Maintenance for the week of January 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 6
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 6
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
Please return the milegate scaffolding
-
umagon✭✭✭✭✭I'm still stuck in a cage of wood and regret, someone please come help meSugaroverdose wrote: »
Old Russian proverb:ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We hear you and will be looking at this change gang!
"How to make people happy? Make everything as bad as possible and then return things back as they was"
When the heck game will get real fixes?
It never will. Software developers' workflow tends to be: get paid to program > make inefficient software > get paid to fix inefficient software that they just made > get paid to program another piece of software to replace the previous inefficient software. The cycle repeats because management doesn't understand at the core of things the programmers are just sending instruction sets to the cpu/gpu; and if done correctly there would rarely be any problems.
If they know what the end result should be then they should able to send the correct instructions to achieve that end result. And if they don't know how to then they cant really be called programmers in the first place. So it could be concluded they do things incorrectly for job security. Or they are really bad "programmers" and probably should not refer to themselves as programmers.
As a programmer (not on this game, but as a profession), I'd appreciate it if you fully retracted this statement and apologized to the developers. What you are describing is literally impossible to do. There is no way to program, not even for a single operating system, such that you can guarantee that all inputs will result in clean execution. You can limit the types of input accepted, and you can engineer it so that you minimize areas where the program can behave unexpectedly, but you absolutely cannot create, or even test, that a program will execute without error. This becomes a more profound issue as your program becomes more complex. Do you have several billion-billion years (just lowballing it here) to test ESO against every possible input combination? Because the devs sure don't.
I'm not saying that you should throw all expectations out the window, but demanding that all programmers make bug-free code, especially with regards to a game this complex, is asinine.
No, I will not retract any part of my statements nor will I make any apologizes. I pay for a product and I expect it to work correctly. The whole idea that people can make subpar products and expect to get monetary compensation for doing so needs to end. With software development it's always the same excuses, some mistakes are understandable but long standing issues are unacceptable.
And yes I very familiar with transistor logic I understand how things work. There are many engineering fields where many outcomes exist yet they are able to create end products with little or no defects. Then comes the software engineers who want a exception to the expectations of creating a commercial end product.
People don't want products that don't function correctly and/or don't function as advertised. And they have right to complain about when they paid for the product. If software engineers don't want complains then create software that executes correctly or don't create software at all and find something else to do.
ESO is actually above-par in all regards I can think of, so I don't even know what you're complaining about. If the scant mechanics that are imbalanced or dysfunctional are too much for you to bear, then you're free to discontinue the use of the service, but the rest of us who are having loads of fun are going to keep supporting the product we enjoy.
Understanding transistor logic is so far removed from understanding the actual programming of a product that I honestly don't know why you even brought it up. Code development is invariably done in higher-level languages like C++, Python, Java, etc. That is because those languages have interpreters implemented on the vast majority of consumer-level computers, and the interpreters are more or less what gets you to the actual transistor-level code for your specific machine. Just at that level, there's plenty of room for code to behave in undesirable ways, and that's completely out of the hands of the developers. When you then add the nearly uncountable combinations of system interactions between UI, keyboard/mouse/controller input, video and sound output, client-server communication, decades-out-of-date internet infrastructure, and all the rest, it becomes absolutely ridiculous to expect a product that will be flawless.
Moreover, other engineers make products which fail all the time. I can't think of a single product that doesn't behave unexpectedly when the user mishandles it. For example, something as simple as a wrench is going to behave wonky when you try to use it as a hammer. Commercial hardware fails constantly when used in unintended or unexpected ways. We don't exactly expect a car to fill itself with gas when the user forgets, for instance. We also can't predict the exact moment it will cease moving when it eventually runs out of gas because there are too many variables to account for. When something is as user-driven as an MMO, these problems are exacerbated by orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude.
You don't need to withdraw your statement and apologize, but at least everyone following the conversation is going to know it's purely out of stubbornness and not grounded in any kind of coherent, logical rationale.
My complains are clearly stated, the rationale is coherent and it stems from dissatisfaction of the level of functionality of a product I paid for has. Stubbornness has nothing to do with it, I will always criticize products that I paid for that do not functioning correctly especially for extended periods of time. If you don't like it then you can just ignore and not respond to my comments. But don't respond and expect me to grovel and submit to your request.
Sweety you went from "understanding transistor logic" to making incredibly vapid claims about the production pipeline in like, zero seconds, you are about as coherent as a yodeling seagull at an auction house. It might makes sense from your incredibly limited understanding of the field, but that doesn't make it logical in the face of a mountain of counter-evidence. You can feel free to criticize the game and argue that you don't feel you're getting your money's worth, that's a subjective consumer experience and subject to your own determination, but your claims about intentionally sabotaging code to keep job security stem from pure ignorance on the topic. That is what I was saying you would be stubborn to hold on to.
TTL is ultimately what programmers are instructing. Programing languages are basically shortcuts created to make sending the binary instructions to the TTL easier to do and shorten the time period it takes complete the coding process. In comparison to manually scripting the raw binary. So yes I do understand how it works, and mentioning of TTL has relevance.
A programmer should be able to correctly debug the code so the desired results are achieved. When they can't it can be suspected that they are not doing so because they are not willing, or don't know how to. Programing is not magic it's nothing but mathematics. And if someone is incapable of handling extremely complex mathematical operations then they should not be a programmer.2 -
Recremen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭YesSugaroverdose wrote: »
Old Russian proverb:ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We hear you and will be looking at this change gang!
"How to make people happy? Make everything as bad as possible and then return things back as they was"
When the heck game will get real fixes?
It never will. Software developers' workflow tends to be: get paid to program > make inefficient software > get paid to fix inefficient software that they just made > get paid to program another piece of software to replace the previous inefficient software. The cycle repeats because management doesn't understand at the core of things the programmers are just sending instruction sets to the cpu/gpu; and if done correctly there would rarely be any problems.
If they know what the end result should be then they should able to send the correct instructions to achieve that end result. And if they don't know how to then they cant really be called programmers in the first place. So it could be concluded they do things incorrectly for job security. Or they are really bad "programmers" and probably should not refer to themselves as programmers.
As a programmer (not on this game, but as a profession), I'd appreciate it if you fully retracted this statement and apologized to the developers. What you are describing is literally impossible to do. There is no way to program, not even for a single operating system, such that you can guarantee that all inputs will result in clean execution. You can limit the types of input accepted, and you can engineer it so that you minimize areas where the program can behave unexpectedly, but you absolutely cannot create, or even test, that a program will execute without error. This becomes a more profound issue as your program becomes more complex. Do you have several billion-billion years (just lowballing it here) to test ESO against every possible input combination? Because the devs sure don't.
I'm not saying that you should throw all expectations out the window, but demanding that all programmers make bug-free code, especially with regards to a game this complex, is asinine.
No, I will not retract any part of my statements nor will I make any apologizes. I pay for a product and I expect it to work correctly. The whole idea that people can make subpar products and expect to get monetary compensation for doing so needs to end. With software development it's always the same excuses, some mistakes are understandable but long standing issues are unacceptable.
And yes I very familiar with transistor logic I understand how things work. There are many engineering fields where many outcomes exist yet they are able to create end products with little or no defects. Then comes the software engineers who want a exception to the expectations of creating a commercial end product.
People don't want products that don't function correctly and/or don't function as advertised. And they have right to complain about when they paid for the product. If software engineers don't want complains then create software that executes correctly or don't create software at all and find something else to do.
ESO is actually above-par in all regards I can think of, so I don't even know what you're complaining about. If the scant mechanics that are imbalanced or dysfunctional are too much for you to bear, then you're free to discontinue the use of the service, but the rest of us who are having loads of fun are going to keep supporting the product we enjoy.
Understanding transistor logic is so far removed from understanding the actual programming of a product that I honestly don't know why you even brought it up. Code development is invariably done in higher-level languages like C++, Python, Java, etc. That is because those languages have interpreters implemented on the vast majority of consumer-level computers, and the interpreters are more or less what gets you to the actual transistor-level code for your specific machine. Just at that level, there's plenty of room for code to behave in undesirable ways, and that's completely out of the hands of the developers. When you then add the nearly uncountable combinations of system interactions between UI, keyboard/mouse/controller input, video and sound output, client-server communication, decades-out-of-date internet infrastructure, and all the rest, it becomes absolutely ridiculous to expect a product that will be flawless.
