Jump to content
  • Sign Up

WvW Performance and Map Cap Testing


Cal Cohen.2358

Recommended Posts

@DutchRiders.2871 said:Can we name the elephant in the room? Its the low end amazon servers, which are still relatively expensive compared to other server providers. Also if anything we should test how the servers run without mounts.

The lag was around before the mounts so it wouldn't change anything removing them. Anet put a lot of effort into mounts as well so they won't remove them, us WvW players wanted them above everything else (sarcasm)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mini Crinny.6190 said:

@Helicity.3416 said:Nice.

Even longer queues for what will
almost certainly
not give a measurable performance increase.

so you would rather them do nothing and people to continue to complain about it?

long long time ago these lags that happen very often now only happended when there was 3 zone blobs clashing into each other..

this long long time ago (core gw2 obviously) was before the map cap was actually reduced (yes we have lower map cap now then back then)this lag has everything to do with the expansions and other shit flying around nowadays..

theres to much useless stuff in WvW..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you should reduce it by 63 (21 per team). Sure the queues will go up, but more people queuing will push people onto other maps to do things there. On reset it might even resurrect EotM (especially if pips were added back). Meanwhile? Buttery smooth gameplay for all, a total of 63 removed would genuinely eliminate the lag issue.

Just my 2¢.

Edit: Props for this CmC, I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe it has to deal with the actual player count. I believe it has to deal with the number of skills that are clicked at one time. Reducing the player count will take a few skills out of the que but it will not stop the problem from happening when there is a 3 way in SMC and everyone is trying to bomb one another...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Excursion.9752 said:I don't believe it has to deal with the actual player count. I believe it has to deal with the number of skills that are clicked at one time. Reducing the player count will take a few skills out of the que but it will not stop the problem from happening when there is a 3 way in SMC and everyone is trying to bomb one another...

When there's more people pressing buttons there's more lag. reducing map cap is a lazy way to go about it and has been done before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean a few things to probably think about here:

  1. The overstacking of visual auras which does no one any favors performance wise (especially if several people in a zerg are doing this ) - why not look into only allowing 3 cosmetic auras to be stacked at any given time (this isn't including legendaries, I'm talking about chak, ghostly, etc) Cry about this all you want but y'all know you can crash people doing this trailer trash shite. Or maybe just let other players have a check box that removes all cosmetic auras?
  2. Look at the condi cap on player characters, probably revert it back to 25 (of course keep it higher for lords/guards etc) a lot of the lag originated from that threshold change. Or at least this is how I'm remembering it, could be wrong idk, but pretty sure a long time ago you couldn't get more than 25 stacks of anything.
  3. Get better servers.Idk, we'll see. At this point I expect little to nothing :c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WvW lag has been on your known issues list for years now and you are only just starting to look into it ? like its only just started to happen ? you have reduced the player cap in WVW many times before and it did nothing, - The issue is down to 50+ players all trying to cast fancy AOE spells at once, Adding the mount did not help performance especially now they are all fancy and have effects on, Adding new super cool looking spell animations with POF did also not help.

It is clear the servers need a well needed upgrade! yet you refuse to do this ? and your go to solution for the 3rd / 4th ? time is to just reduce player cap even more, at the start of GW2 the servers could handle blob vs blob vs blob no problems, now the servers can only just about manage blob vs blob as soon as the other group gets close it becomes impossible to play.

The fastest solutions would be to disable a lot of the spell animations and effects in game, for example you get a lag spike when Necros do their initial engage with Shades as suddenly having 20+ shades appear makes the game lag out like crazy

you need to understand GW2 lost a LOT of guilds and players to other games due to the lag issues over the years, the game mode is already going through a slow and painful decline. it needs saving now before it is too late - also lying to the community about Alliances how many years ago ? did not help at all. please just admit that the project has been shelved!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:I think you should reduce it by 63 (21 per team). Sure the queues will go up, but more people queuing will push people onto other maps to do things there. On reset it might even resurrect EotM (especially if pips were added back). Meanwhile? Buttery smooth gameplay for all, a total of 63 removed would genuinely eliminate the lag issue.

Just my 2¢.

Edit: Props for this CmC, I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this thread.

I wouldn't disagree, but that should go along with at least doubling the amount of servers available and limiting transfers/hardcapping how many people can be on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know what you did there, but I still didn’t have such strong lags as today after the restart.There were lagging skills, but normal FPS. Now there was a very low FPS and working skills.But FPS fell to 8 frames per second when approaching a crowd of enemies. This was not before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Odnako.7456 said:I don’t know what you did there, but I still didn’t have such strong lags as today after the restart.There were lagging skills, but normal FPS. Now there was a very low FPS and working skills.But FPS fell to 8 frames per second when approaching a crowd of enemies. This was not beforeThis sounds perfectly normal. Fps always drop like a rock when there's many players nearby.

