March 18, 2016 PCPowerPlay interview with Rich Lambert

kevlarto_ESO

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Just wanted to chime in on a few points here. First, what Rich said in the interview is true. We read a lot of feedback from many different places; this includes the forums (here), reddit, in-game feedback, watching streams, talking with guilds, and more.

That said, there's never an instance where everyone agrees on one point, and that's where we need to make a decision and go with it. Can we ever make everyone happy? No, but we try have a balance between what will make players happy and what is best for the game long-term. Do we have issues we still need to work out? Of course. We totally understand that some issues, such as Cyrodiil performance, is something that's been sticky for quite some time and at the risk of just repeating what's already been said, please know that we are working on it. Improvements, though small, have been made. We want to get the performance up to par and get game bugs fixed as much as you guys do.

As far as feedback itself goes, there is a difference between being constructive and being rude. You certainly don't have to sugarcoat things, but personal attacks won't get us anywhere.

I understand and I know you guys are doing what you can with the staff and the tools you are given, but one area I wish you guys would try to be more proactive in is getting exploits closed up fast in pvp, this hurts your game on so many levels and is such a turn off to a lot players, they never return, I know there are problems and you will never make everyone happy, what works for me is just seeing things happen.

Example is the dodge exploit, been around for along time, it is one of those things that need to get fixed or everyone needs to know how to do it to balance it out.
Better testing, would be a good thing, maybe get the dev's and the staff involved have an event or two on the pts with the devs, give players a chance to play against and with the dev's, I have been part of this in other games and it was a hoot and the released updates were a lot less buggie.

Troneon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vmmQVheKOk

Man, those days were awesome in this game....shame ZOS completely have ruined ESO Small tactics were crucial in breaking a full on attack or defense...WITH NO LAG

Will probably never see fights of that scale ever again in this game...

Aquanova

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Just wanted to chime in on a few points here. First, what Rich said in the interview is true. We read a lot of feedback from many different places; this includes the forums (here), reddit, in-game feedback, watching streams, talking with guilds, and more.

That said, there's never an instance where everyone agrees on one point, and that's where we need to make a decision and go with it. Can we ever make everyone happy? No, but we try have a balance between what will make players happy and what is best for the game long-term. Do we have issues we still need to work out? Of course. We totally understand that some issues, such as Cyrodiil performance, is something that's been sticky for quite some time and at the risk of just repeating what's already been said, please know that we are working on it. Improvements, though small, have been made. We want to get the performance up to par and get game bugs fixed as much as you guys do.

As far as feedback itself goes, there is a difference between being constructive and being rude. You certainly don't have to sugarcoat things, but personal attacks won't get us anywhere.

@ZOS_GinaBruno the performance issues are not limited just to Cyrodiil at the moment. We are getting lag, crashes, game freezes, latency spikes and fps drops outside of Cyrodiil in the PVE areas. Just tonight all 4 of our group doing VCOA had the game freeze up. Now I'm not one to jump on the " Demand you fix this now " train, I understand these are issues of a complicated nature, i think alot of the frustration is because the game didn't always behave this way. It used to work pretty well and we've seen a steady degradation of responsiveness which has been going on for about a year now.

This game in general is terrific. That's why many people keep playing it, in the hopes that someday you guys will figure it out.

FENGRUSH

The jamesharv guy is an obvious troll - wouldnt waste cycles debating him, folks.

MaxwellC

@Troneon
OMG I miss those days chaining people off the keep! It's a shame ZoS ruined most of the class unique abilities due to people complaining then spitting it back in our face when we ask for certain changes and get hit with the "homogenize" remark.

WalkingLegacy

Lysette wrote: »

@WalkingLegacy

Before ZOS did something to fight bots the client-server architecture was different - they gained the performance for mass battles by not sticking to the client-server paradigma and used client-machines to compute stuff, which would have to be done on the servers. This led to vulnerabilities in regards to bots and hacks - just like it is with Korean MMOs, which do it in the same way. Once they decided to go back to a proper client-server architecture these vulnerabilities were covered, but now the servers had to do all the computation and that is when things got bad performance-wise with zergs and AoE effects, because those scale badly with the number of players and/or AoE effects in a zerg.

