Maintenance for the week of December 15:
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
Noob PC question: why can't ZOS make a dedicated pvp server?
Quackery
✭✭✭✭✭
Just like the title says; I don't know a lot about the technicalities of computing, codes, resources, etc., but couldn't ZOS just create a separate PvP server that has the resources it needs to accommodate a population as it were in the beginning of ESO?
2
-
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭There is a separate server, it's called Cyrodiil.
We have no idea whether or not every instance of Cyro is given it's own machine, or if each one exists on the same machine.
Regardless, that's your answer. As far as whether or not ZOS has the ability to cut down on lag on servers like Gray Host, the answer is also likely "yes", but they don't want to do what is required to do it.5 -
majulook✭✭✭✭✭
✭That is a good question.
Basically its like this....
ESO runs on a Megaserver infrastructure.
The term Megaserver refers to the type of server implementation used in The Elder Scrolls Online.
This differs from most current massively multiplayer games, which typically use separate servers referred to as "Shards" or "Worlds". In ESO every player is connected to the same logical server such as PC NA. This means that there is no need to switch to a different server in order to avoid lag or connect with friends. However, it isn't possible for every single player to co-exist within the same game space. Because of this, the Megaserver utilizes phasing in order to group players with friends and like-minded gamers.
So ESO can bring up new phased space to take the load during peak events that take place in one location such as the New Life Festival. Everyone logged into PC NA for example are in the same location on the same server infrastructure, but not the same phase. This bringing up a Phase dose not necessarily have to be manually implemented.
This works well enough for a while but eventually things start to get wonky. You may have been in a group and some of the characters were not visible and the info bar or line block that you see above their head was. or joined a group and the travel to player message that pops up states the group lead is in a different version of the zone you are in. These are both are due to players being in a different phase.
So bring up more phases for PVP in Cyrodiil creates even more issues, since then you could have groups with players that are not in the same phase. So they bring up extra campaigns to handle the load. Each campaign has a limit to the amount of players that can be attached to it. ZOS does not say what the limit is. But it obvious to those that have been in Cyrodiil PVP for years that is has been reduced from what it originally was.
IMHO the numbers were reduced do to the implementation of the newer sets of gear that has been created.
Edited by majulook on March 6, 2024 6:17AMSi vis pacem, para bellum9 -
Panthermic✭✭✭I think the question is about a different version of Tamriel, where the PVP is not restricted to Cyrodiil and Imperial City. And the answer I guess is that that would die in a few months because of griefers, gankers, spawnpoint campers who prey on low-level players for easy kills. That happens already in this version too. Not too enjoyable when a 2k+ CP owner chasing and hunting from behind--where else from, they're brave heroes after all--your lv30 character.
Edited by Panthermic on March 6, 2024 7:03PM3 -
notyuu✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭There is nothing stopping them from being able to do it from a technical standpoint, but from a economical standpoint it would be a huge waste of resources, time and effort due to the PvP population being a kekwew level of small when compared to the mainstay casual pve side of things2 -
RetPing✭✭✭✭✭There is nothing stopping them from being able to do it from a technical standpoint, but from a economical standpoint it would be a huge waste of resources, time and effort due to the PvP population being a kekwew level of small when compared to the mainstay casual pve side of things
I wonder why PvP populations is small.
With all the good reosurce and development they have devoted to PvP one must wonder why PvP population is small9 -
It's possible to have shard infrastructure and still manage to get people together from different shards.
Megaserver does not mean it is a singular server. It could be many servers combined into one (possibly virtual).
It's possible to make both types work properly. It all depends on the existing infrastructure, money, the will and skill to do it.
In the case of ESO, I think there was a big skill issue when it first launched. In the rush to fix the game and re-ignite hype they forgot to make sure their infrastructure is set up properly. So, now we're stuck with what we have and they are spending 12 hours a week just to maintain it.
Instead they probably need some serious money and time to "fix" everything. None of which they will get any time soon.
*****
It's an open RPG world. Allowing PVP in it is a suicide. It goes against the whole nature of the game.1 -
Danikat✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Do you mean why can't they allow players to choose between a pure PvP version of the game (or possibly PvPvE) and a pure PvE one?
