Sallington wrote: »
You missed the part where it's the player's fault and not the fact that the zone doesn't work as advertised.
Featuring three-sided Player vs. Player (PvP) gameplay, The Elder Scrolls Online supports hundreds of players on screen at once in an open world fight for control of Cyrodiil.
Performance drags when there are numerous players in the same place at the same time...
...Actively, we are looking at changing the behavior of the players to remove incentives for large groups to stay in the same area...
@ZOS_PaulSageZOS_PaulSage wrote: »Just to clarify. There seemed to be a misunderstanding that I was saying we are "giving up" or "blaming this on players." Absolutely not. We are looking at the issue from many angles. I certainly didn't mean to imply we couldn't or wouldn't change code to improve performance, but rather that the answer wasn't more hardware. (It is often suggested this is the best way to fix problems.) I also wasn't implying you shouldn't play naturally, but unfortunately it is true that more players right now in a smaller area causes the performance problems. I say this not to discourage behavior or try push off the issue, but rather to give completely frank information about the root cause.
2) Keep wall decay.(cause, you know,union mason strikes? lol) Many have said it in other terms, but if you have held a keep for too long, then a random outside wall starts to decay. Faster and faster so it will eventually come down even with 100 players trying to repair it. After it comes fully down, it can be repaired as normal again.The other factions will have to have a notification on the map like the crossed swords in order to move to that objective. This takes more people to more random places on the map. "Oh! Look, Farragut has a wall decaying, let's head there!" "But hey, So does Roebeck!"
ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »Hello everyone,
Our Cyrodiil performance is something we are very aware of. Performance drags when there are numerous players in the same place at the same time. This is why performance in Cyrodiil is fine for much of the day, but gets worse during more popular times. We are currently investigating ways in which we can reduce the spike of performance loss. We added in some features for Update 6 which we hoped would help, but ultimately did not. This is not a situation where we can just add more hardware. Player population in a given area hurts the performance and the more people that are in one area, the more performance is going to be hurt.
...
ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »Hello everyone,
Actively, we are looking at changing the behavior of the players to remove incentives for large groups to stay in the same area. We want to do this by providing larger incentives for Alliances to split up and take on multiple-challenges in Cyrodiil. We’ll continue to work on this. We are also asked by players if there is anything they can do to help. In this situation, the best thing you can do is split off to different objectives when you notice performance going down. Cyrodiil is a big place with lots of different things to do. And thank you for asking.
PainfulFAFA wrote: »
I don't understand....if Alessia is the last keep for Emp and knowing that an entire RED Zerg train is approaching are we supposed to abandon it and go somewhere else instead? lol -_-
ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »Hello everyone,
Our Cyrodiil performance is something we are very aware of. Performance drags when there are numerous players in the same place at the same time. This is why performance in Cyrodiil is fine for much of the day, but gets worse during more popular times. We are currently investigating ways in which we can reduce the spike of performance loss. We added in some features for Update 6 which we hoped would help, but ultimately did not. This is not a situation where we can just add more hardware. Player population in a given area hurts the performance and the more people that are in one area, the more performance is going to be hurt.
Actively, we are looking at changing the behavior of the players to remove incentives for large groups to stay in the same area. We want to do this by providing larger incentives for Alliances to split up and take on multiple-challenges in Cyrodiil. We’ll continue to work on this. We are also asked by players if there is anything they can do to help. In this situation, the best thing you can do is split off to different objectives when you notice performance going down. Cyrodiil is a big place with lots of different things to do. And thank you for asking.
heroofnoneb14_ESO wrote: »And if you don't like the idea of Arenas & battlegrounds maybe it would be a good time to consider a hardcore campaign where folks get kicked back to spawn when they die and possible team damage. A bit extreme, but it would be a strong reason not to group up spamming impulse.
Darklord_Tiberius wrote: »Guessing you never played swtor, so you obviously do not understand my reference.
You posted,
"I think that engineers spent more than enough time to try to figure out the way to fix the performance issues in Cyrodiil. It is now time to accept that it isn't going to get better and try to focus on different aspects of PvP that could bring alot of customers / subscribers back."
That all but screams abandon Cyrodiil and focus on Instance PvP. If that was not your intention, may I suggest word choice next time.
Can't help but wonder if it is aoe caps. Too much calculation.
Darklord_Tiberius wrote: »To add to this thread, I cannot help but point out that it is partly the players fault. This games PvP has turned into Blob on Blob. As soon as something is being attacked all players on that faction zerg upon it like it was a bottle of skooma.
Wabbajack cycle one and even Wabbajack cycle two (when everyone from AB came over), had far less lag and it really had to do with the fact battles were taking place all over the map. On average back then, you had 8-12 large 25 v 25 battles happening consistently around the map. Now in any given server you have maybe 3-5 huge battles of 50 v 50 or 50 v 50 v 50. For this I blame the players, so many mediocre and bad players prefer to zerg around rather than play organized or with a good guild. I honestly miss the times Wabbajack had 5-6 organized guilds fighting each other on every side. Now we get maybe 2-3 and the rest of the players zerg, pathetic.
ThatNeonZebraAgain wrote: »
This sounds awesome. Enabling friendly fire and actual death penalties would make things very interesting.
sc_prabhu1986rwb17_ESO wrote: »
To further clarify, the connection with SWTOR is that it too had a zone which was supposed to be Cyrodiil-like in nature (not completely, but similar), where people from differing alliances could come and compete each other for zone control. It was called Ilum.
It failed big time. But instead of trying to fix it (maybe they couldn't fix it, I don't know), the devs instead decided to create more instanced-based pvp maps that were small-scaled (aka arenas/battlegrounds).
ZOS_PaulSage wrote: »Just to clarify. There seemed to be a misunderstanding that I was saying we are "giving up" or "blaming this on players." Absolutely not. We are looking at the issue from many angles. I certainly didn't mean to imply we couldn't or wouldn't change code to improve performance, but rather that the answer wasn't more hardware. (It is often suggested this is the best way to fix problems.) I also wasn't implying you shouldn't play naturally, but unfortunately it is true that more players right now in a smaller area causes the performance problems. I say this not to discourage behavior or try push off the issue, but rather to give completely frank information about the root cause.