Right, the lightning/bot patch.

Anti bot and hack was also implemented for PvE. You're aware of this right? It's not because of your evil PvP.

Cyrodiil is meant to have large scale battles. Calling them zergs is irrelevant to the problem.

Aquanova

Just play the *** game and stop crying already

Zheg

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Just wanted to chime in on a few points here. First, what Rich said in the interview is true. We read a lot of feedback from many different places; this includes the forums (here), reddit, in-game feedback, watching streams, talking with guilds, and more.

That said, there's never an instance where everyone agrees on one point, and that's where we need to make a decision and go with it. Can we ever make everyone happy? No, but we try have a balance between what will make players happy and what is best for the game long-term. Do we have issues we still need to work out? Of course. We totally understand that some issues, such as Cyrodiil performance, is something that's been sticky for quite some time and at the risk of just repeating what's already been said, please know that we are working on it. Improvements, though small, have been made. We want to get the performance up to par and get game bugs fixed as much as you guys do.

As far as feedback itself goes, there is a difference between being constructive and being rude. You certainly don't have to sugarcoat things, but personal attacks won't get us anywhere.

@ZOS_GinaBruno , frankly @Wrobel and @ZOS_BrianWheeler made some colossal mistakes with balance and the pvp meta in this patch - ones they were warned about well in advance. Neither of them have said ANYTHING. They haven't tried to engage the community, they haven't tried to collect feedback, they haven't said what they themselves think is broken or working. The most recent post from either of them is Brian's post 10 days ago on AP gains. People from all walks of pvp life are frustrated/furious with either the meta as a whole or at least significant parts of it. After the massive number and massive impact of each change that came with the TG patch for pvp, any sane person would expect the lead developers would at least engage the community to demonstrate a presence, even if they have no intentions of fixing the steaming pile of *** they donated to the players.

Communication and feedback from your company is an absolute joke. I have nothing against you Gina, but pretending like you guys do a good job at engaging your playerbase, particularly on thorny subjects, is utter garbage. You went ~6-9 months where you weren't allowed to reply to the dozens of threads trying to get ZOS to communicate on vet level removal - most likely because someone above you decided that silence would be the best course. Trying to portray ZOS as engaged with their playerbase is insulting. Out of every mmo I've played, your company has been the worst in terms of communication.

Göttermutter

what a shame, can we have the server data of the european server!?

Göttermutter

maybe i can borrow you a one that has restrictive more power than your old xxx and so you can call it "MULTI", because more power is in any case the solution you search on.

Lysette

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

@WalkingLegacy

Before ZOS did something to fight bots the client-server architecture was different - they gained the performance for mass battles by not sticking to the client-server paradigma and used client-machines to compute stuff, which would have to be done on the servers. This led to vulnerabilities in regards to bots and hacks - just like it is with Korean MMOs, which do it in the same way. Once they decided to go back to a proper client-server architecture these vulnerabilities were covered, but now the servers had to do all the computation and that is when things got bad performance-wise with zergs and AoE effects, because those scale badly with the number of players and/or AoE effects in a zerg.

Right, the lightning/bot patch.

Anti bot and hack was also implemented for PvE. You're aware of this right? It's not because of your evil PvP.

Cyrodiil is meant to have large scale battles. Calling them zergs is irrelevant to the problem.

That is where you are wrong - it makes a huge difference how people are distributed over the (interaction) scene. A zerg ball creates a huge interaction graph, the same amount of people distributed more evenly creates many small interaction graphs, which are a whole lot faster to resolve than one or a few bigger ones. The effort required to resolve an interaction graph scales with the factorial of nodes in that graph, not in a linear manner - many smaller groups are by far less effort than a few bigger ones and if all in a scene are just in one big interaction graph, because they are all near to each other and interacting, then it becomes unmanageable and you see really bad lag issues.

So, I have explained it now in short, but if you want to learn more about it, look up combinatorics and graph theory, this is the math related to these issues.

