go into Cyrodiil. Having 100 horses instead of 50 won't change that.

There's a percentage of players on every platform playing in at least the main Cyrodiil campaign. From what I've seen all three platforms have around 3 bars on each Alliance during prime time for the one main Campaign. Crossplay between consoles or Crossplay between consoles and PC is going to combine all of those players that are already currently playing in Cyrodiil and that is going to double or triple PvP numbers regardless if Cyrodiil is popular right now.

The other thing to think about is that in a crossplay environment, the "main Cyrodiil campaign" would simply be locked (max pop) and they would have to open other campaigns if they wanted more people to play concurrently. Cyrodiil caps would not change under crossplay, as the caps are there to limit the number of people in the campaign.

They were just running a Cyrodiil stress test to see if they could raise the pop caps, but even if they stay the same, there are two other 30-day campaigns that are empty right now. Back in the day, we used to have two full campaigns running, and now we only have one during prime time.

Also, the point of getting more players in Cyrodiil is to keep the main campaign locked for longer than just a few hours at night. At this moment in the afternoon on PlayStation NA, we have Ebonheart with 3 bars, AD with 2, and DC with only 1. That lets EP run up a big score all day until prime time, when the numbers even out.

if they merged the servers all campaigns would be full probably again

They would likely be full. The next question is how long are you willing to wait to get into one of them so they remain that way?

They're fully capable of opening more Campaigns when the active player count requires it. They do this already during the Whitestrake's Mayhem event.

Players still wait for their home campaign for hours during the PvP event and the new campaigns sit empty.

The other campaigns never used to sit empty during the Mayhem PvP event, player counts and interest in PvP has just fallen way off.

Being locked to a single home campaign and not getting rewards or getting on the leaderboards in the other campaigns is something that could be changed and then everyone won’t sit in a long queue for Gray Host.