Hero Engine is failing us.

silky_soft · October 16

Yea 12000 to 4000 active players is much more noticeable.

Jaimeh · October 16

I personally love the graphics in ESO even if they seem outdated by today's standards. As an aside, I've been trying out T&L and while the game and the graphics are very pretty, I get motion sickness from the movement. I don't know if it's an engine related issue, but I never had that with ESO.

Amottica · October 16

Theist_VII wrote: »

Over the last couple of years, it has become quite clear that the Hero Engine is throttling progression of The Elder Scrolls: Online.

We have gone from two quarters of dungeon packs with a chapter and a zone to explore, to a dungeon pack and chapter with a new system, to only an update of a previous one.

Development should be ramping up, not down.

Owned by Microsoft, a company that just moved their flagship IP from Slipspace to Unreal, one can’t help but wonder if ZOS should be moving their assets to Unreal in kind?

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/248546/halo-the-new-era-begins/#:~:text=It lacked content, had in,content due to the engine.
"Moving to Unreal Engine has so many benefits, let me explain. First, the engine is a lot more universal for staff to work on, it's the default engine across learning game development and is incredibly powerful and reliable. Keep in mind that Unreal Engine will also be modified to work on the games, much like how The Coalition use Unreal Engine for Gears of War. Speaking of The Coalition, moving to Unreal also allows internal teams to jump on and help with development and content, so expect The Coalition to help Halo Studios in the near future with game development etc, something that would be harder to do with the current Slipspace. So, adding the best experts with Unreal Engine into the game development can do wonders for a game, and no one knows Unreal better than The Coalition. This change will not only improve the visuals of Halo, it will also guarantee faster release content, more content and even more games."

How is it clear that the engine, whichever engine it is, prevents Zenimax from adding more content each year? Seriously, nothing suggests that this is the cause of the reduction in content we receive each year.

It seems much more likely that Zenimax merely chose to reduce the number of work hours they would put into the game. Logically speaking, if Zenimax wanted to continue with the previous cadence of new content, and the engine was holding things back, and changing engines was not a major ordeal, then they would already be working on such a change.

So it seems what is clear is a little cloudy.

Games may update their engine as WoW has, but changing it is a significant task.

LadyGP · October 16

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

lThe following post is detailing the move from Slipspace to Unreal 5. That should give you some insight on the experiences of a developer.

None of that address what I said. The reason that the game runs poorly on old PCs and consoles is because of the limitations of those machines, not the engine. ESO is massive because it's a live service game, not something smaller like Halo.

Nobody other than you are talking about old platforms. They aren’t even part of the discussion.

I'm saying that the engine isn't the problem with this game. Your premise is that it's the engine, and I think that's not correct and said what I think it actually is. I based that on dev statements in the past, such as being unable to increase the furniture limit due to old machines.

Another poster also gave their theory on what it is, spaghetti code from early game development. Although they think the engine probably plays a smaller role.

Neither of these things are a problem with using Hero Engine.

The Hero Engine is 1000000% the problem for so many issues in this game.

freespirit · October 16

LadyGP wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

lThe following post is detailing the move from Slipspace to Unreal 5. That should give you some insight on the experiences of a developer.

None of that address what I said. The reason that the game runs poorly on old PCs and consoles is because of the limitations of those machines, not the engine. ESO is massive because it's a live service game, not something smaller like Halo.

Nobody other than you are talking about old platforms. They aren’t even part of the discussion.

I'm saying that the engine isn't the problem with this game. Your premise is that it's the engine, and I think that's not correct and said what I think it actually is. I based that on dev statements in the past, such as being unable to increase the furniture limit due to old machines.

Another poster also gave their theory on what it is, spaghetti code from early game development. Although they think the engine probably plays a smaller role.

Neither of these things are a problem with using Hero Engine.

The Hero Engine is 1000000% the problem for so many issues in this game.

