frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Hey! I have a couple of facts too! I've ran in a 24 men group and experience zero lag and other days I've been doing my solo thing on ducking brindle farm, not a blue nearby and maybe 3 to 5 yellows, and my ping is going through the roof. I'm talking 600 to 1k ping for 20 minutes or something. Now that's a fact, not an opinion. What is an opinion is you pretending your little 16 men group is doing anything to improve lag. You can keep doing your cute small man and telling yourself "outnumbered! We so gud!", nobody cares. But you going on and on about this miracle fix for the game's performance has to stop.

I'm not doing this to call myself "outnumbered!" or "We so gud!". My guild is casual and most players don't have the time to spend to be competitive so I could care less about that. I run 16men because I know by fact that it helps a ton server performances.

A fact not supported by any of my experiences in the game these past weeks. Just your own.

Sure let's call that a fact.

I suggest that you go watch the videos linked in comment #165 of this thread. My ping is constantly spiking between 300 and 600ms because of the 24+ ballgroup doing laps in Aleswell farm village. They are not even spamming aoes and fighting the few DCs yet. Just the fact that they are moving around in an area close to each other, it spikes my ping to 300-600ms. Now imagine an additional group of 24 being part of that and engaging each other in an aoe fight.. boom 1200-2k ms.

I'm gonna keep those videos coming and I will also stream my official weekly PvP event and show you how it goes when I run a 16men group. Huge difference.

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Hey! I have a couple of facts too! I've ran in a 24 men group and experience zero lag and other days I've been doing my solo thing on ducking brindle farm, not a blue nearby and maybe 3 to 5 yellows, and my ping is going through the roof. I'm talking 600 to 1k ping for 20 minutes or something. Now that's a fact, not an opinion. What is an opinion is you pretending your little 16 men group is doing anything to improve lag. You can keep doing your cute small man and telling yourself "outnumbered! We so gud!", nobody cares. But you going on and on about this miracle fix for the game's performance has to stop.

I'm not doing this to call myself "outnumbered!" or "We so gud!". My guild is casual and most players don't have the time to spend to be competitive so I could care less about that. I run 16men because I know by fact that it helps a ton server performances.

A fact not supported by any of my experiences in the game these past weeks. Just your own.

Sure let's call that a fact.

I suggest that you go watch the videos linked in comment #165 of this thread. My ping is constantly spiking between 300 and 600ms because of the 24+ ballgroup doing laps in Aleswell farm village. They are not even spamming aoes and fighting the few DCs yet. Just the fact that they are moving around in an area close to each other, it spikes my ping to 300-600ms. Now imagine an additional group of 24 being part of that and engaging each other in an aoe fight.. boom 1200-2k ms.

I'm gonna keep those videos coming and I will also stream my official weekly PvP event and show you how it goes when I run a 16men group. Huge difference.

I can show you a video of me running around brindle farm, completely alone, and laging to ***. Unless you can do some test with 24 and 16 men groups under the same exact conditions, you have no reason to say what you are claiming. Doing that test is pretty much impossible, so please stop.

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Hey! I have a couple of facts too! I've ran in a 24 men group and experience zero lag and other days I've been doing my solo thing on ducking brindle farm, not a blue nearby and maybe 3 to 5 yellows, and my ping is going through the roof. I'm talking 600 to 1k ping for 20 minutes or something. Now that's a fact, not an opinion. What is an opinion is you pretending your little 16 men group is doing anything to improve lag. You can keep doing your cute small man and telling yourself "outnumbered! We so gud!", nobody cares. But you going on and on about this miracle fix for the game's performance has to stop.

I'm not doing this to call myself "outnumbered!" or "We so gud!". My guild is casual and most players don't have the time to spend to be competitive so I could care less about that. I run 16men because I know by fact that it helps a ton server performances.

A fact not supported by any of my experiences in the game these past weeks. Just your own.

Sure let's call that a fact.

I suggest that you go watch the videos linked in comment #165 of this thread. My ping is constantly spiking between 300 and 600ms because of the 24+ ballgroup doing laps in Aleswell farm village. They are not even spamming aoes and fighting the few DCs yet. Just the fact that they are moving around in an area close to each other, it spikes my ping to 300-600ms. Now imagine an additional group of 24 being part of that and engaging each other in an aoe fight.. boom 1200-2k ms.

I'm gonna keep those videos coming and I will also stream my official weekly PvP event and show you how it goes when I run a 16men group. Huge difference.

I can show you a video of me running around brindle farm, completely alone, and laging to ***. Unless you can do some test with 24 and 16 men groups under the same exact conditions, you have no reason to say what you are claiming. Doing that test is pretty much impossible, so please stop.