I suspect they can, but choose not to because it's proven unpopular in other games. There's relatively few people who only ever play PvP or never play PvP under any circumstances so completely separating them inconveniences more people than it benefits. Even if you can still play on both the need to have seperate characters, log out of one server and into the other (and for ESO having crown store purchases separated by server) makes it more annoying, and less likely people who only rarely play PvP (or PvE) will bother.
What we've got now is basically a more convenient version of that. PvP and PvE are still seperate - you'll never accidentally find yourself in the wrong type of zone, but it's also easy to move between them on any character you want.PC EU player | She/her/hers | PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!
"Remember in this game we call life that no one said it's fair"6 -
Northwold✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Do you mean why can't they allow players to choose between a pure PvP version of the game (or possibly PvPvE) and a pure PvE one?
I suspect they can, but choose not to because it's proven unpopular in other games. There's relatively few people who only ever play PvP or never play PvP under any circumstances so completely separating them inconveniences more people than it benefits. Even if you can still play on both the need to have seperate characters, log out of one server and into the other (and for ESO having crown store purchases separated by server) makes it more annoying, and less likely people who only rarely play PvP (or PvE) will bother.
What we've got now is basically a more convenient version of that. PvP and PvE are still seperate - you'll never accidentally find yourself in the wrong type of zone, but it's also easy to move between them on any character you want.
Exactly. In summary, because essentially no one would use it.3 -
WaywardArgonian✭✭✭✭✭If you make it so that you have a separate server where you just flick the PVP on at all times, despite none of the content developed over the past 10 years (bar Cyro, IC and Battlegrounds) having been designed with that possibility in mind, the result would be a nonsensical disaster. Even if ESO had the PVP population to sustain such an environment (it doesn't), it would be nothing short of abysmal from a game design point of view.PC/EU altaholic | #1 PVP support player (contested) | @ degonyte in-game | Nibani Ilath-Pal (AD Nightblade) - AvA rank 50 | Jehanne Teymour (AD Sorcerer) - AvA rank 50 | Niria Ilath-Pal (AD Templar) - AvA rank 500 -
Muizer✭✭✭✭✭
✭@majulook Interesting explanation.
So if I get this right, the fundamental difference between PvE zones and Cyrodiil is that the PvE zones do not have a map-state that is shared between all players in that zone, whereas Cyrodiil campaigns by necessity do. As a result, PvE players can be distributed over parallel worlds almost seamlessly, but PvP players cannot. Add to that the extra workload of combat interaction between players and it is easy to see why a PvP zone would have to be differently provisioned altogether. But is it, technically speaking? Or is it just a zone like all others, except way over-stressed?
Edited by Muizer on March 6, 2024 10:50AMPlease stop making requests for game features. ZOS have enough bad ideas as it is!0 -
barney2525✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I don't know that they have ever published exactly what their server layouts are or how everything is integrated.
They may have a dedicated server just for PvP.
Just because it does not work well does not mean it is not laid out the way you would expect it to be.
0 -
RetPing✭✭✭✭✭Do you mean why can't they allow players to choose between a pure PvP version of the game (or possibly PvPvE) and a pure PvE one?
I suspect they can, but choose not to because it's proven unpopular in other games. There's relatively few people who only ever play PvP or never play PvP under any circumstances so completely separating them inconveniences more people than it benefits. Even if you can still play on both the need to have seperate characters, log out of one server and into the other (and for ESO having crown store purchases separated by server) makes it more annoying, and less likely people who only rarely play PvP (or PvE) will bother.
What we've got now is basically a more convenient version of that. PvP and PvE are still seperate - you'll never accidentally find yourself in the wrong type of zone, but it's also easy to move between them on any character you want.
Exactly. In summary, because essentially no one would use it.
No one? How you know that?
Albion Online, has 8k players on steam only. ESO has 13k
A little game that can't crutch on a big IP and has full loot pvp zones and is pvp centric has 8k players.1 -
Kendaric✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Those numbers don't prove anything on their own... of the 8k players of Albion, how many do actually engage in PvP or even enter the PvP zones at all?
New World, for example, has supposedly 12k players and while wars frequently happen, you rarely see anyone flagged for PvP in the world unless an "influence race" happens. And even then, the number of people flagging is limited.