But if it's definitely the engine as you claim why can sooo many of us play every day, all types of content and suffer from no issues at all?

Just to note my PC is getting old, it was built in 2017, it cannot run Win11 but can and does run ESO with everything pretty much maxed.

I cannot remember the last time I crashed and very rarely suffer from lag/high ping, it cannot be the engine solely responsible for everyones woes!

SaffronCitrusflower · October 16

If people go way back into the forum posts you can find official statements from ZOS devs in 2014-2015 about how heavily they had to modify the Hero engine to work with ESO and that the engine was creating a lot of problems and limitations the devs were not happy with.

So, the question is, why didn't ZOS start the work of putting ESO on an engine they knew could handle the game clear back in 2014-2015? They could have had the big release of the game on the new, stable engine this year for the 10 year anniversary of the game. Now that would have been a celebration! (certainly better than grinding for weeks for 4 style pages)

Erickson9610 · October 16

Theist_VII wrote: »

WiseSky wrote: »

I dont know of a single MMO that changed its engine, if WOW can use its engine for over 20 years what makes us think anything otherwise.

WoW has seen a significant drop in population, and was hemorrhaging players from Cataclysm up until Dragonflight.

12 million active players in 2011.
4 million active players in 2020.

8 million 15 dollar monthly subscriptions that were thrown away because World of Warcraft refused to move forward. Thank you for that example.

I'd say ESO is doing the right thing to maintain its population. Instead of marketing ESO as strictly an MMORPG, it's marketed as an Elder Scrolls game with online multiplayer, without requiring a mandatory subscription to play the game after it's been purchased. It's also available on consoles, where there is an audience for games like ESO.

The MMORPG scene in general isn't doing well. WoW has failed to "move forward" because they are still catering to the hardcore MMORPG audience — not because they refused to rebuild their game on the Unreal Engine. At least ESO will continue to draw in fans of The Elder Scrolls, even after The Elder Scrolls VI releases.

Elsonso · October 16

.

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

If people go way back into the forum posts you can find official statements from ZOS devs in 2014-2015 about how heavily they had to modify the Hero engine to work with ESO and that the engine was creating a lot of problems and limitations the devs were not happy with.

So, the question is, why didn't ZOS start the work of putting ESO on an engine they knew could handle the game clear back in 2014-2015? They could have had the big release of the game on the new, stable engine this year for the 10 year anniversary of the game. Now that would have been a celebration! (certainly better than grinding for weeks for 4 style pages)

Actually, if you go back and look at what they said, they replaced Hero with their own engine incrementally. I dunno if anything is left, but the parts people are complaining about look like they are all ZOS.

SaffronCitrusflower · October 16

Elsonso wrote: »

.

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

If people go way back into the forum posts you can find official statements from ZOS devs in 2014-2015 about how heavily they had to modify the Hero engine to work with ESO and that the engine was creating a lot of problems and limitations the devs were not happy with.

So, the question is, why didn't ZOS start the work of putting ESO on an engine they knew could handle the game clear back in 2014-2015? They could have had the big release of the game on the new, stable engine this year for the 10 year anniversary of the game. Now that would have been a celebration! (certainly better than grinding for weeks for 4 style pages)

Actually, if you go back and look at what they said, they replaced Hero with their own engine incrementally. I dunno if anything is left, but the parts people are complaining about look like they are all ZOS.

It says Hero engine when you boot up the game using 64 bit launcher. They have always been pretty clear they heavily modified the engine though, so ya.

Elsonso · October 16

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

.

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

If people go way back into the forum posts you can find official statements from ZOS devs in 2014-2015 about how heavily they had to modify the Hero engine to work with ESO and that the engine was creating a lot of problems and limitations the devs were not happy with.