Not sure what's your point claiming that you running solo in an area while your ping spike means something. It simply points out that there is one or more of the factors I explained in a previous post involved at a different location on the map. Brian Wheeler already explained the fact that server latency issues may happen in one location but the consequences touch everybody in the individual instance (either Cyrodiil, IC sewers, IC districts, Cyrodiil delves).

So a 24 men group moving around an empty keep is unaffected by what's happening on the server and they are causing lag on their own?

PosternHouse wrote: »

24 people engages 16 people. The 8 more people in the 24, compared to the 16, are causing all the lag? 24 people engages 48+ people in an area, and it is the 24 people causing all the lag?

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Hey! I have a couple of facts too! I've ran in a 24 men group and experience zero lag and other days I've been doing my solo thing on ducking brindle farm, not a blue nearby and maybe 3 to 5 yellows, and my ping is going through the roof. I'm talking 600 to 1k ping for 20 minutes or something. Now that's a fact, not an opinion. What is an opinion is you pretending your little 16 men group is doing anything to improve lag. You can keep doing your cute small man and telling yourself "outnumbered! We so gud!", nobody cares. But you going on and on about this miracle fix for the game's performance has to stop.

I'm not doing this to call myself "outnumbered!" or "We so gud!". My guild is casual and most players don't have the time to spend to be competitive so I could care less about that. I run 16men because I know by fact that it helps a ton server performances.

A fact not supported by any of my experiences in the game these past weeks. Just your own.

Sure let's call that a fact.

I suggest that you go watch the videos linked in comment #165 of this thread. My ping is constantly spiking between 300 and 600ms because of the 24+ ballgroup doing laps in Aleswell farm village. They are not even spamming aoes and fighting the few DCs yet. Just the fact that they are moving around in an area close to each other, it spikes my ping to 300-600ms. Now imagine an additional group of 24 being part of that and engaging each other in an aoe fight.. boom 1200-2k ms.

I'm gonna keep those videos coming and I will also stream my official weekly PvP event and show you how it goes when I run a 16men group. Huge difference.

I can show you a video of me running around brindle farm, completely alone, and laging to ***. Unless you can do some test with 24 and 16 men groups under the same exact conditions, you have no reason to say what you are claiming. Doing that test is pretty much impossible, so please stop.

Not sure what's your point claiming that you running solo in an area while your ping spike means something. It simply points out that there is one or more of the factors I explained in a previous post involved at a different location on the map. Brian Wheeler already explained the fact that server latency issues may happen in one location but the consequences touch everybody in the individual instance (either Cyrodiil, IC sewers, IC districts, Cyrodiil delves).

So a 24 men group moving around an empty keep is unaffected by what's happening on the server and they are causing lag on their own?

No, a 24men group engaging enemies dealing massive amount of aoes and creating a ton of calculations all at once on the server while all 3 factions are max pop and while there might be other fights happening on the map. Btw I'm repeating myself just for you. I've explained all of this serveral times in this and other threads already.

So how is your little idea of 16 men group fixing everything even possible? There are always more people around you, it's the nature of the game and always will be, pugs and small groups are drawn to the swords and keeps under attack.
This will be my last reply to you, I just wanted to get your reasoning behind your claims and "facts". It doesn't make much sense to me, but to each their own.

frozywozy wrote: »

Those additional 8 players are still in the same campaign doing their thing, that's for sure. But they are not dealing in a synchronized manner, aoes at the same time on the server increasing the amount of calculation for a short period of time.

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Interesting how when we do run your magic number I have the same lag as when I'm in a group of 24, and interesting how there are times when in a group of 24 there's no lag whatsoever.

We play for about 5+ hours every night, 6 days a week, and I'll do smaller group stuff on the weekend mornings/days. On average, we're at full capacity for maybe half our play time, on good days. Some days we're typing "VE for pvp" in guild chat every 10 minutes trying to get more in group. I like how you know better than someone who actually raids with the group every night what our numbers are like - you're delusional.

frozywozy wrote: »

Leovolao wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Question to everyone: Would any of you care about people stacking raids if it did not impact the performance of the server negatively?

I can never tell if people are mad at the action, of the result. Or mad at the action BECAUSE OF the result.

Absolutely would still care. Zerg to win, imo, means one didn't earn that campaign win, emperorship, spot of the leader boards, etc. If you can't achieve something with 24 freaking people, then you need to rethink your tactics and group comp. If you happen to have a big guild, don't stack the groups, send your raid 2 somewhere else, better yet - go first come, first serve policy for spots.

There's still alot of leaders out there that 99.9% of the time are capping their groups at 16 (not on AZ of course because said leaders like to play with more than 3 fps). It makes the game alot more competitive, challenging and demands your best as a player. It's far more gratifying to know you won the round because you had the skill, not the overwhelming numbers.