WalkingLegacy

Lysette wrote: »

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

@WalkingLegacy

Before ZOS did something to fight bots the client-server architecture was different - they gained the performance for mass battles by not sticking to the client-server paradigma and used client-machines to compute stuff, which would have to be done on the servers. This led to vulnerabilities in regards to bots and hacks - just like it is with Korean MMOs, which do it in the same way. Once they decided to go back to a proper client-server architecture these vulnerabilities were covered, but now the servers had to do all the computation and that is when things got bad performance-wise with zergs and AoE effects, because those scale badly with the number of players and/or AoE effects in a zerg.

Right, the lightning/bot patch.

Anti bot and hack was also implemented for PvE. You're aware of this right? It's not because of your evil PvP.

Cyrodiil is meant to have large scale battles. Calling them zergs is irrelevant to the problem.

That is where you are wrong - it makes a huge difference how people are distributed over the (interaction) scene. A zerg ball creates a huge interaction graph, the same amount of people distributed more evenly creates many small interaction graphs, which are a whole lot faster to resolve than one or a few bigger ones. The effort required to resolve an interaction graph scales with the factorial of nodes in that graph, not in a linear manner - many smaller groups are by far less effort than a few bigger ones and if all in a scene are just in one big interaction graph, because they are all near to each other and interacting, then it becomes unmanageable and you see really bad lag issues.

So, I have explained it now in short, but if you want to learn more about it, look up combinatorics and graph theory, this is the math related to these issues.

I get what you're cooking,

But no lag pre anti bot patch with large army warfare/siege warfare.

Lots of lag after anti bot patch.

What is the common denominator?

Lysette

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

@WalkingLegacy

Before ZOS did something to fight bots the client-server architecture was different - they gained the performance for mass battles by not sticking to the client-server paradigma and used client-machines to compute stuff, which would have to be done on the servers. This led to vulnerabilities in regards to bots and hacks - just like it is with Korean MMOs, which do it in the same way. Once they decided to go back to a proper client-server architecture these vulnerabilities were covered, but now the servers had to do all the computation and that is when things got bad performance-wise with zergs and AoE effects, because those scale badly with the number of players and/or AoE effects in a zerg.

Right, the lightning/bot patch.

Anti bot and hack was also implemented for PvE. You're aware of this right? It's not because of your evil PvP.

Cyrodiil is meant to have large scale battles. Calling them zergs is irrelevant to the problem.

That is where you are wrong - it makes a huge difference how people are distributed over the (interaction) scene. A zerg ball creates a huge interaction graph, the same amount of people distributed more evenly creates many small interaction graphs, which are a whole lot faster to resolve than one or a few bigger ones. The effort required to resolve an interaction graph scales with the factorial of nodes in that graph, not in a linear manner - many smaller groups are by far less effort than a few bigger ones and if all in a scene are just in one big interaction graph, because they are all near to each other and interacting, then it becomes unmanageable and you see really bad lag issues.

So, I have explained it now in short, but if you want to learn more about it, look up combinatorics and graph theory, this is the math related to these issues.

I get what you're cooking,

But no lag pre anti bot patch with large army warfare/siege warfare.

Lots of lag after anti bot patch.

What is the common denominator?

See, to fight bots they had to make an end to their hack, which was not implementing proper client-server architecture but putting part of the mass computation on client machines - this gains a lot of performance of course, because now you have a multiple more cores available than there are players in the scene. Problem of this approach and why it is not in the client-server paradigma is, that it opens the computations on the client machines up to manipulations (i.e. hacks, bot software). That is why this should not be done like this - rule normally is "never trust the client software", if you want a healthy service.

So to fight hacks and bots they had to get back to a proper client-server architecture - what means now they have to compute that on the servers - where the number of useable cores does not scale with the amount of players like before - when they used client machines, every player brought a couple of cores to the pool to use - but with a correct implemented client-server architecture this is no longer the case and now it matters how game mechanics scale, because the number of cores does no longer.

Can you see the problem now?

WalkingLegacy

Lysette wrote: »

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

@WalkingLegacy

Before ZOS did something to fight bots the client-server architecture was different - they gained the performance for mass battles by not sticking to the client-server paradigma and used client-machines to compute stuff, which would have to be done on the servers. This led to vulnerabilities in regards to bots and hacks - just like it is with Korean MMOs, which do it in the same way. Once they decided to go back to a proper client-server architecture these vulnerabilities were covered, but now the servers had to do all the computation and that is when things got bad performance-wise with zergs and AoE effects, because those scale badly with the number of players and/or AoE effects in a zerg.