Moreover, other engineers make products which fail all the time. I can't think of a single product that doesn't behave unexpectedly when the user mishandles it. For example, something as simple as a wrench is going to behave wonky when you try to use it as a hammer. Commercial hardware fails constantly when used in unintended or unexpected ways. We don't exactly expect a car to fill itself with gas when the user forgets, for instance. We also can't predict the exact moment it will cease moving when it eventually runs out of gas because there are too many variables to account for. When something is as user-driven as an MMO, these problems are exacerbated by orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude.
You don't need to withdraw your statement and apologize, but at least everyone following the conversation is going to know it's purely out of stubbornness and not grounded in any kind of coherent, logical rationale.
My complains are clearly stated, the rationale is coherent and it stems from dissatisfaction of the level of functionality of a product I paid for has. Stubbornness has nothing to do with it, I will always criticize products that I paid for that do not functioning correctly especially for extended periods of time. If you don't like it then you can just ignore and not respond to my comments. But don't respond and expect me to grovel and submit to your request.
Sweety you went from "understanding transistor logic" to making incredibly vapid claims about the production pipeline in like, zero seconds, you are about as coherent as a yodeling seagull at an auction house. It might makes sense from your incredibly limited understanding of the field, but that doesn't make it logical in the face of a mountain of counter-evidence. You can feel free to criticize the game and argue that you don't feel you're getting your money's worth, that's a subjective consumer experience and subject to your own determination, but your claims about intentionally sabotaging code to keep job security stem from pure ignorance on the topic. That is what I was saying you would be stubborn to hold on to.
TTL is ultimately what programmers are instructing. Programing languages are basically shortcuts created to make sending the binary instructions to the TTL easier to do and shorten the time period it takes complete the coding process. In comparison to manually scripting the raw binary. So yes I do understand how it works, and mentioning of TTL has relevance.
A programmer should be able to correctly debug the code so the desired results are achieved. When they can't it can be suspected that they are not doing so because they are not willing, or don't know how to. Programing is not magic it's nothing but mathematics. And if someone is incapable of handling extremely complex mathematical operations then they should not be a programmer.
You clearly don't understand how it works, or you wouldn't be talking about binary like it's some universal language. Different processors have different architectures and as a result have different machine code instructions. Assembly language is the lowest-level language for a given system that a person might work with, but nobody works with that except people who create compilers and interpreters for higher-level languages. This abstraction means that a typical programmer will never know the exact machine code they're trying to inform, since that's hardware dependent. Thus, just from the hardware angle, they literally cannot guarantee that their code will execute as planned on every system. To be clear: you are claiming that software developers should know the hardware architecture of every machine their code could ever run on, past present and future. That is completely bonkers.
Now let's talk about this debugging nonsense you're on. You are claiming that programming comes down to "extremely complex mathematical operations". This is completely false. The scale and type of programming we are talking about comes down to "infinitely complex mathematical computations" or "Incalculable mathematical computations", one of the two. In a dynamic system dependent not only on one user's input, but the input of potentially millions of simultaneous users, you can technically calculate a specific subset of all possible input sequences, but you would need billions of billions of billions of years to do so. Again, this is a lowball estimate. Then there are things like the halting problem, wherein we cannot know if the program will halt if we don't know the specific input for the program. We do not know the specific input (again, user-generated infinite set of inputs), so we can't know that it will halt (or perform some other particular function).
So no, everything about your premise flies in the face of actual science. I don't know if you just skimmed yahoo answers for your arguments or if you're actually trained and just failed to pay adequate attention, but the things you are saying are completely pants-on-head backward.
EDIT: and don't get me started on external library dependencies. Even if, my some magical time wizard shenanigans, they could prove that the code they write will always execute as they desire, the fact that they're also relying on externally-developed code (graphics drivers, server architecture, the programming languages themselves) means that they still wouldn't be able to guarantee their code is perfect because they don't have their hands in the code of those other product dependencies.Edited by Recremen on September 7, 2016 6:10AMMen'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster1 -
Publius_Scipio✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭[SNIP]
edit for off topic content
It was a picture of elevators as an idea for getting to the 3rd floor.Edited by Publius_Scipio on September 7, 2016 2:33PM2 -
Lava_Croft✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Maybe the scaffolding just disappeared as part of ZOS' excellent code that makes pieces of wood disappear in Cyrodiil. Arrius mine, Allessia mine and now the Milegates.
Maybe this is a way to undercut Arrius lumber.0 -
Cinbri✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭3rd floor access was introcuded coz sorcs could exploit way on 3rd floor with streak and use oils on top of it with minimum threat for them. Patchnotes states that such things fixed so maybe this is the reason of removing 3rd floor access.
0 -
Jules✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭YesGod_flakes wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »
Again just proving how ignorant you are to small scale pvp.
Yeah sorry I don't go to gates (known zerg choke points) to small man. Is this why I always see you embedded in a zerg? You think you're small manning within a sea of red? sure it may only be you and German in that Ts but there's a whole lotta Ep in front and behind and beside you.
p
The lengths at which you will go to be argumentative with me is borderline hilarious. I could say Michael Jackson was the king of pop or harambe was a beautiful soul gone too soon and you'd likely STILL pick a fight and make some petty remark.
I wonder, at night, if you ever just sit and contemplate how unnecessarily hostile you are over a video game. Probably not, but maybe one day you can have that level of introspection.
Anyway, now I'm an ep zergling, even though I spend 75% of my time on my dc at the bridge in a 2-4 man. Just Lol.3 -
TooskSG✭✭✭YesGod_flakes wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »
Again just proving how ignorant you are to small scale pvp.
Yeah sorry I don't go to gates (known zerg choke points) to small man. Is this why I always see you embedded in a zerg? You think you're small manning within a sea of red? sure it may only be you and German in that Ts but there's a whole lotta Ep in front and behind and beside you. p
The lengths at which you will go to be argumentative with me is borderline hilarious. I could say Michael Jackson was the king of pop or harambe was a beautiful soul gone too soon and you'd likely STILL pick a fight and make some petty remark.
I wonder, at night, if you ever just sit and contemplate how unnecessarily hostile you are over a video game. Probably not, but maybe one day you can have that level of introspection.
Anyway, now I'm an ep zergling, even though I spend 75% of my time on my dc at the bridge in a 2-4 man. Just Lol.
Go to sleep, VE scum1 -
Jules✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭YesGod_flakes wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »
Again just proving how ignorant you are to small scale pvp.
Yeah sorry I don't go to gates (known zerg choke points) to small man. Is this why I always see you embedded in a zerg? You think you're small manning within a sea of red? sure it may only be you and German in that Ts but there's a whole lotta Ep in front and behind and beside you. p
The lengths at which you will go to be argumentative with me is borderline hilarious. I could say Michael Jackson was the king of pop or harambe was a beautiful soul gone too soon and you'd likely STILL pick a fight and make some petty remark.
I wonder, at night, if you ever just sit and contemplate how unnecessarily hostile you are over a video game. Probably not, but maybe one day you can have that level of introspection.
Anyway, now I'm an ep zergling, even though I spend 75% of my time on my dc at the bridge in a 2-4 man. Just Lol.
Go to sleep, VE scum
OMG THATS U TOOSK LOL0 -
Ghostbane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭YesIf you purchase a fancy hipster condo, and you find out later that the roof is made out of cheese. Do you curse the construction workers or the architect ?
#companyProgramming{★★★★★ · ★★★★★ · ★★ · ★★★★★}350m+ AP PC - EUAddons
AD :: Imported Waffles [37]EP :: Wee ee ee ee ee [16]DC :: Ghostbane's DK [16], Impending Loadscreen [12]PC - NA
AD :: Ghostbane [50], yer ma [43], Sir Humphrey Winterbottom 2.0 [18], robotic baby legs [18]EP :: Wee Mad Arthur [50], avast ye buttcrackz [49], Sir Horace Foghorn [27], Brother Ballbag [24], Scatman John [16]DC :: W T B Waffles [36], Morale Boost [30], W T F Waffles [17], Ghostbanë [15]RIPAD :: Sir Humphrey Winterbottom 1.0 [20]- AP Meter : All your AP needs
- Greyskull : Customisable, colour-coded Damage Meter
- Auto Research Scrolls : Automatic management of crafting research scrolls
- ITTs Donation Bot : Donation tracker for Guilds
- ITTs Roster Bot : Roster management for Guilds
1 -
TooskSG✭✭✭YesGod_flakes wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »
Again just proving how ignorant you are to small scale pvp.