So, the question is, why didn't ZOS start the work of putting ESO on an engine they knew could handle the game clear back in 2014-2015? They could have had the big release of the game on the new, stable engine this year for the 10 year anniversary of the game. Now that would have been a celebration! (certainly better than grinding for weeks for 4 style pages)

Actually, if you go back and look at what they said, they replaced Hero with their own engine incrementally. I dunno if anything is left, but the parts people are complaining about look like they are all ZOS.

It says Hero engine when you boot up the game using 64 bit launcher. They have always been pretty clear they heavily modified the engine though, so ya.

Matt Firor: ESO is a hugely complex technical feat, so we needed literally years to build a stable game client and server infrastructure that was tuned to the needs of the game: tons of players on screen, very tolerant of network latency, etc. We wanted to get started on game basics while this was happening, so we licensed the Hero Engine, because it was perfect for what we needed at that time: easy to get up and running, easy to get art assets into the game and prototype how our content system would work. We then slowly swapped out Hero components with our own custom-tailored engine, starting with the server and network communications, then content creation tools, the client renderer, and the rest of the engine.

tomofhyrule · October 16

I'm not gonna claim that the engine is the genesis of all problems since I'm not a game dev, but even I know that you don't just "replace" a game engine without rebuilding the entire game from the ground up. I'm always impressed by the number of armchair developers who think you can bang something like this out in an afternoon by yourself. For those of you who think it's such an easy feat and would love to get this game running on [insert magic engine here] within a week or two, I'm sure ZOS would also love the help: https://www.zenimaxonline.com/careers

I'll admit that ESO is being held back by something, but I think the primary factor is it's desire to support outdated hardware. XB1 and PS4 (and older PCs, but those are harder to pin down to a specific hardware combo) released in 2014. XB1 production has been discontinued since 2020, and PS4s are no longer in production in Japan. We even have the 'pro' versions of both current-gen consoles now, so it's about time that support for the older stuff gets sunset so ZOS can continue to build. The same can also be said for older PCs as well.

I know the Housing thing we got in Q3 was a major disappointment to a lot of people since they mostly wanted increased limits, and that's one of the things they've directly said was not possible due to the older hardware limitations. We've also heard that new animations are tough to add and they have to cannibalize space from other things to get them to work. I'm dying to get a new class, so if we need to just make sure we're playing on hardware that's less than 8 years old to make it work, bring it on.

gamma71 · October 16

Hero is a Zero

Theist_VII · October 16

Elsonso wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

.

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

If people go way back into the forum posts you can find official statements from ZOS devs in 2014-2015 about how heavily they had to modify the Hero engine to work with ESO and that the engine was creating a lot of problems and limitations the devs were not happy with.

So, the question is, why didn't ZOS start the work of putting ESO on an engine they knew could handle the game clear back in 2014-2015? They could have had the big release of the game on the new, stable engine this year for the 10 year anniversary of the game. Now that would have been a celebration! (certainly better than grinding for weeks for 4 style pages)

Actually, if you go back and look at what they said, they replaced Hero with their own engine incrementally. I dunno if anything is left, but the parts people are complaining about look like they are all ZOS.

It says Hero engine when you boot up the game using 64 bit launcher. They have always been pretty clear they heavily modified the engine though, so ya.

…starting with the server and network communications, then content creation tools, the client renderer, and the rest of the engine.

His words, not mine. 😂

Must explain why current ESO has the worst positional desyc I have ever seen in any game, don’t believe me? Open ESO on Epic and Steam and stand next to each other, then walk one forward and watch the other screen.

Really enlightening experience.

Sluggy · October 16

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

...
So, the question is, why didn't ZOS start the work of putting ESO on an engine they knew could handle the game clear back in 2014-2015? They could have had the big release of the game on the new, stable engine this year for the 10 year anniversary of the game. Now that would have been a celebration! (certainly better than grinding for weeks for 4 style pages)

It was a game they had already worked on for five years up to that point. The time to use a different engine was four to five years previous to that point. You don't finish a product and then swap technologies and start all over the eve before release. That's suicide. MMOs are notoriously bad at making money. With so much as risk you want to hedge your bets as much as you can and there aren't exactly a lot of engines on the market when it comes to games of this scale and size.