A PvP server simply wouldn't be economically viable.
0 -
Veryamedliel✭✭✭Do you mean why can't they allow players to choose between a pure PvP version of the game (or possibly PvPvE) and a pure PvE one?
I suspect they can, but choose not to because it's proven unpopular in other games. There's relatively few people who only ever play PvP or never play PvP under any circumstances so completely separating them inconveniences more people than it benefits. Even if you can still play on both the need to have seperate characters, log out of one server and into the other (and for ESO having crown store purchases separated by server) makes it more annoying, and less likely people who only rarely play PvP (or PvE) will bother.
What we've got now is basically a more convenient version of that. PvP and PvE are still seperate - you'll never accidentally find yourself in the wrong type of zone, but it's also easy to move between them on any character you want.
Exactly. In summary, because essentially no one would use it.
No one? How you know that?
Albion Online, has 8k players on steam only. ESO has 13k
A little game that can't crutch on a big IP and has full loot pvp zones and is pvp centric has 8k players.
He/she should have said "almost no one'. And that's relative to the amount of PvE players. Other than that, I think he has a point. The cost of a separate PVP server simply won't justify the gains, if any are to be had at all.
Your Steam player base arguments are irrelevant to the subject. ESO is simply not a PvP game and most likely never will be. You're comparing apples to bananas.1 -
RetPing✭✭✭✭✭
Those numbers don't prove anything on their own... of the 8k players of Albion, how many do actually engage in PvP or even enter the PvP zones at all?
New World, for example, has supposedly 12k players and while wars frequently happen, you rarely see anyone flagged for PvP in the world unless an "influence race" happens. And even then, the number of people flagging is limited.
A PvP server simply wouldn't be economically viable.
Do you even know the game? Have you ever played it?
Seems to me a lot of you have your agenda, continue to say that a PvP sever is not viable because you don't want that to happen.
Don't worry, they will never do it, but saying that there aren't many people interested in good PvP out there is totally false.2 -
RetPing✭✭✭✭✭Veryamedliel wrote: »Do you mean why can't they allow players to choose between a pure PvP version of the game (or possibly PvPvE) and a pure PvE one?
I suspect they can, but choose not to because it's proven unpopular in other games. There's relatively few people who only ever play PvP or never play PvP under any circumstances so completely separating them inconveniences more people than it benefits. Even if you can still play on both the need to have seperate characters, log out of one server and into the other (and for ESO having crown store purchases separated by server) makes it more annoying, and less likely people who only rarely play PvP (or PvE) will bother.
What we've got now is basically a more convenient version of that. PvP and PvE are still seperate - you'll never accidentally find yourself in the wrong type of zone, but it's also easy to move between them on any character you want.
Exactly. In summary, because essentially no one would use it.
No one? How you know that?
Albion Online, has 8k players on steam only. ESO has 13k
A little game that can't crutch on a big IP and has full loot pvp zones and is pvp centric has 8k players.
He/she should have said "almost no one'. And that's relative to the amount of PvE players. Other than that, I think he has a point. The cost of a separate PVP server simply won't justify the gains, if any are to be had at all.
Your Steam player base arguments are irrelevant to the subject. ESO is simply not a PvP game and most likely never will be. You're comparing apples to bananas.
What does even mean ESO is not a PvP game? A game is what developers offer, they could totally offer interesting PvP in ESO.
That would require some resource investment, it's clear they are happy with investing little resource just to mantain the playerbase that spend money in clown crates and just want a casual theme park.
There are different developers instead that have a greater vision, just to name one, BDO, a totally not PvP centric game, has just introduced a new 300Vs300 PvP mode.2 -
Kendaric✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Those numbers don't prove anything on their own... of the 8k players of Albion, how many do actually engage in PvP or even enter the PvP zones at all?
New World, for example, has supposedly 12k players and while wars frequently happen, you rarely see anyone flagged for PvP in the world unless an "influence race" happens. And even then, the number of people flagging is limited.
A PvP server simply wouldn't be economically viable.
Do you even know the game? Have you ever played it?
Seems to me a lot of you have your agenda, continue to say that a PvP sever is not viable because you don't want that to happen.