Right, the lightning/bot patch.

Anti bot and hack was also implemented for PvE. You're aware of this right? It's not because of your evil PvP.

Cyrodiil is meant to have large scale battles. Calling them zergs is irrelevant to the problem.

That is where you are wrong - it makes a huge difference how people are distributed over the (interaction) scene. A zerg ball creates a huge interaction graph, the same amount of people distributed more evenly creates many small interaction graphs, which are a whole lot faster to resolve than one or a few bigger ones. The effort required to resolve an interaction graph scales with the factorial of nodes in that graph, not in a linear manner - many smaller groups are by far less effort than a few bigger ones and if all in a scene are just in one big interaction graph, because they are all near to each other and interacting, then it becomes unmanageable and you see really bad lag issues.

So, I have explained it now in short, but if you want to learn more about it, look up combinatorics and graph theory, this is the math related to these issues.

I get what you're cooking,

But no lag pre anti bot patch with large army warfare/siege warfare.

Lots of lag after anti bot patch.

What is the common denominator?

See, to fight bots they had to make an end to their hack, which was not implementing proper client-server architecture but putting part of the mass computation on client machines - this gains a lot of performance of course, because now you have a multiple more cores available than there are players in the scene. Problem of this approach and why it is not in the client-server paradigma is, that it opens the computations on the client machines up to manipulations (i.e. hacks, bot software). That is why this should not be done like this - rule normally is "never trust the client software", if you want a healthy service.

So to fight hacks and bots they had to get back to a proper client-server architecture - what means now they have to compute that on the servers - where the number of useable cores does not scale with the amount of players like before - when they used client machines, every player brought a couple of cores to the pool to use - but with a correct implemented client-server architecture this is no longer the case and now it matters how game mechanics scale, because the number of cores does no longer.

Can you see the problem now?

Always have. The current limitation is with their setup and hardware architecture to the client. Server client to player client.

The whole system is convulated from server to player client. AoE distant and AoE hit count. Then factor in champion point specs, player skill specs and player gear specs. Now factor in players on screen.

Server is checking all this on top of anti bot/hack.

There is a common medium and 25v25 isn't the problem. Especially when 100v100 was happening before all other tech and player systems were implemented.

Miwerton

At the current rate with what we have experienced from the devs, it wouldn't to far off to theorize wheter or not they have been using third parties to act as a spam/troll factories, as other companies and some goverment agencies have done.

Not saying it is directly true, but if it were true it would explain a lot of the current sad situasion you are in.

Edit: The only other reason to defend the neglect and shoddy work from the devs is either extreme naivety or being somehow linked to work for them, or trolls (but that one is always obvious).

Lysette

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

@WalkingLegacy

Before ZOS did something to fight bots the client-server architecture was different - they gained the performance for mass battles by not sticking to the client-server paradigma and used client-machines to compute stuff, which would have to be done on the servers. This led to vulnerabilities in regards to bots and hacks - just like it is with Korean MMOs, which do it in the same way. Once they decided to go back to a proper client-server architecture these vulnerabilities were covered, but now the servers had to do all the computation and that is when things got bad performance-wise with zergs and AoE effects, because those scale badly with the number of players and/or AoE effects in a zerg.

Right, the lightning/bot patch.

Anti bot and hack was also implemented for PvE. You're aware of this right? It's not because of your evil PvP.

Cyrodiil is meant to have large scale battles. Calling them zergs is irrelevant to the problem.

That is where you are wrong - it makes a huge difference how people are distributed over the (interaction) scene. A zerg ball creates a huge interaction graph, the same amount of people distributed more evenly creates many small interaction graphs, which are a whole lot faster to resolve than one or a few bigger ones. The effort required to resolve an interaction graph scales with the factorial of nodes in that graph, not in a linear manner - many smaller groups are by far less effort than a few bigger ones and if all in a scene are just in one big interaction graph, because they are all near to each other and interacting, then it becomes unmanageable and you see really bad lag issues.

So, I have explained it now in short, but if you want to learn more about it, look up combinatorics and graph theory, this is the math related to these issues.