It doesn't matter what engine they use. Using Unreal, or Frostbite, or friggin' Ogre3D (there's a name I haven't thought of in a long time lol) or even a custom rolled one isn't going to magically make these issues go away. They still have a LOT of code to write and a lot of systems to implement on top of all of that. And in that space bugs and limitations will exist. What makes the difference pretty much always boils down to policy and how they prioritize what to deal with. THAT'S what's failing us. Always has been. And we know this. We point it out almost every day on the forums.

fizzylu · October 16

Theist_VII wrote: »

WiseSky wrote: »

I dont know of a single MMO that changed its engine, if WOW can use its engine for over 20 years what makes us think anything otherwise.

WoW has seen a significant drop in population, and was hemorrhaging players from Cataclysm up until Dragonflight.

That.... also has nothing to do with the engine. If anything, WoW's engine has been proven to be better and capable of more right out the gate along with evolving more than the engine ESO has. WoW loses players because Blizzard simply refuses to change their approach to the games content/features, especially endgame-- which surprise, is similar to what ESO has been experiencing for the last few chapters now (even worse, we barely even get actual content at this point period).... and I think anyone who can't admit that ESO has been losing players, or at least struggles to keep them playing consistently, is in just complete denial of the obvious for whatever reason(s).

Aliniel · October 16

https://web.archive.org/web/20120527065323/http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/25/why-the-elder-scrolls-online-isn-39-t-using-heroengine.aspx

You licensed HeroEngine a long time ago. What role did the Hero Engine play in the development of ESO?

We started ZeniMax Online from scratch, with no employees and no technology. We had to build everything ourselves. It takes a long time to write game engines, especially MMO engines, which are inherently more complicated than typical single-player ones. So, we decided to license the HeroEngine to give us a headstart. It was a useful tool for us to use to prototype areas and game design concepts, and it provided us the ability to get art into the game that was visible, so we could work on the game’s art style. Our plan is for ESO to be a world class MMO, with the most advanced social features found in any MMO to date – so while we were prototyping the game on HeroEngine, we were simultaneously developing our own client, server, and messaging layer that were specifically designed with ESO in mind. Think of HeroEngine as a whiteboard for us – a great tool to get some ideas in the game and start looking at them while the production engine was in development.

Based on this, the Hero Engine was used for development process for prototyping. Not directly for the game itself. Of course, proper acknowledgements need to be included in the game. Maybe they even used some parts of it. Who knows. Not important either.

Anyway, as many have already said - one does not simply replace a game engine. It's like replacing the foundations and construction of a skyscraper. Good luck with that.

Elsonso · October 16

Theist_VII wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

…starting with the server and network communications, then content creation tools, the client renderer, and the rest of the engine.

His words, not mine. 😂

Yes, I laughed at that when I read it, too.

robpr · October 16

Anything but UE5. Sure, eye candy but tanks performance on befiest of pcs and bloats the disk space. Current ESO can more or less run on a potato and weighs 70ish GB. This will swell twice on UE for maximum looks.

Benzux · October 16

Ignoring the part of this post that has no idea what genuine game development is like, do you really think the engine of all things is why we're getting less content? I am fairly sure that ZoS announced that they would be dropping the Q3 DLC a year or two ago in favour of focusing on base game improvements and bug fixes, rather than strictly new content, and if my memory serves me correctly, this was in fact something requested by the players.

We're not getting less DLC content because of the engine (????), we're getting less DLC because players wanted the game to work better and ZoS listened to feedback, making the decision to focus on that instead.

Aggrovious · October 16

Sounds more like a licensing agreement issue

AlterBlika · October 16

There's literally no point in moving to other engines when you can just modify the engine you're using

twev · October 16

The reasons for the bugs are less important to the average player plagued by them than the fact that they exist, and aren't being successfully fixed, as they accumulate.