Also keep in mind that the lag has never been consistent outside of 3 borderzergs engaging each other in the same place. Sometimes it will just randomly start to lag with no apparent reason, but many times it will run smoothly in what appear to be the same situation as that random lag.

I just left our DBL. We had a full zerg, one enemy had a full zerg but the third side... just a few peeps. Didnt experience any noticable lag or warping, as expected. It doesnt really prove anything with the cap reduction. Need many more days and full borders to see any kind of difference - which I still highly doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Dawdler.8521" said:

This sounds perfectly normal. Fps always drop like a rock when there's many players nearby.

it could "sound normal" if I had it and always before.But, if they were attentive, they would see what I wrote, before I did not drop the FPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reducing the number of players on a map isn't the answer. This only adds to the frustration. One problem (and a solution) is EOTM. When ANET added the reward system to WvW. they purposefully left it out of EOTM. EOTM as originally designed, was to act as an overflow map for the WvW maps and for testing new ideas and concepts. Since the introduction of WvW rewards, EOTM has been a ghost town as you removed all incentive to play there. My suggestion is possibly add the reward system to EOTM, even if it is at half (1/2) the normal rate. This at least gives players a reason to go there while waiting in hour(s) long queues. Like it is currently, it does not add anything to the regular matchups (other then supply), but it would be a huge step to making use of that map.B- The other option is, using the current EOTM map, make the sky areas Water and add in a tunnel system using the teleports and the central below ground area. This would have the affect of having a large underwater area to fight in, a tunnel system to fight in and bypass enemy groups, and quickly alleviating the Lag issue.C- Make 3 of the biggest links back into host servers as this is realistically and truly where the cause of the lag is, squeezing multiple servers into the host maps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry. This has to be a typo. Max number of players on a map - overall - will be 21? Max of 7 per Server/Team? Will this test cover every map? That means at any given time, the maximum number of players that can be in WvW is 84 (21 on each of the 4 maps). 28 per Server. That'll be interesting. Since it means the servers that stack heavy in NA off-hours will be a disadvantage - am all for that actually. :)

EDIT: Oh. Wait. I totally misread it. Reducing it by 7 per team, not capping it by 7 per team. That makes more sense. I blame a hot day and deck building for my confusion. Nevermind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Eventine.8024 said:

@"Cal Cohen.2358" said:Hi Everyone,

We know skill lag is an issue in WvW. We’re actively investigating performance improvements and optimizations, but this is not a quick process and is going to take some time. While these investigations are ongoing, we want to see if there are other opportunities for some short-term improvements.

We’re planning to run some tests to see what performance gains we can get by reducing the total number of players on the map. The current target for the initial test is with EU reset on this Friday, July 10, where we’ll be temporarily reducing the map caps in WvW for both NA and EU by 21 (7 per team) and monitoring the impact on performance over the next week. The key feedback that we’ll need from all of you is to get a sense of how the maps feel with fewer players. We still want WvW to feel like WvW, and we realize that any reduction to player counts will have a negative impact on the overall gameplay experience. We will be weighing that negative impact against the positives of any performance improvements to determine if it makes sense to move forward with lower map caps beyond this initial test. If we do move forward with lower map caps, we will also be keeping a close eye on queue times and will increase the number of tiers as needed.

This is not a long-term solution. Even if we find that reducing map caps leads to big performance improvements and the impact on gameplay is minimal, we will be continuing our investigations into performance with the plan of incrementally restoring map caps as improvements are made.

I do not think that 7 players will be much an issue for the q. But as my experience is not "how many people are on the map" but actually "how many servers are fighting toghter". For example there is no skill lag with full map but the fights are kept just between 2 servers(even 60vs60), while even only 60 players in the map, but a 20vs20vs20 with 3 servers produce huge skill lags.Everyone knows that, and guilds exploit this behavior to win fights/points/castles or play fair, and go away from an already 20vs20 fight, waiting their turn.

Queues at least on my server are now 30-90 minutes as a normal course, with bad nights meaning just never getting in. They can be that long time wise even when there are only 10-14 in queue because with every map queued and some queues up to 30-40, no one wants to leave and never get back in, no one wants to change maps because it takes forever to get there. Stacking another 7 on that WILL impact queues in a significant way. Kill the server links and let servers stand on their own again. That will both drop server population and queues at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great change. Exactly what I suggested but 7 less instead of 15. 40v40 is much more fun, skilllag aside, than 50v50. Slowly getting prepared to introduce that 5th WvW map, eh?

Players are so smart now regarding where to be on map that the maps were too small for the old amount of players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...