Yeah sorry I don't go to gates (known zerg choke points) to small man. Is this why I always see you embedded in a zerg? You think you're small manning within a sea of red? sure it may only be you and German in that Ts but there's a whole lotta Ep in front and behind and beside you. p
The lengths at which you will go to be argumentative with me is borderline hilarious. I could say Michael Jackson was the king of pop or harambe was a beautiful soul gone too soon and you'd likely STILL pick a fight and make some petty remark.
I wonder, at night, if you ever just sit and contemplate how unnecessarily hostile you are over a video game. Probably not, but maybe one day you can have that level of introspection.
Anyway, now I'm an ep zergling, even though I spend 75% of my time on my dc at the bridge in a 2-4 man. Just Lol.
Go to sleep, VE scum
OMG THATS U TOOSK LOL
LoS is line of sight0 -
Jules✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭YesGod_flakes wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »
Again just proving how ignorant you are to small scale pvp.
Yeah sorry I don't go to gates (known zerg choke points) to small man. Is this why I always see you embedded in a zerg? You think you're small manning within a sea of red? sure it may only be you and German in that Ts but there's a whole lotta Ep in front and behind and beside you. p
The lengths at which you will go to be argumentative with me is borderline hilarious. I could say Michael Jackson was the king of pop or harambe was a beautiful soul gone too soon and you'd likely STILL pick a fight and make some petty remark.
I wonder, at night, if you ever just sit and contemplate how unnecessarily hostile you are over a video game. Probably not, but maybe one day you can have that level of introspection.
Anyway, now I'm an ep zergling, even though I spend 75% of my time on my dc at the bridge in a 2-4 man. Just Lol.
Go to sleep, VE scum
OMG THATS U TOOSK LOL
LoS is line of sight
Literally had no idea. Legit loling0 -
TooskSG✭✭✭YesGod_flakes wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »
Again just proving how ignorant you are to small scale pvp.
Yeah sorry I don't go to gates (known zerg choke points) to small man. Is this why I always see you embedded in a zerg? You think you're small manning within a sea of red? sure it may only be you and German in that Ts but there's a whole lotta Ep in front and behind and beside you. p
The lengths at which you will go to be argumentative with me is borderline hilarious. I could say Michael Jackson was the king of pop or harambe was a beautiful soul gone too soon and you'd likely STILL pick a fight and make some petty remark.
I wonder, at night, if you ever just sit and contemplate how unnecessarily hostile you are over a video game. Probably not, but maybe one day you can have that level of introspection.
Anyway, now I'm an ep zergling, even though I spend 75% of my time on my dc at the bridge in a 2-4 man. Just Lol.
Go to sleep, VE scum
OMG THATS U TOOSK LOL
LoS is line of sight
Literally had no idea. Legit loling
One should peel for healersIf you purchase a fancy hipster condo, and you find out later that the roof is made out of cheese. Do you curse the construction workers or the architect ?
#companyProgramming
Come join Deciblob. We need more people to get a tabard, one not made of cheese.Edited by TooskSG on September 7, 2016 12:02PM0 -
God_flakes✭✭✭✭✭
✭God_flakes wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »
Again just proving how ignorant you are to small scale pvp.
Yeah sorry I don't go to gates (known zerg choke points) to small man. Is this why I always see you embedded in a zerg? You think you're small manning within a sea of red? sure it may only be you and German in that Ts but there's a whole lotta Ep in front and behind and beside you. p
The lengths at which you will go to be argumentative with me is borderline hilarious. I could say Michael Jackson was the king of pop or harambe was a beautiful soul gone too soon and you'd likely STILL pick a fight and make some petty remark.
I wonder, at night, if you ever just sit and contemplate how unnecessarily hostile you are over a video game. Probably not, but maybe one day you can have that level of introspection.
Anyway, now I'm an ep zergling, even though I spend 75% of my time on my dc at the bridge in a 2-4 man. Just Lol.
Jules, Jules, Jules. There is a video from German in this very forum where you're in a group (admitted by German) of 24 recently. You run in large groups. You also run in small groups. Stop acting like the large group is somehow beneath you or you're somehow beyond it and have put your zerging days behind you. It's ok. There is absolutely nothing wrong with running in large groups and wiping enemies. It's fun! But there is a problem when you refuse to admit to it, even to yourself, for whatever your bizarre reasons are and then bash other people for it. This is an MMO...it's supposed to be group play.0 -
umagon✭✭✭✭✭I'm still stuck in a cage of wood and regret, someone please come help meSugaroverdose wrote: »
Old Russian proverb:ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We hear you and will be looking at this change gang!
"How to make people happy? Make everything as bad as possible and then return things back as they was"
When the heck game will get real fixes?
It never will. Software developers' workflow tends to be: get paid to program > make inefficient software > get paid to fix inefficient software that they just made > get paid to program another piece of software to replace the previous inefficient software. The cycle repeats because management doesn't understand at the core of things the programmers are just sending instruction sets to the cpu/gpu; and if done correctly there would rarely be any problems.
If they know what the end result should be then they should able to send the correct instructions to achieve that end result. And if they don't know how to then they cant really be called programmers in the first place. So it could be concluded they do things incorrectly for job security. Or they are really bad "programmers" and probably should not refer to themselves as programmers.
As a programmer (not on this game, but as a profession), I'd appreciate it if you fully retracted this statement and apologized to the developers. What you are describing is literally impossible to do. There is no way to program, not even for a single operating system, such that you can guarantee that all inputs will result in clean execution. You can limit the types of input accepted, and you can engineer it so that you minimize areas where the program can behave unexpectedly, but you absolutely cannot create, or even test, that a program will execute without error. This becomes a more profound issue as your program becomes more complex. Do you have several billion-billion years (just lowballing it here) to test ESO against every possible input combination? Because the devs sure don't.
I'm not saying that you should throw all expectations out the window, but demanding that all programmers make bug-free code, especially with regards to a game this complex, is asinine.
No, I will not retract any part of my statements nor will I make any apologizes. I pay for a product and I expect it to work correctly. The whole idea that people can make subpar products and expect to get monetary compensation for doing so needs to end. With software development it's always the same excuses, some mistakes are understandable but long standing issues are unacceptable.
And yes I very familiar with transistor logic I understand how things work. There are many engineering fields where many outcomes exist yet they are able to create end products with little or no defects. Then comes the software engineers who want a exception to the expectations of creating a commercial end product.
People don't want products that don't function correctly and/or don't function as advertised. And they have right to complain about when they paid for the product. If software engineers don't want complains then create software that executes correctly or don't create software at all and find something else to do.
ESO is actually above-par in all regards I can think of, so I don't even know what you're complaining about. If the scant mechanics that are imbalanced or dysfunctional are too much for you to bear, then you're free to discontinue the use of the service, but the rest of us who are having loads of fun are going to keep supporting the product we enjoy.
Understanding transistor logic is so far removed from understanding the actual programming of a product that I honestly don't know why you even brought it up. Code development is invariably done in higher-level languages like C++, Python, Java, etc. That is because those languages have interpreters implemented on the vast majority of consumer-level computers, and the interpreters are more or less what gets you to the actual transistor-level code for your specific machine. Just at that level, there's plenty of room for code to behave in undesirable ways, and that's completely out of the hands of the developers. When you then add the nearly uncountable combinations of system interactions between UI, keyboard/mouse/controller input, video and sound output, client-server communication, decades-out-of-date internet infrastructure, and all the rest, it becomes absolutely ridiculous to expect a product that will be flawless.
Moreover, other engineers make products which fail all the time. I can't think of a single product that doesn't behave unexpectedly when the user mishandles it. For example, something as simple as a wrench is going to behave wonky when you try to use it as a hammer. Commercial hardware fails constantly when used in unintended or unexpected ways. We don't exactly expect a car to fill itself with gas when the user forgets, for instance. We also can't predict the exact moment it will cease moving when it eventually runs out of gas because there are too many variables to account for. When something is as user-driven as an MMO, these problems are exacerbated by orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude.
You don't need to withdraw your statement and apologize, but at least everyone following the conversation is going to know it's purely out of stubbornness and not grounded in any kind of coherent, logical rationale.
My complains are clearly stated, the rationale is coherent and it stems from dissatisfaction of the level of functionality of a product I paid for has. Stubbornness has nothing to do with it, I will always criticize products that I paid for that do not functioning correctly especially for extended periods of time. If you don't like it then you can just ignore and not respond to my comments. But don't respond and expect me to grovel and submit to your request.