Very few people don't see a need for new content, it's a part of the life blood of a successful game and allows the game to continue as something players look forward to as a continuing standard pass-time.

Unfortunately, an aspect of the bugs that gets lost in the discussions is that there's a not-insignificant portion of the population who, as a result of the bugs/lag/disconnects/FPSdrops/etc, feel less likely to buy new chapters, and eventually stop playing when they can't enjoy playing the content they already have.

Clearly there are no easy solutions, but a game growing in size that has bugs affecting an increasing number of players isn't ultimately as successful as it could be, until the balance tips and the game costs more to run than the profit motive allows.

And the (increasing?) number of players affected by the bugs/lags/etc are becoming more frustrated and vocal and less motivated as time goes on to not only stay with the game, but actively disparage the realm to new players.

It's just the way it is at this point in time.

Whatever the reasons, with endless 'we hear you, we're working on it, and we have nothing to report' comments, more players are feeling that their time and participation in the game isn't respected by ZOS, and that's an issue that isn't going to abate.

[edited to add some context.]

OtarTheMad · October 16

twev wrote: »

The reasons for the bugs are less important to the average player plagued by them than the fact that they exist, and aren't being successfully fixed, as they accumulate.

Very few people don't see a need for new content, it's a part of the life blood of a successful game and allows the game to continue as something players look forward to as a continuing standard pass-time.

Unfortunately, an aspect of the bugs that gets lost in the discussions is that there's a not-insignificant portion of the population who, as a result of the bugs/lag/disconnects/FPSdrops/etc, feel less likely to buy new chapters, and eventually stop playing when they can't enjoy playing the content they already have.

Clearly there are no easy solutions, but a game growing in size that has bugs affecting an increasing number of players isn't ultimately as successful as it could be, until the balance tips and the game costs more to run than the profit motive allows.

And the (increasing?) number of players affected by the bugs/lags/etc are becoming more frustrated and vocal and less motivated as time goes on to not only stay with the game, but actively disparage the realm to new players.

It's just the way it is at this point in time.

Whatever the reasons, with endless 'we hear you, we're working on it, and we have nothing to report' comments, more players are feeling that their time and participation in the game isn't respected by ZOS, and that's an issue that isn't going to abate.

[edited to add some context.]

I think it is a situation where they lose either way, ZOS. The Necrom year they did a free Update in Q3 that was just all bugs fixes and quality of life stuff and I thought it was awesome, and it is what a lot of players were asking for. However, after that you had players complaining about less content now and blah blah. This year Q3 and Q4 were less about bug fixes and more about adding content, even if it was a little but we still have players complaining about less content and now also we need a bug fix update again.

No real way of winning that situation.

OtarTheMad · October 16

KromedeTheCorrupt wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

twev wrote: »

The reasons for the bugs are less important to the average player plagued by them than the fact that they exist, and aren't being successfully fixed, as they accumulate.

Very few people don't see a need for new content, it's a part of the life blood of a successful game and allows the game to continue as something players look forward to as a continuing standard pass-time.

Unfortunately, an aspect of the bugs that gets lost in the discussions is that there's a not-insignificant portion of the population who, as a result of the bugs/lag/disconnects/FPSdrops/etc, feel less likely to buy new chapters, and eventually stop playing when they can't enjoy playing the content they already have.

Clearly there are no easy solutions, but a game growing in size that has bugs affecting an increasing number of players isn't ultimately as successful as it could be, until the balance tips and the game costs more to run than the profit motive allows.

And the (increasing?) number of players affected by the bugs/lags/etc are becoming more frustrated and vocal and less motivated as time goes on to not only stay with the game, but actively disparage the realm to new players.

It's just the way it is at this point in time.