Don't worry, they will never do it, but saying that there aren't many people interested in good PvP out there is totally false.
Yes, I know Albion, I played it for a while even and I still play New World (albeit infrequently).
And I stand by what I've said, a PvP server wouldn't be economically viable. There is a reason after all why many MMORPGs have moved away from having separate PvP servers in favor of having PvP instances. And even those instances are mainly barren wastelands...0 -
Veryamedliel✭✭✭<snip>
What does even mean ESO is not a PvP game? A game is what developers offer, they could totally offer interesting PvP in ESO.
That would require some resource investment, it's clear they are happy with investing little resource just to mantain the playerbase that spend money in clown crates and just want a casual theme park.
There are different developers instead that have a greater vision, just to name one, BDO, a totally not PvP centric game, has just introduced a new 300Vs300 PvP mode.
Offering pvp is not the same as being a pvp game. And, as you say, ESO chooses to maintain the status quo when it comes to PVP. That's their choice, regardless of what some people would like instead. Could they make different choices? Of course they could. And as long as their core business (PvE) doesn't suffer, I wouldn't mind if they did. But they don't because it's not an efficient way of allocating their resources in their current business model. And if you wish to change that, all I can say is 'good luck with that'. I don't mean that sarcastically. The odds just aren't in your favor.
And yes. some publishers make different choices. But all this is off-topic, as neither BDO nor New World has opened a dedicated PVP server as far as I know. They just choose to give PvP more attention. Nothing more or less. ZoS makes different choices.Edited by Veryamedliel on March 6, 2024 4:13PM0 -
SaffronCitrusflower✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Do you mean why can't they allow players to choose between a pure PvP version of the game (or possibly PvPvE) and a pure PvE one?
I suspect they can, but choose not to because it's proven unpopular in other games. There's relatively few people who only ever play PvP or never play PvP under any circumstances so completely separating them inconveniences more people than it benefits. Even if you can still play on both the need to have seperate characters, log out of one server and into the other (and for ESO having crown store purchases separated by server) makes it more annoying, and less likely people who only rarely play PvP (or PvE) will bother.
What we've got now is basically a more convenient version of that. PvP and PvE are still seperate - you'll never accidentally find yourself in the wrong type of zone, but it's also easy to move between them on any character you want.
Exactly. In summary, because essentially no one would use it.
In 2014-2015 the population cap in Cyrodiil was 600/faction, and the campaigns still pop locked during prime time. The demand for Cyrodiil PvP has not changed since then. What's changed is support from ZOS for the zone has declined so far that it drove the PvP player population away from the game. Now the population caps are 60-80/faction and still performance is bad. It doesn't have to be this way, and if ZOS put in the effort and the server support many PvP players would come back to the game very quickly if Cyodiil went back to working even a fraction as good as it used to.
The problem absolutely is not that people wouldn't fill up the zone if performance and population caps of old were restored, the problem is that ZOS doesn't support the zone so players have given up hope that ZOS will ever again support the zone and have left the game as a result.3 -
majulook✭✭✭✭✭
✭@majulook Interesting explanation.
So if I get this right, the fundamental difference between PvE zones and Cyrodiil is that the PvE zones do not have a map-state that is shared between all players in that zone, whereas Cyrodiil campaigns by necessity do. As a result, PvE players can be distributed over parallel worlds almost seamlessly, but PvP players cannot. Add to that the extra workload of combat interaction between players and it is easy to see why a PvP zone would have to be differently provisioned altogether. But is it, technically speaking? Or is it just a zone like all others, except way over-stressed?
Yes in a nutshell.
PVP Cyrodiil is its own Zone similar to others the difference is that each campaign needs to be separate from the others so that all players in a particular campaign are in the same "world" and no interaction happen between the differant campaigns. Then you have the difference in how Chat functions in Cyrodiil it is separated between Alliances so that you can use the zone chat and only players in your alliance can see it. In other zones the zone chat is global and spans all phases of the particular zone.
Over-stress is probably due to lack of ZOS really taking the time needed to make it playable with large scale populations like it had originally, or even the smaller pop-lock there is now. I remember Keep battles with several groups of 12 players it was chaotic and fun. Have not seen those in a long time, But Cyrodiil is still busy, but not like it was. I believe lots of dedicated PVP players left out of frustration.