Sweety you went from "understanding transistor logic" to making incredibly vapid claims about the production pipeline in like, zero seconds, you are about as coherent as a yodeling seagull at an auction house. It might makes sense from your incredibly limited understanding of the field, but that doesn't make it logical in the face of a mountain of counter-evidence. You can feel free to criticize the game and argue that you don't feel you're getting your money's worth, that's a subjective consumer experience and subject to your own determination, but your claims about intentionally sabotaging code to keep job security stem from pure ignorance on the topic. That is what I was saying you would be stubborn to hold on to.
TTL is ultimately what programmers are instructing. Programing languages are basically shortcuts created to make sending the binary instructions to the TTL easier to do and shorten the time period it takes complete the coding process. In comparison to manually scripting the raw binary. So yes I do understand how it works, and mentioning of TTL has relevance.
A programmer should be able to correctly debug the code so the desired results are achieved. When they can't it can be suspected that they are not doing so because they are not willing, or don't know how to. Programing is not magic it's nothing but mathematics. And if someone is incapable of handling extremely complex mathematical operations then they should not be a programmer.
You clearly don't understand how it works, or you wouldn't be talking about binary like it's some universal language. Different processors have different architectures and as a result have different machine code instructions. Assembly language is the lowest-level language for a given system that a person might work with, but nobody works with that except people who create compilers and interpreters for higher-level languages. This abstraction means that a typical programmer will never know the exact machine code they're trying to inform, since that's hardware dependent. Thus, just from the hardware angle, they literally cannot guarantee that their code will execute as planned on every system. To be clear: you are claiming that software developers should know the hardware architecture of every machine their code could ever run on, past present and future. That is completely bonkers.
Now let's talk about this debugging nonsense you're on. You are claiming that programming comes down to "extremely complex mathematical operations". This is completely false. The scale and type of programming we are talking about comes down to "infinitely complex mathematical computations" or "Incalculable mathematical computations", one of the two. In a dynamic system dependent not only on one user's input, but the input of potentially millions of simultaneous users, you can technically calculate a specific subset of all possible input sequences, but you would need billions of billions of billions of years to do so. Again, this is a lowball estimate. Then there are things like the halting problem, wherein we cannot know if the program will halt if we don't know the specific input for the program. We do not know the specific input (again, user-generated infinite set of inputs), so we can't know that it will halt (or perform some other particular function).
So no, everything about your premise flies in the face of actual science. I don't know if you just skimmed yahoo answers for your arguments or if you're actually trained and just failed to pay adequate attention, but the things you are saying are completely pants-on-head backward.
EDIT: and don't get me started on external library dependencies. Even if, my some magical time wizard shenanigans, they could prove that the code they write will always execute as they desire, the fact that they're also relying on externally-developed code (graphics drivers, server architecture, the programming languages themselves) means that they still wouldn't be able to guarantee their code is perfect because they don't have their hands in the code of those other product dependencies.
Just because a task is complex does not mean it should be completed inadequately and problems not resolved for long periods of time. When it comes to mmos most of, if not all of the critical calculation is server side which the companies have control of. So they should be able resolve the coding issues as they know the architecture they are coding for and what they could possibly be coding in the future. Many of the complains in the forums and elsewhere are not based on performance issues with the client on their personal machine but the execution of the server code. So no they don't have multiple combinations of different user level architecture to compensate for; because the architecture that supports the game is on the game servers.1 -
Asardes✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭YesI thought the devs put those gates in the game precisely because they wanted battles at choke points. Removing most of the access to the upper floors & towers makes battles less likely and at least less tactically complex. This move will dumb down PvP even further. ATM it's pretty dumbed down already, with most players just running in zergs and spamming AoE abilities like proximity detonation and steel tornado, ganking the solo players between keeps in smaller groups or farming AP with scrolls and at resources - at least they made the latter a bit less convenient by removing the tower doors which is good IMO. Who has the biggest zerg wins. Battles at choke points actually balanced things a bit allowing some zergs to be stopped in their tracks and decimated before they reach the next keep. That's even harder now. Generally, there's little strategy, little coordination between player groups and this is one of the disappointing points of PvP for me.Beta tester since February 2014, played ESO-TU October 2015 - August 2022, currently on an extended break
vMA (The Flawless Conqueror) | vVH (Spirit Slayer & of the Undying Song) | vDSA | vAA HM | vHRC HM | vSO HM | vMoL | vAS+1 | Emperor
PC-EU CP 3000+
41,000+ Achievement Points before High IsleMember of:
Pact Veteran Trade: Exemplary
Traders of the Covenant: God of Sales
Tamriels Emporium: God of Sales
Valinor Overflow: Trader
The Traveling Merchant: Silver
Characters:
Asardes | 50 Nord Dragonknight | EP AR 50 | Master Crafter: all traits & recipes, all styles released before High Isle
Alxaril Nelcarion | 50 High Elf Sorcerer | AD AR 20 |
Dro'Bear Three-paws | 50 Khajiit Nightblade | AD AR 20 |
Veronique Nicole | 50 Breton Templar | DC AR 20 |
Sabina Flavia Cosades | 50 Imperial Warden | EP AR 20 |
Ervesa Neloren | 50 Dark Elf Dragonknight | EP AR 20 |
Fendar Khodwin | 50 Redguard Sorcerer | DC AR 20 |
Surilanwe of Lillandril | 50 High Elf Nightblade | AD AR 20 |
Joleen the Swift | 50 Redguard Templar | DC AR 20 |
Draynor Telvanni | 50 Dark Elf Warden | EP AR 20 |
Claudius Tharn | 50 Necromancer | DC AR 20 |
Nazura-la the Bonedancer | 50 Necromancer | AD AR 20 |
Tharkul gro-Shug | 50 Orc Dragonknight | DC AR 4 |
Ushruka gra-Lhurgash | 50 Orc Sorcerer | AD AR 4 |
Cienwen ferch Llywelyn | 50 Breton Nightblade | DC AR 4 |
Plays-with-Sunray | 50 Argonian Templar | EP AR 4 |
Milariel | 50 Wood Elf Warden | AD AR 4 |
Scheei-Jul | 50 Necromancer | EP AR 4 |
PC-NA CP 1800+
30,000+ Achievement Points before High IsleMember of:
Savage Blade: Majestic Machette
Characters:
Asardes the Exile | 50 Nord Dragonknight | EP AR 30 |0 -
KenaPKK✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭YesWell...I'll be surprised if ZOS returns to this thread to further discuss this issue with us. Good job everyone.
Kena
Former Class Rep
Former Legend GM
Beta player1 -
Recremen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭YesSugaroverdose wrote: »
Old Russian proverb:ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We hear you and will be looking at this change gang!
"How to make people happy? Make everything as bad as possible and then return things back as they was"
When the heck game will get real fixes?
It never will. Software developers' workflow tends to be: get paid to program > make inefficient software > get paid to fix inefficient software that they just made > get paid to program another piece of software to replace the previous inefficient software. The cycle repeats because management doesn't understand at the core of things the programmers are just sending instruction sets to the cpu/gpu; and if done correctly there would rarely be any problems.
If they know what the end result should be then they should able to send the correct instructions to achieve that end result. And if they don't know how to then they cant really be called programmers in the first place. So it could be concluded they do things incorrectly for job security. Or they are really bad "programmers" and probably should not refer to themselves as programmers.
As a programmer (not on this game, but as a profession), I'd appreciate it if you fully retracted this statement and apologized to the developers. What you are describing is literally impossible to do. There is no way to program, not even for a single operating system, such that you can guarantee that all inputs will result in clean execution. You can limit the types of input accepted, and you can engineer it so that you minimize areas where the program can behave unexpectedly, but you absolutely cannot create, or even test, that a program will execute without error. This becomes a more profound issue as your program becomes more complex. Do you have several billion-billion years (just lowballing it here) to test ESO against every possible input combination? Because the devs sure don't.
I'm not saying that you should throw all expectations out the window, but demanding that all programmers make bug-free code, especially with regards to a game this complex, is asinine.
No, I will not retract any part of my statements nor will I make any apologizes. I pay for a product and I expect it to work correctly. The whole idea that people can make subpar products and expect to get monetary compensation for doing so needs to end. With software development it's always the same excuses, some mistakes are understandable but long standing issues are unacceptable.
And yes I very familiar with transistor logic I understand how things work. There are many engineering fields where many outcomes exist yet they are able to create end products with little or no defects. Then comes the software engineers who want a exception to the expectations of creating a commercial end product.