Whatever the reasons, with endless 'we hear you, we're working on it, and we have nothing to report' comments, more players are feeling that their time and participation in the game isn't respected by ZOS, and that's an issue that isn't going to abate.

[edited to add some context.]

I think it is a situation where they lose either way, ZOS. The Necrom year they did a free Update in Q3 that was just all bugs fixes and quality of life stuff and I thought it was awesome, and it is what a lot of players were asking for. However, after that you had players complaining about less content now and blah blah. This year Q3 and Q4 were less about bug fixes and more about adding content, even if it was a little but we still have players complaining about less content and now also we need a bug fix update again.

No real way of winning that situation.

[Snip]

Well, that’s the thing. ZOS was trying to listen to players way back who were complaining about bugs adding up, ZOS agreed. So we got the 2023 Q3 bug fixes and Quality of life stuff and it fixed a lot but players started complaining about losing content. So this year they added back a bit more content to Q3 and now players are complaining about not enough bug fixes but also that the content added wasn’t enough. Kind of lose either way sadly with some side of the playerbase.

I think ZOS needs to just fix all the bugs with Q3 until caught up and then go back to adding content for that quarter update, but that’s just me. I don’t think ZOS can do both substantial content AND a ton of bug fixes in one update, unless they combine Q3 and Q4 updates.

[Edited quote]

KromedeTheCorrupt · October 16

OtarTheMad wrote: »

KromedeTheCorrupt wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

twev wrote: »

The reasons for the bugs are less important to the average player plagued by them than the fact that they exist, and aren't being successfully fixed, as they accumulate.

Very few people don't see a need for new content, it's a part of the life blood of a successful game and allows the game to continue as something players look forward to as a continuing standard pass-time.

Unfortunately, an aspect of the bugs that gets lost in the discussions is that there's a not-insignificant portion of the population who, as a result of the bugs/lag/disconnects/FPSdrops/etc, feel less likely to buy new chapters, and eventually stop playing when they can't enjoy playing the content they already have.

Clearly there are no easy solutions, but a game growing in size that has bugs affecting an increasing number of players isn't ultimately as successful as it could be, until the balance tips and the game costs more to run than the profit motive allows.

And the (increasing?) number of players affected by the bugs/lags/etc are becoming more frustrated and vocal and less motivated as time goes on to not only stay with the game, but actively disparage the realm to new players.

It's just the way it is at this point in time.

Whatever the reasons, with endless 'we hear you, we're working on it, and we have nothing to report' comments, more players are feeling that their time and participation in the game isn't respected by ZOS, and that's an issue that isn't going to abate.

[edited to add some context.]

I think it is a situation where they lose either way, ZOS. The Necrom year they did a free Update in Q3 that was just all bugs fixes and quality of life stuff and I thought it was awesome, and it is what a lot of players were asking for. However, after that you had players complaining about less content now and blah blah. This year Q3 and Q4 were less about bug fixes and more about adding content, even if it was a little but we still have players complaining about less content and now also we need a bug fix update again.

No real way of winning that situation.

[Snip]

Well, that’s the thing. ZOS was trying to listen to players way back who were complaining about bugs adding up, ZOS agreed. So we got the 2023 Q3 bug fixes and Quality of life stuff and it fixed a lot but players started complaining about losing content. So this year they added back a bit more content to Q3 and now players are complaining about not enough bug fixes but also that the content added wasn’t enough. Kind of lose either way sadly with some side of the playerbase.

I think ZOS needs to just fix all the bugs with Q3 until caught up and then go back to adding content for that quarter update, but that’s just me. I don’t think ZOS can do both substantial content AND a ton of bug fixes in one update, unless they combine Q3 and Q4 updates.

I say next year no chapter just straight bug fixes until the game has none left. I can only dream anyway

[Edited quote]

OtarTheMad · October 16

KromedeTheCorrupt wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

KromedeTheCorrupt wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

twev wrote: »

The reasons for the bugs are less important to the average player plagued by them than the fact that they exist, and aren't being successfully fixed, as they accumulate.

