Fruitdog wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the devs can tell where the server stress is coming from, that doesn't mean that they can easily find a solution to it. I mean the obvious solution would be to remove all passives and skills that have aoe components, but that would completely alter our game, and no one wants that.

I do believe though that if the devs had it in them to fix it, it would already have been done. I'm just not sure if it's because they are incompetent, or that it's just way over anyone's head with today's technology. I just wish that if it was the latter, they would tell us so and bring more gameplay changes to encourage people to spread out (not just destacking, but spreading out on the map)

No, the obvious solution is to remove AOE caps and yet they don't do it. I think that speaks more to their lack of competency than their coding ability.

Removing Aoe caps will not reduce lag. Technically speaking it doesn't lessen the server strain. It might have effects on how players play in Cyro, but no guarantee that it will lower lag.
It would be a smart decision to remove them though, I'm all for it.

ZOS says lag is created by zerg balls.

ZOS keeps AOE caps in place.





You can't explain that.

tonemd wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

tonemd wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

The lag isn't caused by zergs

its caused by the Devs inability to write software to scale that can handle what it advertises.

Do you not realise how utterly ret arded that sounds?

Company A sells me a slingshot and an automatic rifle to hunt deer.
First day : I chose to use the automatic rifle because it is more effective than the slingshot, but there's a technical failure and it also shoots me in the face when I pull the trigger.

It's the company's fault, they sold me a faulty product.

Day 2 : The automatic rifle shoots me in the face again, what a shocker. It's my fault for being a total idiot because I knew what was gonna happen if I shot that rifle. The company is still responsible for fixing that rifle or giving me a new one, but my sore face will tell me it's as much my fault for being a complete moron and deliberately shooting myself in the face.

You see where I'm going with this?

Zheg wrote: »

Durham wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

I hear a lot of complaints about zerg in PvP. I also hear complaints about organized stacked groups. People talk like these people are ruining PvP and how that will kill the game.

I am confused because if those people are filling Cyrodiil, it sounds like they represent a large percentage of PvP oriented players. Apart from lag, why should developers prioritize reducing zerg and ball groups if that is how a large percentage of people want to play and if people will almost always find a way to optimize any rebalance through a stacked group?

Some people invoke "skill" as a justification for changed they want, but why should individual "skill" trump any other consideration in large scale battles or in PvP in general if the majority aren't concerned with that?

I can't reconcile the idea that zerg are bad for PvP if they are the majority of players in PvP. I also don't buy that if a minority of PvPers are dissatisfied with a game mode that isn't even the primary focus of ESO's design, the game will be in trouble. I accept that lag is bad. I agree that, all things being equal, making everyone happy is better than making most people happy. But I remember people one month after launch giving up on PvP due to it becoming mostly zerg. I remember complaints that first month about factions turning the map all one color, killing the action in the entire campaign. If two years later it is still a zerg-fest, maybe that is what players like and that is what the game design is. Personally, I can't fault a faction for taking over an entire map, zerg or no zerg. That seems like the right thing to do in war.

ZOS has said many times that ball zergs cause the lag that create unplayable conditions in this game... If you run this style of combat I do not blame you and your right ZOS promoted this game as large scale pvp.... However the game mechanics cause to much stress on the servers causing latency.... Personally I hate ball zergs I would like it if people spread out more but the mechanice still do not support that play honestly ...

ZOS also said toppling charge was fixed at least 7 times over the past 2.5 years. If they actually knew what was causing the lag and creating unplayable conditions and it was something so simple as players within a set radius, competent coders would have been able to address it 2+ years later. While only anecdotal, the game performance has always been almost identical for me whether there are 2 balls fighting or 25 players are fighting 25 players spread in a keep courtyard.

I'm pretty sure the devs can tell where the server stress is coming from, that doesn't mean that they can easily find a solution to it. I mean the obvious solution would be to remove all passives and skills that have aoe components, but that would completely alter our game, and no one wants that.

