Believe it or not, Cyrodiil was not always laggy; in fact...

IKilled007 · October 2015

Way back when the game first came out, there were massive battles on servers like Auriel's Bow with hundreds on each of the three factions fighting at the same keep virtually lag free. So what happened? Well the lighting patch happened. But there was a rumor also: that ZOS put a layer of code -- some kind of logging program or something on top of the game to prevent all the cheating that was rampant at launch -- kind of like Punkbuster but something of their own creation. That's when Cyrodiil became mostly unplayable for huge force on force engagements. The old-timers know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I'm just saying all this to point out that even with thousands of people on the same server spamming keys, the game doesn't have to be a lag fest. It's that way because of ZOS' choices.

Minnesinger · October 2015

IKilled007 wrote: »

Way back when the game first came out, there were massive battles on servers like Auriel's Bow with hundreds on each of the three factions fighting at the same keep virtually lag free. So what happened? Well the lighting patch happened. But there was a rumor also: that ZOS put a layer of code -- some kind of logging program or something on top of the game to prevent all the cheating that was rampant at launch -- kind of like Punkbuster but something of their own creation. That's when Cyrodiil became mostly unplayable for huge force on force engagements. The old-timers know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I'm just saying all this to point out that even with thousands of people on the same server spamming keys, the game doesn't have to be a lag fest. It's that way because of ZOS' choices.

During the first weeks one could see a line of hundred players going to their objective. 24/7 fighting. Those times

IKilled007 · October 2015

Minnesinger wrote: »

IKilled007 wrote: »

Way back when the game first came out, there were massive battles on servers like Auriel's Bow with hundreds on each of the three factions fighting at the same keep virtually lag free. So what happened? Well the lighting patch happened. But there was a rumor also: that ZOS put a layer of code -- some kind of logging program or something on top of the game to prevent all the cheating that was rampant at launch -- kind of like Punkbuster but something of their own creation. That's when Cyrodiil became mostly unplayable for huge force on force engagements. The old-timers know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I'm just saying all this to point out that even with thousands of people on the same server spamming keys, the game doesn't have to be a lag fest. It's that way because of ZOS' choices.

During the first weeks one could see a line of hundred players going to their objective. 24/7 fighting. Those times

Right? And every valley in Cyrodiil had targets of opportunity to gank. Was so much fun.

Kronuxx · October 2015

You also have to remember there were a lot of bots in the beginning days of eso...for what it's worth.

IKilled007 · October 2015

Kronuxx wrote: »

You also have to remember there were a lot of bots in the beginning days of eso...for what it's worth.

Bots, dupers, people with radar, exploiters, etc.

Jura23 · October 2015

Kronuxx wrote: »

You also have to remember there were a lot of bots in the beginning days of eso...for what it's worth.

I get your point, but personally I care more about my own playing experience than what other ppl are doing.

Bashev · October 2015

At that time the AoE spam wasnt so strong. Plus all the rest that the OP stated.

altemriel · October 2015

Interresting, so this should be addressed as the main problem. Not its results.

Islyn · October 2015

IKilled007 wrote: »

Way back when the game first came out, there were massive battles on servers like Auriel's Bow with hundreds on each of the three factions fighting at the same keep virtually lag free. So what happened? Well the lighting patch happened. But there was a rumor also: that ZOS put a layer of code -- some kind of logging program or something on top of the game to prevent all the cheating that was rampant at launch -- kind of like Punkbuster but something of their own creation. That's when Cyrodiil became mostly unplayable for huge force on force engagements. The old-timers know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I'm just saying all this to point out that even with thousands of people on the same server spamming keys, the game doesn't have to be a lag fest. It's that way because of ZOS' choices.

This. I remember too!

IKilled007 · October 2015

altemriel wrote: »

Interresting, so this should be addressed as the main problem. Not its results.

Only if you want to have the lag-free experience ZOS marketed this game as when it launched.

IKilled007 · October 2015

"We will make sure that no matter where you live, every player in North America, Europe, Oceania and many places beyond, will have a polished, lag-free launch experience. Based on the existing number of our beta signups and because we anticipate that the ESO community will continue to grow after launch, we plan to add capacity to keep up with demand in both our North American and European datacenters."