In addition to the toxicity pointed out by a few people thus far, I'd say this is another byproduct. People suffer from the placebo effect and think that running 16 instead of 20 makes some sort of difference in performance, likewise for 24. The majority of the time at LEAST 1 person is afk, crashed, or not near the group when running large at 24. The 16 man group is an artifact from the yesteryears when people cared about optimal AP, and is also a byproduct of current day ESO hipsters trying to convince themselves that it has any noticeable effect on performance while wearing it on their sleeve so all can see they aren't 'zerglings'. This isn't a dig against khole (I like a super majority of people in there that I've met), but rather, a critique on the persisting mentality that 16 has any difference at all on performance compared to when you add literally a few more players to group. People who want to cap a group size because they prefer small man - that's one thing. People who want to cap a group size to an artificial number because they've convinced themselves it has any impact on performance when there are 10 pugs surrounding you,

Frankly, the '16' and (thankfully mostly died out) '8-man' arguments are just another means to attack each other for no reason and with little basis in reality.

Incoming wall of text from frozn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wall of text :

I have ran in a 16men group in the actual meta for several hours on different days on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was fighting another 16men group with a stable 200-300ms.

I have led the past week a group of 24men in the actual meta for several hours on Azura star with max pop and multiple fights happening on the map while I was engaging another 24men group with a ping spiking up to 800-1200ms.

These are facts, not opinion. Now tell me, did you try running in a 16men group yet? No. Talk to me about facts and theories when you refuse to test all hypothesis yourself. I also like how you lower the amount of a max group size to 20 or use the expression "just a few more" when you explain yourself to compare a 16men to a 24men group.

Put it straight, this is 8 more players spamming aoes, not 4 or a few more.

Hey! I have a couple of facts too! I've ran in a 24 men group and experience zero lag and other days I've been doing my solo thing on ducking brindle farm, not a blue nearby and maybe 3 to 5 yellows, and my ping is going through the roof. I'm talking 600 to 1k ping for 20 minutes or something. Now that's a fact, not an opinion. What is an opinion is you pretending your little 16 men group is doing anything to improve lag. You can keep doing your cute small man and telling yourself "outnumbered! We so gud!", nobody cares. But you going on and on about this miracle fix for the game's performance has to stop.

I'm not doing this to call myself "outnumbered!" or "We so gud!". My guild is casual and most players don't have the time to spend to be competitive so I could care less about that. I run 16men because I know by fact that it helps a ton server performances. Now if you wanna run in a 24men group and think you are totally blameless, by all mean do it but don't come and insult me if I decide to run 16 for the sake of better performances.

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

PosternHouse wrote: »

24 people engages 16 people. The 8 more people in the 24, compared to the 16, are causing all the lag? 24 people engages 48+ people in an area, and it is the 24 people causing all the lag?

What if 20 people engage 20 people? Does each extra 4 cause the lag?? I must know!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes. Gkicks inc for those 4.

PosternHouse wrote: »

PainfulFAFA wrote: »

People swarming in one area is a problem, yea, but when you got all those people meteor bombing at the same time, the ping goes an extra 300+ which is what this thread was originally trying to get.

Theres the regular azuras lag, then theres the 999+ that happens everytime a full group meteor bombs another group.

One thing i noticed while yesterday when a blue guild kept getting wiped by a yellow guild was that the blue guild decided to slot meteor and lo and behold when the meteor bombs happened you could instantly notice incredibly higher ping not normal to what we usually experience. And everytime, they meteor bombed the yellow group would wipe. Only one time the meteor bomb didnt work (it was at roe mine) and that was because only like 8 meteors were up and not 20 and the blue guild wiped. Im not trying to turn this into a blue vs yellow.

The point is, *** like meteor is causing even mote lag. Wheeler has already confirmed the fact that high tier abilities like meteor causes more stress to the server and the OP is reminding everyone about that.

But hey, if 20 meteor bombs is what it takes for you to pull a win, go for it. Much easier to tell who are the bads that way.
Thornblade all over again.

Meteor causes lag because of line of sight checks. You know what else does? Proximity Detonation. Maybe you should stop lagging the server with your Proximity Detonations.

Jules wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

Loop this song on repeat to remind people to spread out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jBDnYE1WjI

Problem solved.



#thisisnowamusicthread
#stopfightingstartdancing

http://youtu.be/eH3giaIzONA
#stopfightingstartdancing

OOOOOOO WHITNEY

I see you Whit & Raise you a B52

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

I got you girl:
http://youtu.be/PIb6AZdTr-A

CRAP. How do I one up that?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEjgPh4SEmU ??

http://youtu.be/rY0WxgSXdEE