I do believe though that if the devs had it in them to fix it, it would already have been done. I'm just not sure if it's because they are incompetent, or that it's just way over anyone's head with today's technology. I just wish that if it was the latter, they would tell us so and bring more gameplay changes to encourage people to spread out (not just destacking, but spreading out on the map)

I don't know, man, I kinda want to see what that looks like. First thing I thought about when I got into this thread.

Having separate PvP and PvE skills and builds would be a major change. At that point, might as well just have separate PvP avatars that you can pick from with canned skill sets.

How many class skills would remain if AoE skills had to be replaced? Would you also remove 2 and 3 target skills, or just skills with an AoE radius?

Removing all AoE could mean even more stacking too. Sure, lag might be gone, but if everything is single target, stacking with a few healers would still be the way to go. I suppose siege would still be AoE and that would have to be relied upon.

I've argued for something similar before. Have a separate character template for PVP. You can draw from a set group of skills and passive that have been unlocked while playing the game (in PVE and PVP) but it would be a subset of all available skills in the game and ZOS-approved for PVP.

PVP-centric skills and passives would be under the Alliance War Category. PVP character growth would be confined to unlocking the skills and passives in THAT category and in the CP tree (maybe). That way balance can be better controlled and adjusted by ZOS. Skills could be adjusted without affecting PVE. Less crying from the carebears, more ability to adjust PVP to actually work well.

That IS a different game. But if PVP is to be confined to Cyrodiil, I don't understand why it can't or shouldn't exist.

The problem with that approach is that you have have 2 separate games pretending to be one game. There is a complete disconnect between game modes. Personally, I don't see why I would step into Cyrodiil if it has no impact on my characters that I care about.

Also, skip the 'carebears' rhetoric. Doesn't help the conversation. It isn't even clear what you are referring to apart from wanting to include a personal attack against someone.

Letting people who take PvP seriously leave the game would probably be a smarter move that making PvP irrelevant to the main game. PvP is there to add value to the RPG, not to be a separate alternative to the RPG.

ToRelax wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

tonemd wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

tonemd wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

The lag isn't caused by zergs

its caused by the Devs inability to write software to scale that can handle what it advertises.

Do you not realise how utterly ret arded that sounds?

Company A sells me a slingshot and an automatic rifle to hunt deer.
First day : I chose to use the automatic rifle because it is more effective than the slingshot, but there's a technical failure and it also shoots me in the face when I pull the trigger.

It's the company's fault, they sold me a faulty product.

Day 2 : The automatic rifle shoots me in the face again, what a shocker. It's my fault for being a total idiot because I knew what was gonna happen if I shot that rifle. The company is still responsible for fixing that rifle or giving me a new one, but my sore face will tell me it's as much my fault for being a complete moron and deliberately shooting myself in the face.

You see where I'm going with this?

Zheg wrote: »

Durham wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

I hear a lot of complaints about zerg in PvP. I also hear complaints about organized stacked groups. People talk like these people are ruining PvP and how that will kill the game.

I am confused because if those people are filling Cyrodiil, it sounds like they represent a large percentage of PvP oriented players. Apart from lag, why should developers prioritize reducing zerg and ball groups if that is how a large percentage of people want to play and if people will almost always find a way to optimize any rebalance through a stacked group?

Some people invoke "skill" as a justification for changed they want, but why should individual "skill" trump any other consideration in large scale battles or in PvP in general if the majority aren't concerned with that?

I can't reconcile the idea that zerg are bad for PvP if they are the majority of players in PvP. I also don't buy that if a minority of PvPers are dissatisfied with a game mode that isn't even the primary focus of ESO's design, the game will be in trouble. I accept that lag is bad. I agree that, all things being equal, making everyone happy is better than making most people happy. But I remember people one month after launch giving up on PvP due to it becoming mostly zerg. I remember complaints that first month about factions turning the map all one color, killing the action in the entire campaign. If two years later it is still a zerg-fest, maybe that is what players like and that is what the game design is. Personally, I can't fault a faction for taking over an entire map, zerg or no zerg. That seems like the right thing to do in war.

