The game has been running better on console than ever. Yes there are always new bugs (not a big fan out of getting booted out of PVP and into the queue) but the month after dark brotherhood was awful. I was getting a loading screen every few hundred feet at that point. I don't think I've gotten one of those out of nowhere loading screens in 2-3 months. Also, at launch people were falling through the map. This game has made significant improvements overall and in just the last few months.

On PC/EU I can clearly feel the burden of 1T but my bet is the increased amount of players and activities not because of less hardware.

I think the problem is a shed load of new players increasing the load on the servers.
IMHO the underlying code is improving.
Result is performance suffers until they scale up the servers regardless.
There will be a damn site more than 3 for each though
They will have racks of servers in a farm working as clusters.
ie megaserver.

The only thing I will say is you expect the population to be consistant rather than explode.
Diiferent shards to be created when the populaiton exceeds a certain limit.
The fact the population have rocketed, implies the shard limit was never at capacity, the capacity was increased or there is no spare shards available.

N0TPLAYER2 wrote: »

Ok. Let's agree to disagree on the performance hit. I play a lot and feel it pretty clearly.

Do you think servers have been eliminated. That's my question

No.

N0TPLAYER2 wrote: »

Just a thought I've been having.

With 1T, they announced "everyone is now together, we did this for you guys!"

But in actuality, we all know the game has taken a major performance hit.

I thought this was possibly a way for them to lose a few servers, lighten their cost of production, and put a giant spin on it as if it's to benefit us.

Right now we have pc na and eu, mac na and eu, Xbox na and eu, and PS4 na and eu. That's 8 servers minimum. Before, we likely had 3 separate servers for each one, like Xbox na ad, Xbox na dc etc.

I could be totally off base, but wanted to see what you guys thought. Am I crazy? Or does this make sense somewhat?

What do you think?

I wouldn't have thought so. Maybe, just a tad.

But the term "server" here is misleading. In reality, each "server" is a datacenter - dozens of networked servers all serving as one "world".

That said, I always thought we could do with more hardware on the back end for performance anyhow, so even a small scale back would be going in the wrong direction imo.

Stopnaggin wrote: »

I don't think they pulled servers, I think its a load on the server issue. I have noticed it more in areas with a high population.

Maybe they just need to adjust the population cap for each instance/phase? FPS in ESO has always been up and down in high pop areas.

Xbox EU performance is very bad...

I don't think there are less server resources than before; the game always dynamically creates new instances (or "shards") based on population, so the setup shouldn't really be any different.

As an example, consider the case before OT where there may have been 150 DC players in one instance of Glenumbra, and another 150 DC players in a second instance of Glenumbra. Then 200 AD players in a third Glenumbra, and 100 EP players in a fourth.

After the OT change, that would adjust to, for example, 75 DC, 50 AD and 25 EP in one instance of Glenumbra, 75/50/25 again in a second, 100 DC, 67 AD and 33 EP in a third, and 50 DC, 33 AD and 17 EP in a fourth. The distribution of players is different, but the number of players in each server shard, as well as the total number of players, and thus the total server resources required, is the same.