Si vis pacem, para bellum0 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Those numbers don't prove anything on their own... of the 8k players of Albion, how many do actually engage in PvP or even enter the PvP zones at all?
New World, for example, has supposedly 12k players and while wars frequently happen, you rarely see anyone flagged for PvP in the world unless an "influence race" happens. And even then, the number of people flagging is limited.
A PvP server simply wouldn't be economically viable.
Agreed.
Whether PvPers like it or not, ESO is predominantly a quest-based PvE game, as all TES titles were totally, of course. As such, nobody wants to be ganked while questing, let alone while talking to a quest NPC, and even if a significant number of players did want to PvP in the open world on an open PvP server, they'd all crowd around the Vulkhel Guard wayshrine or else they'd have to run around a massive game world in the forlorn hope of finding someone they could jump.3 -
Northwold✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »Do you mean why can't they allow players to choose between a pure PvP version of the game (or possibly PvPvE) and a pure PvE one?
I suspect they can, but choose not to because it's proven unpopular in other games. There's relatively few people who only ever play PvP or never play PvP under any circumstances so completely separating them inconveniences more people than it benefits. Even if you can still play on both the need to have seperate characters, log out of one server and into the other (and for ESO having crown store purchases separated by server) makes it more annoying, and less likely people who only rarely play PvP (or PvE) will bother.
What we've got now is basically a more convenient version of that. PvP and PvE are still seperate - you'll never accidentally find yourself in the wrong type of zone, but it's also easy to move between them on any character you want.
Exactly. In summary, because essentially no one would use it.
In 2014-2015 the population cap in Cyrodiil was 600/faction, and the campaigns still pop locked during prime time. The demand for Cyrodiil PvP has not changed since then. What's changed is support from ZOS for the zone has declined so far that it drove the PvP player population away from the game. Now the population caps are 60-80/faction and still performance is bad. It doesn't have to be this way, and if ZOS put in the effort and the server support many PvP players would come back to the game very quickly if Cyodiil went back to working even a fraction as good as it used to.
The problem absolutely is not that people wouldn't fill up the zone if performance and population caps of old were restored, the problem is that ZOS doesn't support the zone so players have given up hope that ZOS will ever again support the zone and have left the game as a result.
I'm not sure this is the subject under discussion. I think people are talking about a separate server making *the entire world* PvP. To all intents and purposes Cyrodiil already functions as multiple distinct servers, which, obviously, are PvP.Edited by Northwold on March 6, 2024 7:58PM1 -
valenwood_vegan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭I'm not sure if the topic here involves devoting more server resources to existing pvp or adding a "new" eso server where pvp is enabled everywhere?
I'm not much of a pvp'er but even I can agree that it could use more resources.
But if we're talking about the latter, it would be way more involved then just flipping a switch - the regular pve zones were not designed to accommodate pvp. Some examples: There are no pvp objectives or chokepoints... mostly just quests... but who is going to go on a pvp server to quest when you could get ganked at any time while in a quest dialogue? So what would people even do? Just run around in circles looking for other players to fight on a giant map? The world is gigantic and the pvp population is not - it would probably be hard to find anyone.
There are no provisions for "safe" areas in which to respawn / craft / interact with merchants. Players can move in and out of different instances depending on their current quest state in that area, or can walk into a dungeon or delve or a new zone at will (which could be used to easily "escape" from others). There are tons of loading screens. Players can group with others of opposing factions. PvP occurring in the middle of and interrupting quests (which are much more complex than the ones in cyro) has a high potential to lead to broken quest states. Pvp among a large number of NPC's and in more detailed environments (as compared to cyro) could cause significant performance issues. Etc., etc.
I'm not really going to get into the argument over whether it would be popular to have an open-world pvp server other than to say I wouldn't go anywhere near such a thing, just wanted to point out that it would require a lot of development work beyond "here, pvp is enabled now".Edited by valenwood_vegan on March 6, 2024 8:14PM1 -
Quackery✭✭✭✭✭valenwood_vegan wrote: »I'm not sure if the topic here involves devoting more server resources to existing pvp or adding a "new" eso server where pvp is enabled everywhere?