People don't want products that don't function correctly and/or don't function as advertised. And they have right to complain about when they paid for the product. If software engineers don't want complains then create software that executes correctly or don't create software at all and find something else to do.
ESO is actually above-par in all regards I can think of, so I don't even know what you're complaining about. If the scant mechanics that are imbalanced or dysfunctional are too much for you to bear, then you're free to discontinue the use of the service, but the rest of us who are having loads of fun are going to keep supporting the product we enjoy.
Understanding transistor logic is so far removed from understanding the actual programming of a product that I honestly don't know why you even brought it up. Code development is invariably done in higher-level languages like C++, Python, Java, etc. That is because those languages have interpreters implemented on the vast majority of consumer-level computers, and the interpreters are more or less what gets you to the actual transistor-level code for your specific machine. Just at that level, there's plenty of room for code to behave in undesirable ways, and that's completely out of the hands of the developers. When you then add the nearly uncountable combinations of system interactions between UI, keyboard/mouse/controller input, video and sound output, client-server communication, decades-out-of-date internet infrastructure, and all the rest, it becomes absolutely ridiculous to expect a product that will be flawless.
Moreover, other engineers make products which fail all the time. I can't think of a single product that doesn't behave unexpectedly when the user mishandles it. For example, something as simple as a wrench is going to behave wonky when you try to use it as a hammer. Commercial hardware fails constantly when used in unintended or unexpected ways. We don't exactly expect a car to fill itself with gas when the user forgets, for instance. We also can't predict the exact moment it will cease moving when it eventually runs out of gas because there are too many variables to account for. When something is as user-driven as an MMO, these problems are exacerbated by orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude.
You don't need to withdraw your statement and apologize, but at least everyone following the conversation is going to know it's purely out of stubbornness and not grounded in any kind of coherent, logical rationale.
My complains are clearly stated, the rationale is coherent and it stems from dissatisfaction of the level of functionality of a product I paid for has. Stubbornness has nothing to do with it, I will always criticize products that I paid for that do not functioning correctly especially for extended periods of time. If you don't like it then you can just ignore and not respond to my comments. But don't respond and expect me to grovel and submit to your request.
Sweety you went from "understanding transistor logic" to making incredibly vapid claims about the production pipeline in like, zero seconds, you are about as coherent as a yodeling seagull at an auction house. It might makes sense from your incredibly limited understanding of the field, but that doesn't make it logical in the face of a mountain of counter-evidence. You can feel free to criticize the game and argue that you don't feel you're getting your money's worth, that's a subjective consumer experience and subject to your own determination, but your claims about intentionally sabotaging code to keep job security stem from pure ignorance on the topic. That is what I was saying you would be stubborn to hold on to.
TTL is ultimately what programmers are instructing. Programing languages are basically shortcuts created to make sending the binary instructions to the TTL easier to do and shorten the time period it takes complete the coding process. In comparison to manually scripting the raw binary. So yes I do understand how it works, and mentioning of TTL has relevance.
A programmer should be able to correctly debug the code so the desired results are achieved. When they can't it can be suspected that they are not doing so because they are not willing, or don't know how to. Programing is not magic it's nothing but mathematics. And if someone is incapable of handling extremely complex mathematical operations then they should not be a programmer.
You clearly don't understand how it works, or you wouldn't be talking about binary like it's some universal language. Different processors have different architectures and as a result have different machine code instructions. Assembly language is the lowest-level language for a given system that a person might work with, but nobody works with that except people who create compilers and interpreters for higher-level languages. This abstraction means that a typical programmer will never know the exact machine code they're trying to inform, since that's hardware dependent. Thus, just from the hardware angle, they literally cannot guarantee that their code will execute as planned on every system. To be clear: you are claiming that software developers should know the hardware architecture of every machine their code could ever run on, past present and future. That is completely bonkers.
Now let's talk about this debugging nonsense you're on. You are claiming that programming comes down to "extremely complex mathematical operations". This is completely false. The scale and type of programming we are talking about comes down to "infinitely complex mathematical computations" or "Incalculable mathematical computations", one of the two. In a dynamic system dependent not only on one user's input, but the input of potentially millions of simultaneous users, you can technically calculate a specific subset of all possible input sequences, but you would need billions of billions of billions of years to do so. Again, this is a lowball estimate. Then there are things like the halting problem, wherein we cannot know if the program will halt if we don't know the specific input for the program. We do not know the specific input (again, user-generated infinite set of inputs), so we can't know that it will halt (or perform some other particular function).
So no, everything about your premise flies in the face of actual science. I don't know if you just skimmed yahoo answers for your arguments or if you're actually trained and just failed to pay adequate attention, but the things you are saying are completely pants-on-head backward.
EDIT: and don't get me started on external library dependencies. Even if, my some magical time wizard shenanigans, they could prove that the code they write will always execute as they desire, the fact that they're also relying on externally-developed code (graphics drivers, server architecture, the programming languages themselves) means that they still wouldn't be able to guarantee their code is perfect because they don't have their hands in the code of those other product dependencies.
Just because a task is complex does not mean it should be completed inadequately and problems not resolved for long periods of time. When it comes to mmos most of, if not all of the critical calculation is server side which the companies have control of. So they should be able resolve the coding issues as they know the architecture they are coding for and what they could possibly be coding in the future. Many of the complains in the forums and elsewhere are not based on performance issues with the client on their personal machine but the execution of the server code. So no they don't have multiple combinations of different user level architecture to compensate for; because the architecture that supports the game is on the game servers.
Once again, quite incorrect. Even if all of the damage, healing, and movement calculations were done server-side (which they clearly aren't or Cheat Engine wouldn't be able to work) there is still a massive amount of calculation happening on the client machine. These calculations include everything from display and sound to server communication.
That's not to say that there isn't a large portion of code that the developers have a reasonable amount of control over, of course. But you're still ignoring the fact that the code they're controlling is still using user-inputted data, and that testing every interacting combination of spells, abilities, terrain features, items, etc. is literally impossible to calculate. The fact that the majority of forum complaints are things like "this trait seems to give slightly more damage than that trait and I don't like it" instead of "I tried to attack a mudcrab and instead slew the entire population of Daggerfall and now have a 156000 bounty" speaks to the caliber of the developers. They are working with impossibly-large systems and still manage to make it work coherently in almost every user scenario.Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster0 -
Daggerfall_Bones✭✭✭YesYes,
But allow the gates and bridge towers to be destructable. Then have some NPCs build them back.
Tower, gate and bridge farms are fun but shouldn't be a core abjectives in the game just to farm AP. Make them capture points like the towns.Bones - Dunmer DK0 -
Luigi_Vampa✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭God_flakes wrote: »
Yeah, they can be. You should see Zerg Squad farm DC and EP zergs at Chalman milegate. About a 12 man group farming zergs sounds like small scale to me. That doesn't happen without terrain with chokepoints and los.PC/EU DC0 -
umagon✭✭✭✭✭I'm still stuck in a cage of wood and regret, someone please come help meSugaroverdose wrote: »
Old Russian proverb:ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We hear you and will be looking at this change gang!
"How to make people happy? Make everything as bad as possible and then return things back as they was"
When the heck game will get real fixes?
It never will. Software developers' workflow tends to be: get paid to program > make inefficient software > get paid to fix inefficient software that they just made > get paid to program another piece of software to replace the previous inefficient software. The cycle repeats because management doesn't understand at the core of things the programmers are just sending instruction sets to the cpu/gpu; and if done correctly there would rarely be any problems.
If they know what the end result should be then they should able to send the correct instructions to achieve that end result. And if they don't know how to then they cant really be called programmers in the first place. So it could be concluded they do things incorrectly for job security. Or they are really bad "programmers" and probably should not refer to themselves as programmers.
As a programmer (not on this game, but as a profession), I'd appreciate it if you fully retracted this statement and apologized to the developers. What you are describing is literally impossible to do. There is no way to program, not even for a single operating system, such that you can guarantee that all inputs will result in clean execution. You can limit the types of input accepted, and you can engineer it so that you minimize areas where the program can behave unexpectedly, but you absolutely cannot create, or even test, that a program will execute without error. This becomes a more profound issue as your program becomes more complex. Do you have several billion-billion years (just lowballing it here) to test ESO against every possible input combination? Because the devs sure don't.
I'm not saying that you should throw all expectations out the window, but demanding that all programmers make bug-free code, especially with regards to a game this complex, is asinine.