Well I guess, technically, they didn't claim PvP would be lag free... just the launch.

sadownik · October 2015

IKilled007 wrote: »

Minnesinger wrote: »

IKilled007 wrote: »

Way back when the game first came out, there were massive battles on servers like Auriel's Bow with hundreds on each of the three factions fighting at the same keep virtually lag free. So what happened? Well the lighting patch happened. But there was a rumor also: that ZOS put a layer of code -- some kind of logging program or something on top of the game to prevent all the cheating that was rampant at launch -- kind of like Punkbuster but something of their own creation. That's when Cyrodiil became mostly unplayable for huge force on force engagements. The old-timers know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I'm just saying all this to point out that even with thousands of people on the same server spamming keys, the game doesn't have to be a lag fest. It's that way because of ZOS' choices.

During the first weeks one could see a line of hundred players going to their objective. 24/7 fighting. Those times

Right? And every valley in Cyrodiil had targets of opportunity to gank. Was so much fun.

Thats when i fell in love in pvp in ESO, but since then it feels like abusive relationship.

UltimaJoe777 · October 2015

I actually play lag-free almost always despite having a slow internet speed and the lag is usually either caused by a server issue if any are present or my internet being pre-occupied by my PC somehow. In Cyrodiil I don't honestly lag anymore than I would anywhere else in-game. Some people's connections just deal with frame rates and crowds better than others is all.

firstdecan · October 2015

Let's be fair. If ZoS' choice was between increasing their processing overhead and letting cheaters run rampant, then they made the right choice.

Assuming they did add an extra layer of "cheat protection" on the server, it would be nice if they could find a way to optimize it \ run it more efficiently. Unfortunately, adding any layer of verification \ security to any system usually means running redundancies \ checks for verification. It increases overhead. The addition of the "cheat protection" code is a rumor - nothing like that has been confirmed by ZoS (nor do I think they're obligated to do so).

Please don't interpret this as being apologist, I would love to have some of the huge battles we had pre lighting patch, those were so chaotic and intense it was fascinating. At the same time, there were a lot more cheaters and that made the game frustrating for people who just wanted to have fun. The only real way to improve the performance would be to simplify the underlying game mechanics, which would reduce the client \ server messaging (and verification of that messaging). Such an "improvement" could negatively impact responsiveness, make the controls feel laggier all the time, or even make the game combat more simplistic (and less interesting). Of course, it's also possible that some well thought out optimization could improve everything.

Given enough time, I'm sure ZoS will get it right. I just have to wonder how much time "enough" is.

daemonios · October 2015

firstdecan wrote: »

Let's be fair. If ZoS' choice was between increasing their processing overhead and letting cheaters run rampant, then they made the right choice.

Assuming they did add an extra layer of "cheat protection" on the server, it would be nice if they could find a way to optimize it \ run it more efficiently. Unfortunately, adding any layer of verification \ security to any system usually means running redundancies \ checks for verification. It increases overhead. The addition of the "cheat protection" code is a rumor - nothing like that has been confirmed by ZoS (nor do I think they're obligated to do so).

Please don't interpret this as being apologist, I would love to have some of the huge battles we had pre lighting patch, those were so chaotic and intense it was fascinating. At the same time, there were a lot more cheaters and that made the game frustrating for people who just wanted to have fun. The only real way to improve the performance would be to simplify the underlying game mechanics, which would reduce the client \ server messaging (and verification of that messaging). Such an "improvement" could negatively impact responsiveness, make the controls feel laggier all the time, or even make the game combat more simplistic (and less interesting). Of course, it's also possible that some well thought out optimization could improve everything.

Given enough time, I'm sure ZoS will get it right. I just have to wonder how much time "enough" is.

I'm not so sure they made the right choice. You seem to assume there was only a choice between no action and the action taken by ZOS. Maybe there was an alternative action that could have dealt with cheaters/bots and had less impact on game performance. I would have implemented a serious ban hammer (with due opportunity for players to state their cases) and heavily publicised the resulting bans. I don't understand the "no naming and shaming" policy as applied to final ZOS decisions, knowing that you can and will get banned for cheating would be a good deterrent.

PBpsy · October 2015

I really don't believe it. Never quite bought into the whole lighting patch business. I think it all started when they began pawning their servers one by one.