I get what you're cooking,

But no lag pre anti bot patch with large army warfare/siege warfare.

Lots of lag after anti bot patch.

What is the common denominator?

See, to fight bots they had to make an end to their hack, which was not implementing proper client-server architecture but putting part of the mass computation on client machines - this gains a lot of performance of course, because now you have a multiple more cores available than there are players in the scene. Problem of this approach and why it is not in the client-server paradigma is, that it opens the computations on the client machines up to manipulations (i.e. hacks, bot software). That is why this should not be done like this - rule normally is "never trust the client software", if you want a healthy service.

So to fight hacks and bots they had to get back to a proper client-server architecture - what means now they have to compute that on the servers - where the number of useable cores does not scale with the amount of players like before - when they used client machines, every player brought a couple of cores to the pool to use - but with a correct implemented client-server architecture this is no longer the case and now it matters how game mechanics scale, because the number of cores does no longer.

Can you see the problem now?

Always have. The current limitation is with their setup and hardware architecture to the client. Server client to player client.

The whole system is convulated from server to player client. AoE distant and AoE hit count. Then factor in champion point specs, player skill specs and player gear specs. Now factor in players on screen.

Server is checking all this on top of anti bot/hack.

There is a common medium and 25v25 isn't the problem. Especially when 100v100 was happening before all other tech and player systems were implemented.

The problem is not the amount of effects to be computed - the problem is in the structure of the interaction graph, it's size and amount and type of links. That is why I said have a look at graph theory and combinatorics. The graph gets complex pretty quick with a lot of nodes and AoE effects in place - because an AoE effect creates a lot of directed links in the graph, if players are near to each other and makes the structure a lot more complicated. Especially when there are as well mitigation schemes in place, which distribute damage effects to other players - these are additional and on top of it "timed" links - now the interaction graph gets really complicated.

Game mechanics have to be changed in a way, which lets players avoid zergs and AoE spam in a small area - so that the whole scene dissolves in a lot of smaller graphs, with the same number of nodes, but a lot less links - these links are the interactions. If their number can be cut down by changed game mechanics the problem will be gone.

Thealteregoroman

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

You guys wonder why they dont post a lot of the forums? This is why. Anytime they say anything you guys attack them. Not just a light constructive attack either but personal insults. So when you wonder why they dont post on these forums much go look in the mirror and say to that person "stop it!".

I totally agree!

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

Ichnaea wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Ichnaea wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Ichnaea wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

I realize I am not a special snowflake. I know that if I am not happy with a product at some point I have to stop using it. I dont eat at mcdonalds everyday while berating the staff about how I want the burgers cooked differently.

So let's say you have a car. (snipped)

Stopped reading right there. This isnt a car its a video game.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

I dont eat at mcdonalds everyday while berating the staff about how I want the burgers cooked differently.

This isn't McDonalds, it's a video game.

Runs to google.com to look up "analogy". Hrm, interesting.

The point is I dont go in ask a company to change the entire business just to suit me. If I dont like it I go someplace else. For example when IC came out I stopped playing for a bit cause I wasnt happy with IC. Didnt buy IC. Didnt even play the game for a few months until orsinium came out. So you either accept the game for what it is or find another game which suits you.

I think I'll take option C, and play the game for free, so I have something to play with my friends. And yes, that is playing a broken game. And while I'm at it I can go on the forums and make people laugh at the absurdity of some of it's fanboys.

If you don't like what I have to say, you can you know, leave.

I dont care what you say. Its a free country so to speak. Rarely do I pay attention to whos posting anyways. Its better to just talk about what was posted rather than trying to make it personal.

Kilandros

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Just wanted to chime in on a few points here. First, what Rich said in the interview is true. We read a lot of feedback from many different places; this includes the forums (here), reddit, in-game feedback, watching streams, talking with guilds, and more.

That said, there's never an instance where everyone agrees on one point, and that's where we need to make a decision and go with it. Can we ever make everyone happy? No, but we try have a balance between what will make players happy and what is best for the game long-term. Do we have issues we still need to work out? Of course. We totally understand that some issues, such as Cyrodiil performance, is something that's been sticky for quite some time and at the risk of just repeating what's already been said, please know that we are working on it. Improvements, though small, have been made. We want to get the performance up to par and get game bugs fixed as much as you guys do.