No, I will not retract any part of my statements nor will I make any apologizes. I pay for a product and I expect it to work correctly. The whole idea that people can make subpar products and expect to get monetary compensation for doing so needs to end. With software development it's always the same excuses, some mistakes are understandable but long standing issues are unacceptable.
And yes I very familiar with transistor logic I understand how things work. There are many engineering fields where many outcomes exist yet they are able to create end products with little or no defects. Then comes the software engineers who want a exception to the expectations of creating a commercial end product.
People don't want products that don't function correctly and/or don't function as advertised. And they have right to complain about when they paid for the product. If software engineers don't want complains then create software that executes correctly or don't create software at all and find something else to do.
ESO is actually above-par in all regards I can think of, so I don't even know what you're complaining about. If the scant mechanics that are imbalanced or dysfunctional are too much for you to bear, then you're free to discontinue the use of the service, but the rest of us who are having loads of fun are going to keep supporting the product we enjoy.
Understanding transistor logic is so far removed from understanding the actual programming of a product that I honestly don't know why you even brought it up. Code development is invariably done in higher-level languages like C++, Python, Java, etc. That is because those languages have interpreters implemented on the vast majority of consumer-level computers, and the interpreters are more or less what gets you to the actual transistor-level code for your specific machine. Just at that level, there's plenty of room for code to behave in undesirable ways, and that's completely out of the hands of the developers. When you then add the nearly uncountable combinations of system interactions between UI, keyboard/mouse/controller input, video and sound output, client-server communication, decades-out-of-date internet infrastructure, and all the rest, it becomes absolutely ridiculous to expect a product that will be flawless.
Moreover, other engineers make products which fail all the time. I can't think of a single product that doesn't behave unexpectedly when the user mishandles it. For example, something as simple as a wrench is going to behave wonky when you try to use it as a hammer. Commercial hardware fails constantly when used in unintended or unexpected ways. We don't exactly expect a car to fill itself with gas when the user forgets, for instance. We also can't predict the exact moment it will cease moving when it eventually runs out of gas because there are too many variables to account for. When something is as user-driven as an MMO, these problems are exacerbated by orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude.
You don't need to withdraw your statement and apologize, but at least everyone following the conversation is going to know it's purely out of stubbornness and not grounded in any kind of coherent, logical rationale.
My complains are clearly stated, the rationale is coherent and it stems from dissatisfaction of the level of functionality of a product I paid for has. Stubbornness has nothing to do with it, I will always criticize products that I paid for that do not functioning correctly especially for extended periods of time. If you don't like it then you can just ignore and not respond to my comments. But don't respond and expect me to grovel and submit to your request.
Sweety you went from "understanding transistor logic" to making incredibly vapid claims about the production pipeline in like, zero seconds, you are about as coherent as a yodeling seagull at an auction house. It might makes sense from your incredibly limited understanding of the field, but that doesn't make it logical in the face of a mountain of counter-evidence. You can feel free to criticize the game and argue that you don't feel you're getting your money's worth, that's a subjective consumer experience and subject to your own determination, but your claims about intentionally sabotaging code to keep job security stem from pure ignorance on the topic. That is what I was saying you would be stubborn to hold on to.
TTL is ultimately what programmers are instructing. Programing languages are basically shortcuts created to make sending the binary instructions to the TTL easier to do and shorten the time period it takes complete the coding process. In comparison to manually scripting the raw binary. So yes I do understand how it works, and mentioning of TTL has relevance.
A programmer should be able to correctly debug the code so the desired results are achieved. When they can't it can be suspected that they are not doing so because they are not willing, or don't know how to. Programing is not magic it's nothing but mathematics. And if someone is incapable of handling extremely complex mathematical operations then they should not be a programmer.
You clearly don't understand how it works, or you wouldn't be talking about binary like it's some universal language. Different processors have different architectures and as a result have different machine code instructions. Assembly language is the lowest-level language for a given system that a person might work with, but nobody works with that except people who create compilers and interpreters for higher-level languages. This abstraction means that a typical programmer will never know the exact machine code they're trying to inform, since that's hardware dependent. Thus, just from the hardware angle, they literally cannot guarantee that their code will execute as planned on every system. To be clear: you are claiming that software developers should know the hardware architecture of every machine their code could ever run on, past present and future. That is completely bonkers.
Now let's talk about this debugging nonsense you're on. You are claiming that programming comes down to "extremely complex mathematical operations". This is completely false. The scale and type of programming we are talking about comes down to "infinitely complex mathematical computations" or "Incalculable mathematical computations", one of the two. In a dynamic system dependent not only on one user's input, but the input of potentially millions of simultaneous users, you can technically calculate a specific subset of all possible input sequences, but you would need billions of billions of billions of years to do so. Again, this is a lowball estimate. Then there are things like the halting problem, wherein we cannot know if the program will halt if we don't know the specific input for the program. We do not know the specific input (again, user-generated infinite set of inputs), so we can't know that it will halt (or perform some other particular function).
So no, everything about your premise flies in the face of actual science. I don't know if you just skimmed yahoo answers for your arguments or if you're actually trained and just failed to pay adequate attention, but the things you are saying are completely pants-on-head backward.
EDIT: and don't get me started on external library dependencies. Even if, my some magical time wizard shenanigans, they could prove that the code they write will always execute as they desire, the fact that they're also relying on externally-developed code (graphics drivers, server architecture, the programming languages themselves) means that they still wouldn't be able to guarantee their code is perfect because they don't have their hands in the code of those other product dependencies.
Just because a task is complex does not mean it should be completed inadequately and problems not resolved for long periods of time. When it comes to mmos most of, if not all of the critical calculation is server side which the companies have control of. So they should be able resolve the coding issues as they know the architecture they are coding for and what they could possibly be coding in the future. Many of the complains in the forums and elsewhere are not based on performance issues with the client on their personal machine but the execution of the server code. So no they don't have multiple combinations of different user level architecture to compensate for; because the architecture that supports the game is on the game servers.
Once again, quite incorrect. Even if all of the damage, healing, and movement calculations were done server-side (which they clearly aren't or Cheat Engine wouldn't be able to work) there is still a massive amount of calculation happening on the client machine. These calculations include everything from display and sound to server communication.
That's not to say that there isn't a large portion of code that the developers have a reasonable amount of control over, of course. But you're still ignoring the fact that the code they're controlling is still using user-inputted data, and that testing every interacting combination of spells, abilities, terrain features, items, etc. is literally impossible to calculate. The fact that the majority of forum complaints are things like "this trait seems to give slightly more damage than that trait and I don't like it" instead of "I tried to attack a mudcrab and instead slew the entire population of Daggerfall and now have a 156000 bounty" speaks to the caliber of the developers. They are working with impossibly-large systems and still manage to make it work coherently in almost every user scenario.
The cheat engine issue was a good a example of incompetence or intentionally using a system that would have known issues with it. They made the decision to use client trust which in an mmo is something most would not do. Because it can allow people to send information to the server and the server accept it to be true even when the values are beyond a possible range. Someone should not be able to instruct the server that their character has 100,000 stamina and the server accepts this when all equipped items, buffs, etc stored and/or managed by the server indicate that the value is incorrect.
And no there are many complains about skills, equipment items, intractable items not functioning correctly. In game I see people complain all the time about being stuck in combat, having siege weapons not work correctly, issues with the charge skills, getting stuck in side of walls, etc. So no there are complaints about systems not functioning correctly and not just modification requests to change to systems that are functioning correctly.1 -
zyk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I disagree. You can look at gameplay code with the wide eyes of a child if you wish, but it's probably not that complicated. Do you follow game development as a hobby? Do you ever delve into gameplay code? It is generally very basic unless the game extremely poorly engineered with hard-coded functions. This is something hobbyist game developers have been doing since the 80s with text-based MUDs, with 3D games since the 90s, and now with robust freely available engines like Unity.As I've previously stated, it's fine to criticize the bugs as a consumer and demand they be focused, but making assumptions about production is totally inappropriate.
When an item set remains bugged for weeks, it's not likely because it's a complicated problem to fix, it's because it is considered low priority by the developer. While there may be outlying issues that are more complex, this should be generally true.
No, I can't prove it. I do not know which of my assumptions may be true. I cannot prove you or I exist, either. There's no need for tangents about the endless possibilities of the universe. There are assumptions that are pretty safe to make. This isn't the bleeding edge of disruptive game development.EDIT: and as for rocket science and voodoo, coders may have developed sets of "best practices", but with something so user-driven as gaming, especially something as complex as an MMO utilizing emergent server technology, it speaks volumes to the developers' skills that it hasn't been a complete crudshoot.