Messy1 · October 2015

I enjoy not having bots and for the most part I play lag free, but the performance needs improvement

ADarklore · October 2015

You also have to remember that this is also the company who had to scrap and completely redevelop their console versions at the last minute as well, which added an extra year to console launch. The point being, I'm not sure they have the most knowledgeable people in the industry working for them.

Tan9oSuccka · October 2015

ADarklore wrote: »

You also have to remember that this is also the company who had to scrap and completely redevelop their console versions at the last minute as well, which added an extra year to console launch. The point being, I'm not sure they have the most knowledgeable people in the industry working for them.

Get a grip. There's one guy on another thread that had an average best ping of 350 ms.

It happens in all games. Servers take a pounding with guys like that.

Sausage · October 2015

Umm, first 3 month it was totally unplayable then it was quite lagless like 8 month or so.

Malmai · October 2015

IKilled007 wrote: »

Way back when the game first came out, there were massive battles on servers like Auriel's Bow with hundreds on each of the three factions fighting at the same keep virtually lag free. So what happened? Well the lighting patch happened. But there was a rumor also: that ZOS put a layer of code -- some kind of logging program or something on top of the game to prevent all the cheating that was rampant at launch -- kind of like Punkbuster but something of their own creation. That's when Cyrodiil became mostly unplayable for huge force on force engagements. The old-timers know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I'm just saying all this to point out that even with thousands of people on the same server spamming keys, the game doesn't have to be a lag fest. It's that way because of ZOS' choices.

Yes i remember performance was way way better, i dont even log to cyrodiil anymore... and yes ZOS is incompetent the lagfest is real even in districts.

-Loading screen boss
-Fps drops
-Lagfest
-Falling from sky bug

There are endless lists of bugs in this game that are out since April 2014, nobody cares cause all old players mostly left...

Pallmor · October 2015

IKilled007 wrote: »

Way back when the game first came out, there were massive battles on servers like Auriel's Bow with hundreds on each of the three factions fighting at the same keep virtually lag free. So what happened? Well the lighting patch happened. But there was a rumor also: that ZOS put a layer of code -- some kind of logging program or something on top of the game to prevent all the cheating that was rampant at launch -- kind of like Punkbuster but something of their own creation. That's when Cyrodiil became mostly unplayable for huge force on force engagements. The old-timers know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I'm just saying all this to point out that even with thousands of people on the same server spamming keys, the game doesn't have to be a lag fest. It's that way because of ZOS' choices.

You must have watched Sypher's recent podcast on that too. I loved some of the old footage he showed, illustrating what the old massive battles used to look like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D4FGw_ro1o

Sharkano · October 2015

We used to have forward camps and hordes of people would spawn and spawn, making keep fights really awesome. Now 20 people show up and it's a lagfest. They themselves have destroyed their own game. Pathetic.

SturgeHammer · October 2015

I must be playing a different game than everyone claming Cyrodiil was once lag free. I too have played this since beta and, to the best of my recollection, there has always been lag, lots of lag. It's significantly worse now than then, but I can't recall a time where Cyrodiil ran consistently smooth.

Zouni · October 2015

Who remembers the deer in Cyrodiil? First victims of the lag issues.

R.I.P Bambi

MrBeatDown · October 2015

Cyrodiil used to run very smooth for me. Then they released Craglorn, the patch with the lighting improvements, and performance went straight to hell after that. Large scale battles from back then are not possible today, it would crash the server.

Brrrofski · October 2015

Even on console it was fine until IC.

You had a bit of sound lag when jumping on a flag but that was the console's hardware.

Since IC, jumping on a flag is horrendous.

Bar swap and abilities don't work half the time now.

Malmai · October 2015

Brrrofski wrote: »

Even on console it was fine until IC.

You had a bit of sound lag when jumping on a flag but that was the console's hardware.

Since IC, jumping on a flag is horrendous.

Bar swap and abilities don't work half the time now.

-Loading screen boss
-Fps drops
-Lagfest
-Falling from sky bug

There are endless lists of bugs in this game that are out since April 2014, nobody cares cause all old players mostly left...

sirston · October 2015

Oh was a marvelous time! level 45's were the meta and people where still trying to understand how not to stand in oil....I remember when you could dragon leap on to walls then knock people down to your ally's with an uppercut and every person in teamspeak would be laughing at a sight of a Nightblade flying higher then a bird. OR even better when people would brag about the D tick....those were the days.