Very few people don't see a need for new content, it's a part of the life blood of a successful game and allows the game to continue as something players look forward to as a continuing standard pass-time.

Unfortunately, an aspect of the bugs that gets lost in the discussions is that there's a not-insignificant portion of the population who, as a result of the bugs/lag/disconnects/FPSdrops/etc, feel less likely to buy new chapters, and eventually stop playing when they can't enjoy playing the content they already have.

Clearly there are no easy solutions, but a game growing in size that has bugs affecting an increasing number of players isn't ultimately as successful as it could be, until the balance tips and the game costs more to run than the profit motive allows.

And the (increasing?) number of players affected by the bugs/lags/etc are becoming more frustrated and vocal and less motivated as time goes on to not only stay with the game, but actively disparage the realm to new players.

It's just the way it is at this point in time.

Whatever the reasons, with endless 'we hear you, we're working on it, and we have nothing to report' comments, more players are feeling that their time and participation in the game isn't respected by ZOS, and that's an issue that isn't going to abate.

[edited to add some context.]

I think it is a situation where they lose either way, ZOS. The Necrom year they did a free Update in Q3 that was just all bugs fixes and quality of life stuff and I thought it was awesome, and it is what a lot of players were asking for. However, after that you had players complaining about less content now and blah blah. This year Q3 and Q4 were less about bug fixes and more about adding content, even if it was a little but we still have players complaining about less content and now also we need a bug fix update again.

No real way of winning that situation.

[Snip]

Well, that’s the thing. ZOS was trying to listen to players way back who were complaining about bugs adding up, ZOS agreed. So we got the 2023 Q3 bug fixes and Quality of life stuff and it fixed a lot but players started complaining about losing content. So this year they added back a bit more content to Q3 and now players are complaining about not enough bug fixes but also that the content added wasn’t enough. Kind of lose either way sadly with some side of the playerbase.

I think ZOS needs to just fix all the bugs with Q3 until caught up and then go back to adding content for that quarter update, but that’s just me. I don’t think ZOS can do both substantial content AND a ton of bug fixes in one update, unless they combine Q3 and Q4 updates.

I say next year no chapter just straight bug fixes until the game has none left. I can only dream anyway

Wouldn’t be the worst idea honestly. I also think they need to drop old consoles. I know it losses some players ability to play but ZOS has already admitted it holds them back, which hurts them a lot.

Maybe also changing the format to just two updates a year so the chapter would also include Q1 dungeons and still be free for ESO Plus. Maybe move that to April and then Q3 and 4 move to October. Maybe that will give dev time to work on quality vs rushing content cuz of deadlines.

[Edited quote]

Razmirra · October 16

There is another problem on switching/rebuilding engines and it revolves around addons and how they interact with a new engine. They would have to implement some sort of LUA hook so addons can work like they do now.

KromedeTheCorrupt · October 16

OtarTheMad wrote: »

KromedeTheCorrupt wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

KromedeTheCorrupt wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

twev wrote: »

The reasons for the bugs are less important to the average player plagued by them than the fact that they exist, and aren't being successfully fixed, as they accumulate.

Very few people don't see a need for new content, it's a part of the life blood of a successful game and allows the game to continue as something players look forward to as a continuing standard pass-time.

Unfortunately, an aspect of the bugs that gets lost in the discussions is that there's a not-insignificant portion of the population who, as a result of the bugs/lag/disconnects/FPSdrops/etc, feel less likely to buy new chapters, and eventually stop playing when they can't enjoy playing the content they already have.

Clearly there are no easy solutions, but a game growing in size that has bugs affecting an increasing number of players isn't ultimately as successful as it could be, until the balance tips and the game costs more to run than the profit motive allows.