As amazing as computer technology may be, it is now ordinary. There is very little I observe about ESO that is emergent. It is an evolutionary product, not a revolutionary one. You are making APIs and HALs seem way more complicated and unstable than they actually are. This was exciting stuff in the 80s and 90s. Now, we expect it to work.
In any case, there are very valid reasons to believe ZOS doesn't take QA and bug fixes as seriously as it should. To me, it's obvious it does not. I respect your opinion, however I do not think it's fair to tell anyone they are wrong to call out ZOS in this regard.2 -
Jules✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭YesGod_flakes wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »
Again just proving how ignorant you are to small scale pvp.
Yeah sorry I don't go to gates (known zerg choke points) to small man. Is this why I always see you embedded in a zerg? You think you're small manning within a sea of red? sure it may only be you and German in that Ts but there's a whole lotta Ep in front and behind and beside you. p
The lengths at which you will go to be argumentative with me is borderline hilarious. I could say Michael Jackson was the king of pop or harambe was a beautiful soul gone too soon and you'd likely STILL pick a fight and make some petty remark.
I wonder, at night, if you ever just sit and contemplate how unnecessarily hostile you are over a video game. Probably not, but maybe one day you can have that level of introspection.
Anyway, now I'm an ep zergling, even though I spend 75% of my time on my dc at the bridge in a 2-4 man. Just Lol.
Jules, Jules, Jules. There is a video from German in this very forum where you're in a group (admitted by German) of 24 recently. You run in large groups. You also run in small groups. Stop acting like the large group is somehow beneath you or you're somehow beyond it and have put your zerging days behind you. It's ok. There is absolutely nothing wrong with running in large groups and wiping enemies. It's fun! But there is a problem when you refuse to admit to it, even to yourself, for whatever your bizarre reasons are and then bash other people for it. This is an MMO...it's supposed to be group play.
Lol. If you can't tell that that was a troll group then I don't even know what to say. Also, I was by myself in IC for the duration of that group, but whatever. Idc. I'm going to block you on the forums now to save both of us and the community the headache of hearing us bicker.2 -
Recremen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭YesSugaroverdose wrote: »
Old Russian proverb:ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We hear you and will be looking at this change gang!
"How to make people happy? Make everything as bad as possible and then return things back as they was"
When the heck game will get real fixes?
It never will. Software developers' workflow tends to be: get paid to program > make inefficient software > get paid to fix inefficient software that they just made > get paid to program another piece of software to replace the previous inefficient software. The cycle repeats because management doesn't understand at the core of things the programmers are just sending instruction sets to the cpu/gpu; and if done correctly there would rarely be any problems.
If they know what the end result should be then they should able to send the correct instructions to achieve that end result. And if they don't know how to then they cant really be called programmers in the first place. So it could be concluded they do things incorrectly for job security. Or they are really bad "programmers" and probably should not refer to themselves as programmers.
As a programmer (not on this game, but as a profession), I'd appreciate it if you fully retracted this statement and apologized to the developers. What you are describing is literally impossible to do. There is no way to program, not even for a single operating system, such that you can guarantee that all inputs will result in clean execution. You can limit the types of input accepted, and you can engineer it so that you minimize areas where the program can behave unexpectedly, but you absolutely cannot create, or even test, that a program will execute without error. This becomes a more profound issue as your program becomes more complex. Do you have several billion-billion years (just lowballing it here) to test ESO against every possible input combination? Because the devs sure don't.
I'm not saying that you should throw all expectations out the window, but demanding that all programmers make bug-free code, especially with regards to a game this complex, is asinine.
No, I will not retract any part of my statements nor will I make any apologizes. I pay for a product and I expect it to work correctly. The whole idea that people can make subpar products and expect to get monetary compensation for doing so needs to end. With software development it's always the same excuses, some mistakes are understandable but long standing issues are unacceptable.
And yes I very familiar with transistor logic I understand how things work. There are many engineering fields where many outcomes exist yet they are able to create end products with little or no defects. Then comes the software engineers who want a exception to the expectations of creating a commercial end product.
People don't want products that don't function correctly and/or don't function as advertised. And they have right to complain about when they paid for the product. If software engineers don't want complains then create software that executes correctly or don't create software at all and find something else to do.
ESO is actually above-par in all regards I can think of, so I don't even know what you're complaining about. If the scant mechanics that are imbalanced or dysfunctional are too much for you to bear, then you're free to discontinue the use of the service, but the rest of us who are having loads of fun are going to keep supporting the product we enjoy.
Understanding transistor logic is so far removed from understanding the actual programming of a product that I honestly don't know why you even brought it up. Code development is invariably done in higher-level languages like C++, Python, Java, etc. That is because those languages have interpreters implemented on the vast majority of consumer-level computers, and the interpreters are more or less what gets you to the actual transistor-level code for your specific machine. Just at that level, there's plenty of room for code to behave in undesirable ways, and that's completely out of the hands of the developers. When you then add the nearly uncountable combinations of system interactions between UI, keyboard/mouse/controller input, video and sound output, client-server communication, decades-out-of-date internet infrastructure, and all the rest, it becomes absolutely ridiculous to expect a product that will be flawless.
Moreover, other engineers make products which fail all the time. I can't think of a single product that doesn't behave unexpectedly when the user mishandles it. For example, something as simple as a wrench is going to behave wonky when you try to use it as a hammer. Commercial hardware fails constantly when used in unintended or unexpected ways. We don't exactly expect a car to fill itself with gas when the user forgets, for instance. We also can't predict the exact moment it will cease moving when it eventually runs out of gas because there are too many variables to account for. When something is as user-driven as an MMO, these problems are exacerbated by orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude.
You don't need to withdraw your statement and apologize, but at least everyone following the conversation is going to know it's purely out of stubbornness and not grounded in any kind of coherent, logical rationale.
My complains are clearly stated, the rationale is coherent and it stems from dissatisfaction of the level of functionality of a product I paid for has. Stubbornness has nothing to do with it, I will always criticize products that I paid for that do not functioning correctly especially for extended periods of time. If you don't like it then you can just ignore and not respond to my comments. But don't respond and expect me to grovel and submit to your request.
Sweety you went from "understanding transistor logic" to making incredibly vapid claims about the production pipeline in like, zero seconds, you are about as coherent as a yodeling seagull at an auction house. It might makes sense from your incredibly limited understanding of the field, but that doesn't make it logical in the face of a mountain of counter-evidence. You can feel free to criticize the game and argue that you don't feel you're getting your money's worth, that's a subjective consumer experience and subject to your own determination, but your claims about intentionally sabotaging code to keep job security stem from pure ignorance on the topic. That is what I was saying you would be stubborn to hold on to.
TTL is ultimately what programmers are instructing. Programing languages are basically shortcuts created to make sending the binary instructions to the TTL easier to do and shorten the time period it takes complete the coding process. In comparison to manually scripting the raw binary. So yes I do understand how it works, and mentioning of TTL has relevance.
A programmer should be able to correctly debug the code so the desired results are achieved. When they can't it can be suspected that they are not doing so because they are not willing, or don't know how to. Programing is not magic it's nothing but mathematics. And if someone is incapable of handling extremely complex mathematical operations then they should not be a programmer.
You clearly don't understand how it works, or you wouldn't be talking about binary like it's some universal language. Different processors have different architectures and as a result have different machine code instructions. Assembly language is the lowest-level language for a given system that a person might work with, but nobody works with that except people who create compilers and interpreters for higher-level languages. This abstraction means that a typical programmer will never know the exact machine code they're trying to inform, since that's hardware dependent. Thus, just from the hardware angle, they literally cannot guarantee that their code will execute as planned on every system. To be clear: you are claiming that software developers should know the hardware architecture of every machine their code could ever run on, past present and future. That is completely bonkers.
Now let's talk about this debugging nonsense you're on. You are claiming that programming comes down to "extremely complex mathematical operations". This is completely false. The scale and type of programming we are talking about comes down to "infinitely complex mathematical computations" or "Incalculable mathematical computations", one of the two. In a dynamic system dependent not only on one user's input, but the input of potentially millions of simultaneous users, you can technically calculate a specific subset of all possible input sequences, but you would need billions of billions of billions of years to do so. Again, this is a lowball estimate. Then there are things like the halting problem, wherein we cannot know if the program will halt if we don't know the specific input for the program. We do not know the specific input (again, user-generated infinite set of inputs), so we can't know that it will halt (or perform some other particular function).