ZOS has said many times that ball zergs cause the lag that create unplayable conditions in this game... If you run this style of combat I do not blame you and your right ZOS promoted this game as large scale pvp.... However the game mechanics cause to much stress on the servers causing latency.... Personally I hate ball zergs I would like it if people spread out more but the mechanice still do not support that play honestly ...

ZOS also said toppling charge was fixed at least 7 times over the past 2.5 years. If they actually knew what was causing the lag and creating unplayable conditions and it was something so simple as players within a set radius, competent coders would have been able to address it 2+ years later. While only anecdotal, the game performance has always been almost identical for me whether there are 2 balls fighting or 25 players are fighting 25 players spread in a keep courtyard.

I'm pretty sure the devs can tell where the server stress is coming from, that doesn't mean that they can easily find a solution to it. I mean the obvious solution would be to remove all passives and skills that have aoe components, but that would completely alter our game, and no one wants that.

I do believe though that if the devs had it in them to fix it, it would already have been done. I'm just not sure if it's because they are incompetent, or that it's just way over anyone's head with today's technology. I just wish that if it was the latter, they would tell us so and bring more gameplay changes to encourage people to spread out (not just destacking, but spreading out on the map)

I don't know, man, I kinda want to see what that looks like. First thing I thought about when I got into this thread.

Having separate PvP and PvE skills and builds would be a major change. At that point, might as well just have separate PvP avatars that you can pick from with canned skill sets.

How many class skills would remain if AoE skills had to be replaced? Would you also remove 2 and 3 target skills, or just skills with an AoE radius?

Removing all AoE could mean even more stacking too. Sure, lag might be gone, but if everything is single target, stacking with a few healers would still be the way to go. I suppose siege would still be AoE and that would have to be relied upon.

I've argued for something similar before. Have a separate character template for PVP. You can draw from a set group of skills and passive that have been unlocked while playing the game (in PVE and PVP) but it would be a subset of all available skills in the game and ZOS-approved for PVP.

PVP-centric skills and passives would be under the Alliance War Category. PVP character growth would be confined to unlocking the skills and passives in THAT category and in the CP tree (maybe). That way balance can be better controlled and adjusted by ZOS. Skills could be adjusted without affecting PVE. Less crying from the carebears, more ability to adjust PVP to actually work well.

That IS a different game. But if PVP is to be confined to Cyrodiil, I don't understand why it can't or shouldn't exist.

The problem with that approach is that you have have 2 separate games pretending to be one game. There is a complete disconnect between game modes. Personally, I don't see why I would step into Cyrodiil if it has no impact on my characters that I care about.

Also, skip the 'carebears' rhetoric. Doesn't help the conversation. It isn't even clear what you are referring to apart from wanting to include a personal attack against someone.

Letting people who take PvP seriously leave the game would probably be a smarter move that making PvP irrelevant to the main game. PvP is there to add value to the RPG, not to be a separate alternative to the RPG.

Not every player wants to play both PvE and PvP. In fact, from what I experience, most are only really interested in one of the two. And those players don't want to lose out on competitiveness by playing the part of the game they want to play.

Then wouldn't it make more sense if those 2 people are playing different games that meet their needs?

The people who want that other PvP that doesn't currently exist with separate skill lines that are balanced can go find that game. The PvP in ESO can continue to be something else that you can do with the characters you developed.

Clearly ZOS spent a lot of money to develop Cyrodiil. They considered it a significant game feature. I am not trying to minimize that. But technical problems are making Cyrodiil an cement boot for the game. It makes this forum toxic (while the subreddit remains quite pleasant) and it makes a lot of players very unhappy as they waste their time rebooting and double activating keep doors to end up back outside.

By the way, you left out the rather enormous group of people who don't play this game to compete.