As far as feedback itself goes, there is a difference between being constructive and being rude. You certainly don't have to sugarcoat things, but personal attacks won't get us anywhere.

@ZOS_GinaBruno what improvements, though? Performance is the worst it's ever been. Crashes, infinite loading screens, lag, DPS drops--the list goes on.

I don't condone the personal attacks launched in this thread, but I believe the community deserves some answers as to what is going on behind closed doors at Zenimax. You guys launched a 64-bit client that is, frankly, broken. Any other serious software company would be mortified by that. Yet you guys seem determined that this nevertheless presents itself as some kind of an improvement. It isn't.

Let me repeat: Game performance has never been worse. We're 2 years into ESO and stability should be increasing, not decreasing. Bugs and performance problems run rampant for MONTHS while trivial things like camping Thieves Troves are hotfixed immediately.

Meanwhile, Developers are nowhere to be found. Wheeler and Wroebel won't be caught dead posting on the forums. Indeed, the so-called "discussion" on AoE caps had several hundred posts without a response before a Moderator finally said, "We didn't actually intend to have a discussion; we meant this as a place to leave feedback." Personally I found that pretty insulting. Smart people play video games, too, and some of us have a rudimentary understanding of basic english and what is implied when the word discussion is used.

The lack of discussion notwithstanding, feedback was nevertheless entirely ignored. What changed about AoE caps after that? Nothing. Not one thing. One of the reasons players get pissed when ZoS gives lip service to feedback when they clearly ignore it, like in the interview cited by the OP. I don't think a single player in this community was somehow persuaded that ZoS is more openly engaged in feedback after the AoE cap fiasco. On the contrary, for many of us I think it further cemented our belief that the Developers don't care at all about our feedback. Personally, I think the AoE cap post was made simply to placate the playerbase and there was never any real plans for any of the developers to take it seriously. That's a pretty cold and pessimistic view, but it's the one this developer team has left me with.

I'd be satisfied if you fixed the performance issues that are driving players away in droves. I'd even be satisfied if you were open with us re: your true goals and limitations for the game (much like Camelot Unchained is doing, ZoS should visit that reddit page to see what Developer/Community relationship can look like). But I need at least one of those things to move forward with this game.

MikeB

Just going to leave this here.

http://steamcharts.com/app/306130

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

To be fair fixing thieves troves was basically changing a 1 to a 0. Took possibly 5 minutes. The 64 bit client is in beta you should know that because you have to manually launch it. So its buggy ya thats why its in beta.

As far as the developers posting here. Look what you just did. gina posts an update. Communicates with us. Then you attack her. Thats what happens everytime there is a discussion with you guys. All you do is scream you want your way and wont take anything less for an answer. The AOE caps discussion is over. Its staying like it is. Period.

I dont need daily updates and dev hand holding. Im a big boy I can handle a video game.

MikeB

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

To be fair fixing thieves troves was basically changing a 1 to a 0. Took possibly 5 minutes. The 64 bit client is in beta you should know that because you have to manually launch it. So its buggy ya thats why its in beta.

As far as the developers posting here. Look what you just did. gina posts an update. Communicates with us. Then you attack her. Thats what happens everytime there is a discussion with you guys. All you do is scream you want your way and wont take anything less for an answer. The AOE caps discussion is over. Its staying like it is. Period.

I dont need daily updates and dev hand holding. Im a big boy I can handle a video game.

Here's an idea, maybe the playerbase wouldn't be so enraged if they, I don't know, communicate on topics people care about. Instead they cherry pick pointless questions to answer and have never communicated with the playerbase in any sensible manner. Act like professionals not high school kids hiding from bullies. Ignoring a problem has never made it better, only much worse.

At this point I would prefer a refund and apology for using The Elder Scrolls name and brand to make a bad game than another DLC I'll never play. After 7 years of Dev time the game should have been released polished and had minimal issues but the reality is it was a huge mess and still is 2 years later.

Hammy01

I wish both PvE and PvP people would stand together and stop fighting each other and instead focus our energy towards a better gaming experience for all, whether that be new trials / PvP battle grounds / new zones / balance and lag fixes.