So no, everything about your premise flies in the face of actual science. I don't know if you just skimmed yahoo answers for your arguments or if you're actually trained and just failed to pay adequate attention, but the things you are saying are completely pants-on-head backward.
EDIT: and don't get me started on external library dependencies. Even if, my some magical time wizard shenanigans, they could prove that the code they write will always execute as they desire, the fact that they're also relying on externally-developed code (graphics drivers, server architecture, the programming languages themselves) means that they still wouldn't be able to guarantee their code is perfect because they don't have their hands in the code of those other product dependencies.
Just because a task is complex does not mean it should be completed inadequately and problems not resolved for long periods of time. When it comes to mmos most of, if not all of the critical calculation is server side which the companies have control of. So they should be able resolve the coding issues as they know the architecture they are coding for and what they could possibly be coding in the future. Many of the complains in the forums and elsewhere are not based on performance issues with the client on their personal machine but the execution of the server code. So no they don't have multiple combinations of different user level architecture to compensate for; because the architecture that supports the game is on the game servers.
Once again, quite incorrect. Even if all of the damage, healing, and movement calculations were done server-side (which they clearly aren't or Cheat Engine wouldn't be able to work) there is still a massive amount of calculation happening on the client machine. These calculations include everything from display and sound to server communication.
That's not to say that there isn't a large portion of code that the developers have a reasonable amount of control over, of course. But you're still ignoring the fact that the code they're controlling is still using user-inputted data, and that testing every interacting combination of spells, abilities, terrain features, items, etc. is literally impossible to calculate. The fact that the majority of forum complaints are things like "this trait seems to give slightly more damage than that trait and I don't like it" instead of "I tried to attack a mudcrab and instead slew the entire population of Daggerfall and now have a 156000 bounty" speaks to the caliber of the developers. They are working with impossibly-large systems and still manage to make it work coherently in almost every user scenario.
The cheat engine issue was a good a example of incompetence or intentionally using a system that would have known issues with it. They made the decision to use client trust which in an mmo is something most would not do. Because it can allow people to send information to the server and the server accept it to be true even when the values are beyond a possible range. Someone should not be able to instruct the server that their character has 100,000 stamina and the server accepts this when all equipped items, buffs, etc stored and/or managed by the server indicate that the value is incorrect.
And no there are many complains about skills, equipment items, intractable items not functioning correctly. In game I see people complain all the time about being stuck in combat, having siege weapons not work correctly, issues with the charge skills, getting stuck in side of walls, etc. So no there are complaints about systems not functioning correctly and not just modification requests to change to systems that are functioning correctly.
Using client trust was a deliberate decision, but it's not representative of incompetence or malicious intent. Client trust is useful when your servers are already loaded with computation and you have a reasonable expectation that client-side data values will more or less not be altered inappropriately. The alternative is having more load on the servers, and they only just recently were able to make significant progress on that, after months/years of incremental fixes. I have no doubts that client trust made perfect sense at the time of production. It still makes a great deal of sense even now, though certainly there's room for improvement. The fundamental issue here, though, is that you are failing to even consider that the decision may have been made with a legitimate goal in mind. It's like you've just scoured the forum for complaints but lack the technical knowledge to actually comment on them in a meaningful way.
I didn't say that traits were the only thing being complained about, I was illustrating the difference in magnitude between actual complaints versus things that could go wrong if ZOS didn't know what they were doing. Sure, siege bugs out sometimes, but it's not catapulting you and your group to the twin moons. Sure, some skills bug out, but you aren't, for instance, loosing the third item in your inventory every time it fires off. There are problems with the game, but they are a normal part of the lifecycle of production code, not earth-shattering failures that make the game unplayable. As I said before, it's an issue of not being able to test every combination of input data. You are occasionally going to get situations that the users create within the environment which don't play out as expected, and part of the development cycle is going in and fine-tuning it to function as expected in that circumstance. It is not malicious, it is unavoidable.Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster1 -
Recremen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes
I disagree. You can look at gameplay code with the wide eyes of a child if you wish, but it's probably not that complicated. Do you follow game development as a hobby? Do you ever delve into gameplay code? It is generally very basic unless the game extremely poorly engineered with hard-coded functions. This is something hobbyist game developers have been doing since the 80s with text-based MUDs, with 3D games since the 90s, and now with robust freely available engines like Unity.As I've previously stated, it's fine to criticize the bugs as a consumer and demand they be focused, but making assumptions about production is totally inappropriate.
When an item set remains bugged for weeks, it's not likely because it's a complicated problem to fix, it's because it is considered low priority by the developer. While there may be outlying issues that are more complex, this should be generally true.
No, I can't prove it. I do not know which of my assumptions may be true. I cannot prove you or I exist, either. There's no need for tangents about the endless possibilities of the universe. There are assumptions that are pretty safe to make. This isn't the bleeding edge of disruptive game development.EDIT: and as for rocket science and voodoo, coders may have developed sets of "best practices", but with something so user-driven as gaming, especially something as complex as an MMO utilizing emergent server technology, it speaks volumes to the developers' skills that it hasn't been a complete crudshoot.
As amazing as computer technology may be, it is now ordinary. There is very little I observe about ESO that is emergent. It is an evolutionary product, not a revolutionary one. You are making APIs and HALs seem way more complicated and unstable than they actually are. This was exciting stuff in the 80s and 90s. Now, we expect it to work.
In any case, there are very valid reasons to believe ZOS doesn't take QA and bug fixes as seriously as it should. To me, it's obvious it does not. I respect your opinion, however I do not think it's fair to tell anyone they are wrong to call out ZOS in this regard.
I'm not looking at it with the "wide eyes of a child", I'm being realistic. You are trivializing code that has taken years to develop. It is absolutely not "generally very basic" in any sense, or everyone would go be a software engineer.
When an item set is bugged for weeks, you don't know the reason, full stop. It might not be a development priority, it might be extremely complicated, and it could even be both. Items need to interface with a huge number of systems, everything from Character Sheet UI (in itself probably many subsystems), damage healing and mitigation calculations, champion point systems, attributes, etc. If they optimize the queueing or querying for one of these subsystems then it can complicate how it interacts with others, depending on where and what data gets passed between all these systems as they work simultaneously. Long story short, developing a solution for one problem can propagate changes in other dependent systems, and the devs need to spend the time to make sure that doesn't happen. Ideally, there's as little coupling in the code as possible, but sometimes it's unavoidable if you want to streamline some other calculation that would otherwise be tough on the server.
The server shard system is absolutely revolutionary, not evolutionary. Distributed models may have been talked about for a few decades now, but I can't think of any other AAA developers experimenting with this kind of dynamic system. Those ARE emergent technologies, and even the big names in the field like Hadoop are only scratching the surface of what can be done. You can expect an API to work, but even long-standing API have bugs, performance issues, etc. I use Apache POI for my work, but it STILL has issues doing things like printing multiple files from the same data, even after all these years.
All I'm saying is that if you're going to criticize, you should either be approaching it from an experiential perspective (such as "I have a lot of lag in PVP"), OR if you're going to try to critique the technical side, you should actually have the knowledge and experience to back it up, plus some evidence for why you think your criticism actually touches on the reality of the problem. I'm so tired of armchair developers thinking that things like the costume system are causing lag in Cyro.Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster0 -
zyk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Unless ESO has the worst engineers in gaming, none of them are writing gameplay code. It does not take a software engineer to write it. If someone can code in very high level languages like PHP, they can write gameplay code for most games. That's a lot of people.I'm not looking at it with the "wide eyes of a child", I'm being realistic. You are trivializing code that has taken years to develop. It is absolutely not "generally very basic" in any sense, or everyone would go be a software engineer.
You are greatly complicating this topic. Many of us have experiences that we can use to put what we see from ZOS into context.1 -
wayfarerx✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭If someone can code in very high level languages like PHP, they can write gameplay code for most games. That's a lot of people.
When you say "most games," do you mean like Minesweeper or more like distributed, global real-time world simulations?@wayfarerx - PC / North America / Aldmeri Dominion4 -
TooskSG✭✭✭YesI came in expecting to see God-flakier than a Popeye's biscuit and Bedazzled Jules going at it in round 20. I am sorely disappointed, and this argument about nerd code will have to suffice.1