ToRelax wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

tonemd wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

tonemd wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

The lag isn't caused by zergs

its caused by the Devs inability to write software to scale that can handle what it advertises.

Do you not realise how utterly ret arded that sounds?

Company A sells me a slingshot and an automatic rifle to hunt deer.
First day : I chose to use the automatic rifle because it is more effective than the slingshot, but there's a technical failure and it also shoots me in the face when I pull the trigger.

It's the company's fault, they sold me a faulty product.

Day 2 : The automatic rifle shoots me in the face again, what a shocker. It's my fault for being a total idiot because I knew what was gonna happen if I shot that rifle. The company is still responsible for fixing that rifle or giving me a new one, but my sore face will tell me it's as much my fault for being a complete moron and deliberately shooting myself in the face.

You see where I'm going with this?

Zheg wrote: »

Durham wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

I hear a lot of complaints about zerg in PvP. I also hear complaints about organized stacked groups. People talk like these people are ruining PvP and how that will kill the game.

I am confused because if those people are filling Cyrodiil, it sounds like they represent a large percentage of PvP oriented players. Apart from lag, why should developers prioritize reducing zerg and ball groups if that is how a large percentage of people want to play and if people will almost always find a way to optimize any rebalance through a stacked group?

Some people invoke "skill" as a justification for changed they want, but why should individual "skill" trump any other consideration in large scale battles or in PvP in general if the majority aren't concerned with that?

I can't reconcile the idea that zerg are bad for PvP if they are the majority of players in PvP. I also don't buy that if a minority of PvPers are dissatisfied with a game mode that isn't even the primary focus of ESO's design, the game will be in trouble. I accept that lag is bad. I agree that, all things being equal, making everyone happy is better than making most people happy. But I remember people one month after launch giving up on PvP due to it becoming mostly zerg. I remember complaints that first month about factions turning the map all one color, killing the action in the entire campaign. If two years later it is still a zerg-fest, maybe that is what players like and that is what the game design is. Personally, I can't fault a faction for taking over an entire map, zerg or no zerg. That seems like the right thing to do in war.

ZOS has said many times that ball zergs cause the lag that create unplayable conditions in this game... If you run this style of combat I do not blame you and your right ZOS promoted this game as large scale pvp.... However the game mechanics cause to much stress on the servers causing latency.... Personally I hate ball zergs I would like it if people spread out more but the mechanice still do not support that play honestly ...

ZOS also said toppling charge was fixed at least 7 times over the past 2.5 years. If they actually knew what was causing the lag and creating unplayable conditions and it was something so simple as players within a set radius, competent coders would have been able to address it 2+ years later. While only anecdotal, the game performance has always been almost identical for me whether there are 2 balls fighting or 25 players are fighting 25 players spread in a keep courtyard.

I'm pretty sure the devs can tell where the server stress is coming from, that doesn't mean that they can easily find a solution to it. I mean the obvious solution would be to remove all passives and skills that have aoe components, but that would completely alter our game, and no one wants that.

I do believe though that if the devs had it in them to fix it, it would already have been done. I'm just not sure if it's because they are incompetent, or that it's just way over anyone's head with today's technology. I just wish that if it was the latter, they would tell us so and bring more gameplay changes to encourage people to spread out (not just destacking, but spreading out on the map)

I don't know, man, I kinda want to see what that looks like. First thing I thought about when I got into this thread.

Having separate PvP and PvE skills and builds would be a major change. At that point, might as well just have separate PvP avatars that you can pick from with canned skill sets.

How many class skills would remain if AoE skills had to be replaced? Would you also remove 2 and 3 target skills, or just skills with an AoE radius?

Removing all AoE could mean even more stacking too. Sure, lag might be gone, but if everything is single target, stacking with a few healers would still be the way to go. I suppose siege would still be AoE and that would have to be relied upon.

I've argued for something similar before. Have a separate character template for PVP. You can draw from a set group of skills and passive that have been unlocked while playing the game (in PVE and PVP) but it would be a subset of all available skills in the game and ZOS-approved for PVP.