We need to start thinking of ESO as a house and each faction of the game (Ie pve'rs, pvp'rs, role players, crafters, etc) is a pillar that holds the house up and if one pillar crumbles the rest will crumble too at some point.



Hammy!

Thealteregoroman

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/254163/the-positive-thread/p1

refuge

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

MikeB wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

To be fair fixing thieves troves was basically changing a 1 to a 0. Took possibly 5 minutes. The 64 bit client is in beta you should know that because you have to manually launch it. So its buggy ya thats why its in beta.

As far as the developers posting here. Look what you just did. gina posts an update. Communicates with us. Then you attack her. Thats what happens everytime there is a discussion with you guys. All you do is scream you want your way and wont take anything less for an answer. The AOE caps discussion is over. Its staying like it is. Period.

I dont need daily updates and dev hand holding. Im a big boy I can handle a video game.

Here's an idea, maybe the playerbase wouldn't be so enraged if they, I don't know, communicate on topics people care about. Instead they cherry pick pointless questions to answer and have never communicated with the playerbase in any sensible manner. Act like professionals not high school kids hiding from bullies. Ignoring a problem has never made it better, only much worse.

At this point I would prefer a refund and apology for using The Elder Scrolls name and brand to make a bad game than another DLC I'll never play. After 7 years of Dev time the game should have been released polished and had minimal issues but the reality is it was a huge mess and still is 2 years later.

The "playerbase" isnt enraged. You and about 3 other vocal people are. You arent getting a refund. You dont deserve any apologies. Its time to grow up and either play the game and accept it for what it is or you can quit. Dont sit here and tell all these lies tho about how they dont communicate.

HoloYoitsu

Hammy01 wrote: »

We need to start thinking of ESO as a house and each faction of the game (Ie pve'rs, pvp'rs, role players, crafters, etc) is a pillar that holds the house up and if one pillar crumbles the rest will crumble too at some point.

You don't want to go there, look at what happened to Templar houses!

LiquidSchwartz

Strider_Roshin wrote: »

Player feedback is absolutely something we take into account though when determining future fixes or new systems. One really important bit of feedback that we took to heart was that immersion and story are super important, but not at the expense of being able to easily play with a friend or significant other. We’ve spent a lot of time fixing player separation issues since launch and all of the new content we’ve built since then takes this feedback into account.

Does he even read the forums? Trust me "I want more immersion and story!" are not popular thread titles.

It was an issue in 2014 lol

Malmai

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Just wanted to chime in on a few points here. First, what Rich said in the interview is true. We read a lot of feedback from many different places; this includes the forums (here), reddit, in-game feedback, watching streams, talking with guilds, and more.

That said, there's never an instance where everyone agrees on one point, and that's where we need to make a decision and go with it. Can we ever make everyone happy? No, but we try have a balance between what will make players happy and what is best for the game long-term. Do we have issues we still need to work out? Of course. We totally understand that some issues, such as Cyrodiil performance, is something that's been sticky for quite some time and at the risk of just repeating what's already been said, please know that we are working on it. Improvements, though small, have been made. We want to get the performance up to par and get game bugs fixed as much as you guys do.

As far as feedback itself goes, there is a difference between being constructive and being rude. You certainly don't have to sugarcoat things, but personal attacks won't get us anywhere.

Please fix PVP LAG.

Tandor

MikeB wrote: »

Just going to leave this here.

http://steamcharts.com/app/306130

Cool, this is the 6th highest month for average players since July 2014. Not that most players use Steam of course. Still, it's good to see the game holding up pretty well with individual monthly fluctuations both ways.

JKorr

Kova wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

No it doesnt depend up to a certain point. What you said sounds like something a child would mutter. Adults even if we dont agree can always agree to be civil towards one another. This is a game after all. Its not the end of the world. If it bothers you so much that you cannot keep control maybe the issue is with yourself and not the developers.

When saying that one shouldn't personally attack someone and respect them, it's best not to personally attack them and disrespect them.

Oh dear. That wasn't an attack. That was using an example to try and show what he meant.

If he was attacking the poster, he could have called him a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum and pouting because the devs aren't paying attention to him.

Big difference, you see.