I'm not much of a pvp'er but even I can agree that it could use more resources.
But if we're talking about the latter, it would be way more involved then just flipping a switch - the regular pve zones were not designed to accommodate pvp. Some examples: There are no pvp objectives or chokepoints... mostly just quests... but who is going to go on a pvp server to quest when you could get ganked at any time while in a quest dialogue? So what would people even do? Just run around in circles looking for other players to fight on a giant map? The world is gigantic and the pvp population is not - it would probably be hard to find anyone.
There are no provisions for "safe" areas in which to respawn / craft / interact with merchants. Players can move in and out of different instances depending on their current quest state in that area, or can walk into a dungeon or delve or a new zone at will (which could be used to easily "escape" from others). There are tons of loading screens. Players can group with others of opposing factions. PvP occurring in the middle of and interrupting quests (which are much more complex than the ones in cyro) has a high potential to lead to broken quest states. Pvp among a large number of NPC's and in more detailed environments (as compared to cyro) could cause significant performance issues. Etc., etc.
I'm not really going to get into the argument over whether it would be popular to have an open-world pvp server other than to say I wouldn't go anywhere near such a thing, just wanted to point out that it would require a lot of development work beyond "here, pvp is enabled now".
No, I'm talking about a specific Cyrodiil-server or PvP-server where it includes Cyrodiil, Imperial City and Battlegrounds. It would also allow ZOS to separate the functions of skills and gear, to not nerf or improve them to absurd levels.0 -
Northwold✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭valenwood_vegan wrote: »I'm not sure if the topic here involves devoting more server resources to existing pvp or adding a "new" eso server where pvp is enabled everywhere?
I'm not much of a pvp'er but even I can agree that it could use more resources.
But if we're talking about the latter, it would be way more involved then just flipping a switch - the regular pve zones were not designed to accommodate pvp. Some examples: There are no pvp objectives or chokepoints... mostly just quests... but who is going to go on a pvp server to quest when you could get ganked at any time while in a quest dialogue? So what would people even do? Just run around in circles looking for other players to fight on a giant map? The world is gigantic and the pvp population is not - it would probably be hard to find anyone.
There are no provisions for "safe" areas in which to respawn / craft / interact with merchants. Players can move in and out of different instances depending on their current quest state in that area, or can walk into a dungeon or delve or a new zone at will (which could be used to easily "escape" from others). There are tons of loading screens. Players can group with others of opposing factions. PvP occurring in the middle of and interrupting quests (which are much more complex than the ones in cyro) has a high potential to lead to broken quest states. Pvp among a large number of NPC's and in more detailed environments (as compared to cyro) could cause significant performance issues. Etc., etc.
I'm not really going to get into the argument over whether it would be popular to have an open-world pvp server other than to say I wouldn't go anywhere near such a thing, just wanted to point out that it would require a lot of development work beyond "here, pvp is enabled now".
No, I'm talking about a specific Cyrodiil-server or PvP-server where it includes Cyrodiil, Imperial City and Battlegrounds. It would also allow ZOS to separate the functions of skills and gear, to not nerf or improve them to absurd levels.
Any game of ESO's size is already running on many, many, many machines, even if they're presented to users as "one" server. So in practice the reality is that Cyrodiil, Imperial City, Battlegrounds etc almost certainly *are* running on distinct "servers" already.
So I guess you're raising two questions:
(1) Why isn't more computing resource devoted to PvP.
(2) Why is PvP not wholly ringfenced from the games PvE systems / world.
On point 1, only ZOS can answer. They know what they consider commercial viable.
On point 2, questions of character portability come up if you do a true ringfence. Would players be able, in PvP, to use the same characters they use in PvE? If so, how would the data be transferred and what impact would that have on compute load. If not, are there actually enough players who *only* ever want to play Cyro etc to justify a wholly separate world.
Assuming that, de facto, Cyrodiil is already running using dedicated server resources (and I can't imagine it isn't, although the allocation of resources *might* be dynamic depending on demand), if you want to give characters and gear different attributes in PvP than PvE, a simpler way to do that without completely breaking the link between the two systems would be to give gear and characters two sets of stats, one for PvE and one for PvP.
Edited by Northwold on March 7, 2024 9:42AM2