PVP-centric skills and passives would be under the Alliance War Category. PVP character growth would be confined to unlocking the skills and passives in THAT category and in the CP tree (maybe). That way balance can be better controlled and adjusted by ZOS. Skills could be adjusted without affecting PVE. Less crying from the carebears, more ability to adjust PVP to actually work well.

That IS a different game. But if PVP is to be confined to Cyrodiil, I don't understand why it can't or shouldn't exist.

The problem with that approach is that you have have 2 separate games pretending to be one game. There is a complete disconnect between game modes. Personally, I don't see why I would step into Cyrodiil if it has no impact on my characters that I care about.

Also, skip the 'carebears' rhetoric. Doesn't help the conversation. It isn't even clear what you are referring to apart from wanting to include a personal attack against someone.

Letting people who take PvP seriously leave the game would probably be a smarter move that making PvP irrelevant to the main game. PvP is there to add value to the RPG, not to be a separate alternative to the RPG.

Not every player wants to play both PvE and PvP. In fact, from what I experience, most are only really interested in one of the two. And those players don't want to lose out on competitiveness by playing the part of the game they want to play.

Then wouldn't it make more sense if those 2 people are playing different games that meet their needs?

The people who want that other PvP that doesn't currently exist with separate skill lines that are balanced can go find that game. The PvP in ESO can continue to be something else that you can do with the characters you developed.

Clearly ZOS spent a lot of money to develop Cyrodiil. They considered it a significant game feature. I am not trying to minimize that. But technical problems are making Cyrodiil an cement boot for the game. It makes this forum toxic (while the subreddit remains quite pleasant) and it makes a lot of players very unhappy as they waste their time rebooting and double activating keep doors to end up back outside.

By the way, you left out the rather enormous group of people who don't play this game to compete.

That's just such a ridiculous argument. So again for you, there are a lot of players playing this game's PvP while looking out for something better.

Also, I don't think I left that group out, honestly I couldn't name anyone who'd say he plays this game's PvP to compete... on a competitive level, yes, but in this game that's basically free if you're a decent player, and not a goal.

I think aren't talking about the same thing on the "compete" point.

You said "those players don't want to lose out on competitiveness" and I pointed out that some people aren't interested in competitiveness. They are here to enjoy themselves by interacting with the game. They are enjoying the stories and developing their character. They aren't thinking in terms of am I good or am I bad. They may join PvP for a different experience, with little concern about if they kill or die more. This is much different that the mindset of people we see posting with complaints about how their Templar is underpowered in Cyrodiil and keeps getting killed by WB spammers.

More people = more lag = stress on the server = crashes = fps loss = ping increase = we all are *** and stuck in place and cant do anything

Dont group up, get direct tv instead.

I agree op I personally run in a small group and I have no problems with zergs play how you want I'll have fun killing your ball group anyways, I just don't wanna lag so if no lag means no zergs I'm ok with it.

It's funny to see all those threads talking about the negative aspects of ballgroups in Cyrodiil. I've been stating the exact same for the past 6months or so and the only replies I got were angry people playing in said groups. Glad that people finally man up and tell the thruth and what they really think.

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

It's funny to see all those threads talking about the negative aspects of ballgroups in Cyrodiil. I've been stating the exact same for the past 6months or so and the only replies I got were angry people playing in said groups. Glad that people finally man up and tell the thruth and what they really think.

You get angry responses because we always see you right in the middle of a huge stack of EP, even if you aren't in a group with all of those people you are still part of the zerg. Practice what you preach and you won't get such angry responses.

Again, and for the hundred of times i've said it before, there is a difference between zerg surfing with a group of 2 to 4 players and running into an optimized ballgroup of 24players pre-casting prox all at the same time, and spamming aoes and ultimate in a synchronized fashion creating enormous calculations on the server. This is specifically what is addressed in this thread and what people are reffering to.