And the (increasing?) number of players affected by the bugs/lags/etc are becoming more frustrated and vocal and less motivated as time goes on to not only stay with the game, but actively disparage the realm to new players.

It's just the way it is at this point in time.

Whatever the reasons, with endless 'we hear you, we're working on it, and we have nothing to report' comments, more players are feeling that their time and participation in the game isn't respected by ZOS, and that's an issue that isn't going to abate.

[edited to add some context.]

I think it is a situation where they lose either way, ZOS. The Necrom year they did a free Update in Q3 that was just all bugs fixes and quality of life stuff and I thought it was awesome, and it is what a lot of players were asking for. However, after that you had players complaining about less content now and blah blah. This year Q3 and Q4 were less about bug fixes and more about adding content, even if it was a little but we still have players complaining about less content and now also we need a bug fix update again.

No real way of winning that situation.

[Snip]

Well, that’s the thing. ZOS was trying to listen to players way back who were complaining about bugs adding up, ZOS agreed. So we got the 2023 Q3 bug fixes and Quality of life stuff and it fixed a lot but players started complaining about losing content. So this year they added back a bit more content to Q3 and now players are complaining about not enough bug fixes but also that the content added wasn’t enough. Kind of lose either way sadly with some side of the playerbase.

I think ZOS needs to just fix all the bugs with Q3 until caught up and then go back to adding content for that quarter update, but that’s just me. I don’t think ZOS can do both substantial content AND a ton of bug fixes in one update, unless they combine Q3 and Q4 updates.

I say next year no chapter just straight bug fixes until the game has none left. I can only dream anyway

Wouldn’t be the worst idea honestly. I also think they need to drop old consoles. I know it losses some players ability to play but ZOS has already admitted it holds them back, which hurts them a lot.

Maybe also changing the format to just two updates a year so the chapter would also include Q1 dungeons and still be free for ESO Plus. Maybe move that to April and then Q3 and 4 move to October. Maybe that will give dev time to work on quality vs rushing content cuz of deadlines.

Agreed 👍🏻

[Edited quote]

Theist_VII · October 16

An engine in gaming is a tool; one with which powers the entire development process.

When your engine is only capable of producing low-quality assets within the production time table given, as high quality ones are taking far too long to produce or are taxing the performance of your game, you begin talks about what can be done.

The intent of the OP is not to be a doom post, but pose the question of whether it is time to consider the future of this game a bit more seriously.

Toanis · October 16

Elsonso wrote: »

Matt Firor: ESO is a hugely complex technical feat, so we needed literally years to build a stable game client and server infrastructure that was tuned to the needs of the game: tons of players on screen, very tolerant of network latency, etc. We wanted to get started on game basics while this was happening, so we licensed the Hero Engine, because it was perfect for what we needed at that time: easy to get up and running, easy to get art assets into the game and prototype how our content system would work. We then slowly swapped out Hero components with our own custom-tailored engine, starting with the server and network communications, then content creation tools, the client renderer, and the rest of the engine.

That's the same mumbojumbo Bethesda has going on with their Creation Engine, If you buy a car and over a couple decades rebuild all the rusted parts, maybe even make some of them "better", they still have to fit to the parts you aren't replacing right now. At some point you have completely replaced your car, and while it might be pimped up with all the improvements you made, its still the same decades old tech under the hood, because you always had to make sure everything fits together.

Most devs use a customized version of the engine that better suit their needs, that's nothing special. Saying you don't use Engine X, but a custom one, while true from a certain point of view, isn't just some idle boast but also an effective defense against questions like "Engine X now has feature Y, why don't you?" when you would need to pay to be allowed to use that feature or it simply isn't compatible with all your customisations.

Semantics aside, to use the tools provided by an engine, your assets need to be in a certain format, and when you create them you need to do so with the quirks of that format in mind. You may upgrade to a new version or build your own clone of the engine, but switching to an all new engine means you have to start almost from scratch, and at that point you can just as well create an all-new game.