ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Hi everyone,
First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.
As some of you have guessed, this change ultimately comes down to performance. We’ve been continually looking at ways to improve performance and stability across the game and we found reducing the group size was an effective way to ensure there would be fewer situations where you hit critical memory. Additionally, there’s a fair amount of data that has to be exchanged on the backend for every person in your group. By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us on this topic. We appreciate it, and we hope this helps provide additional context for the change.
ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Hi everyone,
First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.
As some of you have guessed, this change ultimately comes down to performance. We’ve been continually looking at ways to improve performance and stability across the game and we found reducing the group size was an effective way to ensure there would be fewer situations where you hit critical memory. Additionally, there’s a fair amount of data that has to be exchanged on the backend for every person in your group. By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us on this topic. We appreciate it, and we hope this helps provide additional context for the change.
ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Hi everyone,
First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.
As some of you have guessed, this change ultimately comes down to performance. We’ve been continually looking at ways to improve performance and stability across the game and we found reducing the group size was an effective way to ensure there would be fewer situations where you hit critical memory. Additionally, there’s a fair amount of data that has to be exchanged on the backend for every person in your group. By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us on this topic. We appreciate it, and we hope this helps provide additional context for the change.
gariondavey wrote: »Ironically, roleplayers are who spend the most on the game. So this move will only hurt zos financially. XD
Thank you for responding with some information on this. Things would be a lot less frustrating for us if we got this from the start more often. That being said, nothing I say here is against the community team because you can only work with what you're given and the big decisions aren't up to you.ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Hi everyone,
First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.
ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.
hands0medevil wrote: »gariondavey wrote: »Ironically, roleplayers are who spend the most on the game. So this move will only hurt zos financially. XD
no it wont, they will accept it and deal with it.
ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.
And yet in Cyrodiil, where this change was first implemented, the performance has gotten worse, not better.
Can you elaborate on this?
gariondavey wrote: »So you are telling me if 100 people quit over this (not an outrageous idea) that it won't hurt the company's bottom line...?
You expect a reply?
Meh. It is obvious that reducing the group size from 24 to 12 will be a performance improvement.
gariondavey wrote: »So you are telling me if 100 people quit over this (not an outrageous idea) that it won't hurt the company's bottom line...?
It's not the people quitting over this change that will hurt the bottom line. It's the continuous erosion of corporate goodwill and reputation by chronically diminishing the player experience to "improve performance" that will hurt them the most in the long run.
Meh. It is obvious that reducing the group size from 24 to 12 will be a performance improvement.
In what way? You still have the same number of people in the same small area at the same time. Group limited skills still have caps on how many people they can hit. And buffs and heals with no limits will still affect players in your own group, players in other groups, and solo players as well. Every single player will be sending the same number of calculations to the server regardless of group status.
Please explain to me how it improves performance?
Meh. It is obvious that reducing the group size from 24 to 12 will be a performance improvement.
In what way? You still have the same number of people in the same small area at the same time. Group limited skills still have caps on how many people they can hit. And buffs and heals with no limits will still affect players in your own group, players in other groups, and solo players as well. Every single player will be sending the same number of calculations to the server regardless of group status.
Please explain to me how it improves performance?
Increased level of communication between group members that exceeds the information that is normally passed between the same number of ungrouped people.
Meh. It is obvious that reducing the group size from 24 to 12 will be a performance improvement.
In what way? You still have the same number of people in the same small area at the same time. Group limited skills still have caps on how many people they can hit. And buffs and heals with no limits will still affect players in your own group, players in other groups, and solo players as well. Every single player will be sending the same number of calculations to the server regardless of group status.
Please explain to me how it improves performance?
Increased level of communication between group members that exceeds the information that is normally passed between the same number of ungrouped people.
So instead of just the people in your group reading the communication, now people will have to use /zone to communicate between smaller groups.... and instead of 24 people getting the information now it will be 100+ who have to process it?
I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to the extra chat spam if it's not my event/raid.
ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Hi everyone,
First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.
As some of you have guessed, this change ultimately comes down to performance. We’ve been continually looking at ways to improve performance and stability across the game and we found reducing the group size was an effective way to ensure there would be fewer situations where you hit critical memory. Additionally, there’s a fair amount of data that has to be exchanged on the backend for every person in your group. By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us on this topic. We appreciate it, and we hope this helps provide additional context for the change.
ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Hi everyone,
First, we wanted to thank you all for providing so much valuable feedback on the change to group sizes in this update. We understand there are situations where having a larger group size is desired and makes some activities more enjoyable.
As some of you have guessed, this change ultimately comes down to performance. We’ve been continually looking at ways to improve performance and stability across the game and we found reducing the group size was an effective way to ensure there would be fewer situations where you hit critical memory. Additionally, there’s a fair amount of data that has to be exchanged on the backend for every person in your group. By limiting the group size to 12, we’re introducing additional performance gains.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us on this topic. We appreciate it, and we hope this helps provide additional context for the change.