My solo late night zerg surfing has no where near the same impact as what a 24men group spamming aoes does. I will always encourage running in smaller groups, no matter if you are close to other players of your faction or not. It will still have a positive impact since aoes won't be casted all at the same time from the different groups running. There is no magical number of players to have in a group, but the least, the better.

Regarding your generalization about seeing me always part of a zerg, I could care less. I know what I'm worth for and my devotion to map control. I have accomplished a ton of things with my group ONLY to help my faction and I spend more than half of my time riding solo to defend keeps, flagging objectives deep in the transit line or capturing ressources with a few players.

It doesn't mean that I praise to run in smaller groups that you won't see me from time to time part of a zerg. I am not that innocent but I do encourage and prone people to hit somewhere else if there are too many players from your faction hitting the same objective.

You can easily confirm that asking in EP zone chat. When the game becomes unplayable because of EP stacking the milegate or the bridge, I am the first to complain about it. I can be pretty annoying and devoted to stop the lag and I will ask frequently to move to the other side of the map to help the server catch up, which I will also do myself.

Remind me again why Zeni decided to give away "a million dollars" in some lame promotion, won by a guy who probably doesn't play anymore instead of spending that $50,000 a year on leasing better severs or hiring someone who can code needed solutions?

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Riggsy wrote: »

Remind me again why Zeni decided to give away "a million dollars" in some lame promotion, won by a guy who probably doesn't play anymore instead of spending that $50,000 a year on leasing better severs or hiring someone who can code needed solutions?

Advertising budget.

I was hoping that when they asked him how he would spend the money, he would answer, "finally I have enough money to renew my WoW sub."

That would have been amazing!

.

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

After playing the last 2 days, I have come to accept that the only time I enjoy Cyrodiil is during really large battles that take a long time to complete. The more "zerg", the better.

The lag was bad, but not as bad as I remember from a few months ago. And I will take entertaining and laggy over no lag but uninteresting to me.

I also don't think that comments criticizing groups for firing ultimates at the same time make sense. If you are a group about to attack 50 opponents, you need to hit hard. You aren't going to waste untimates until you need them, and the group will likely need them at the same time based on the enemy. Are you going to use your ultimate attacking people who try to kill people on siege equipment? No need. They are already outnumbered when they venture out. You will use your ultimates at the most vulnerable moments, like when you finally enter the inner keep.

That isn't spamming and it isn't mindless. It is a group entering an 8 foot wide entrance into a keep with 30 people waiting to pounce on them when they enter. Should they come in one by one to get mowed down?

Who ever said it would be a bad thing when a group used all their ultimates at once? And about the inner breach, of course, if you have to get in without opening another one, going all at once might be a good strategy to get in with minimal casualties. Meaning, it should be very common that quite some players don't make it. You could also send in those who get in on their own, Sorcs mostly, to attack siegers. Could make it much easier to get in for the rest. And that being said, opening at least two breaches to a heavily defended inner keep was actually the norm during the first year, I can't see what problem players have with it.

Some people confuse the tri realm war with vast armies to moba's, dota's, and arena. this isn't a rerun of American Gladiators

Doncellius wrote: »

Quick thing I want to add to this thread:

I dislike humongeous 40+ player zergs, but I don't hate a ball group for doing what they do. It isn't their fault that ZOS has forced them to ball up for 1) enormous synchronized AoE damage and 2) enormous damage reduction from AoE caps. If you don't do it, then the other group will and you stand no chance.

Poor design decisions and thick-headed designer stubbornness = no balance.

I only ever participate in groups on very rare occasions, and almost play entirely solo in PvP so I'm not defending my own style of gameplay. Ball groups cause lag but gain over 75%+ damage reduction by doing it, so I can't blame them. ZOS did this to their own game. Removing AoE caps would be a HUGE step in the right direction.

This is the prisoners dilemma, which means we'd benefit more as a community if we avoided zerg balls with the exception of entering wall breaches.