Maintenance for the week of April 13:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 13
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 13
No PVP Content Coming In 2023?
-
TechMaybeHic✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭YandereGirlfriend wrote: »I imagine they saw the massive negative impact the hammer has on performance, and decided against adding the others in. Probably for the best. On PCNA, every time the hammer spawns there is an observable drop in performance.
It's probably not the hammer itself but rather than map dynamics that it creates.
It instantly creates a faction-stack vs. faction-stack situation and that's always the worst for performance.
Funny how 200v200 never was a problem, but now 70(ish)v70 can be a freeze frame lag fest.
My group was talking about that old interview with Wheeler that was on Sandman's video, and I told them it was as he said at launch. Sure; there were issues with performance then, but it's worse now with 20vs20 than it was 200vs200.
I was getting concerned they reduced the pop again as we went a long time not seeing a substantial organized group nor even a zerg during primetime. Appears they showed up and might have actually been fighting on the other side of the map against each other. CrazyEdited by TechMaybeHic on November 24, 2022 7:32PM2 -
Caribou77✭✭✭✭✭U36 went live with BLOCK broken.
You think this company is going to rewrite the code, buy new servers, and eliminate lag from Cyrodiil?10 -
TechMaybeHic✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭WTF I posted in the wrong threadEdited by TechMaybeHic on November 26, 2022 5:16PM0 -
Sparxlost✭✭✭I think new content for PvP would be detrimental to PvP. The population is already thin and any new content would spread that population even farther. I would like to see some new dynamics in content we already have available. There is some things they could do with Imperial City to spice up that area.
For the most part adjusting to other players provides what new content for PvE provides. Where we play isn't as important as who we are killing.
i agree with this..
tweaking current pvp options to be more appealing would be better that completely new content...
I PERSONALLY would like cyrodiil to be a bit more appealing and maybe for battlegrounds to get reworked.. but that is just me i definitely dont play a lot of imperial city but what i have played in the past was fun except maybe for some pvp encounters...1 -
YandereGirlfriend✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭YandereGirlfriend wrote: »I imagine they saw the massive negative impact the hammer has on performance, and decided against adding the others in. Probably for the best. On PCNA, every time the hammer spawns there is an observable drop in performance.
It's probably not the hammer itself but rather than map dynamics that it creates.
It instantly creates a faction-stack vs. faction-stack situation and that's always the worst for performance.
Funny how 200v200 never was a problem, but now 70(ish)v70 can be a freeze frame lag fest.
Yeah, but that's not the hammer's fault. Performance was bad before it was ever introduced.
The biggest culprit is/was moving everything to the server from the client. So instead of 400 independent systems (in the above 200v200 scenario) making many of the game's calculations now it's all smashed into the same server or small set of servers that are running Cyrodiil for everyone.
It might be an unpopular opinion but I would accept the presence of a few cheats if we could move more logic back to the client and undo the damage done to performance and to the population cap. Not that that will ever happen.
I also can't help but think that the proliferation of these "stack"-based sets whose tooltips increasingly read like entire paragraphs and others with extremely convoluted implementation logic can't be doing us any favors in terms of performance, either. The No-Proc test was certainly not a windfall for performance but the widespread use of a set like Mara's Balm, etc. is likely MUCH heavier than more vanilla defensive sets, etc.5 -
Jaraal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭YandereGirlfriend wrote: »YandereGirlfriend wrote: »I imagine they saw the massive negative impact the hammer has on performance, and decided against adding the others in. Probably for the best. On PCNA, every time the hammer spawns there is an observable drop in performance.
It's probably not the hammer itself but rather than map dynamics that it creates.
It instantly creates a faction-stack vs. faction-stack situation and that's always the worst for performance.
Funny how 200v200 never was a problem, but now 70(ish)v70 can be a freeze frame lag fest.
Yeah, but that's not the hammer's fault. Performance was bad before it was ever introduced.
The biggest culprit is/was moving everything to the server from the client. So instead of 400 independent systems (in the above 200v200 scenario) making many of the game's calculations now it's all smashed into the same server or small set of servers that are running Cyrodiil for everyone.
It might be an unpopular opinion but I would accept the presence of a few cheats if we could move more logic back to the client and undo the damage done to performance and to the population cap. Not that that will ever happen.
I also can't help but think that the proliferation of these "stack"-based sets whose tooltips increasingly read like entire paragraphs and others with extremely convoluted implementation logic can't be doing us any favors in terms of performance, either. The No-Proc test was certainly not a windfall for performance but the widespread use of a set like Mara's Balm, etc. is likely MUCH heavier than more vanilla defensive sets, etc.
Yes, they tout the "performance improvements" of changing a little used glyph from having to check to see if a target is undead or daedra, but then turn around and add all these sets that require massive positional and exponential target and effect calculations. And instead of toning down the plethora of calculations, their reaction is to reduce the number of players (population caps) instead.2
