Daemons_Bane wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »To everyone who says the poll is biased:
From now on I find it very hard to take your arguments serious. You just made clear your opinion is biased, because you don't play the whole game. This counts for all former and all upcoming performance threads as well.
[Quoted post was removed]
There are some people out there are willingly ignore half the game, but then come on the forums and enter discussions about performance specifically about the part they ignore.
[snip]
[Quoted post was removed]
To be honest, I don't know anyone in-game that participates in dungeons, trials or PvP that doesn't have these performance problems. This is not a joke.
Yes we can do overland content, but if you have done that a couple of times already there is no reason to repeat.
I was talking about the group of players that often states things like 'I don't participate in X content, and I also don't have performance problems so let's act like it's not there.'
[snip]
[Quoted post was removed]
I think you are missing my point here. I am not generalizing everyone who says he has no performance problems, or the people who don't participate in X content but agree there might be problems in other parts of the game.
I'm talking about people that deliberately ignore big parts of the game and then come here on the forums and act like the performance problems don't exist, only because they refuse to participate.
[snip] we're seeing it a lot lately. But why would it work both ways? These performance threads are here for a reason, because we're worried customers with a bad working product we would like to use without problems...
You say and you have said before that you basically participate in all content, thus you would automatically not qualify for this group I'm talking about.To everyone who says the poll is biased:
From now on I find it very hard to take your arguments serious. You just made clear your opinion is biased, because you don't play the whole game. This counts for all former and all upcoming performance threads as well.
[Quoted post was removed]
Daemons_Bane wrote: »
Daemons_Bane wrote: »
That is a connection I make. Don't you agree with it?
Daemons_Bane wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »
That is a connection I make. Don't you agree with it?
If I agreed with it, I would not make comments against it.. [snip] I never, EVER, said that performance was perfect, that it could not use some improvement
Grianasteri wrote: »Where is the option for "I want the separate teams that work on new content and performance, to continue doing their job, releasing new content, and improving performance"?
Its a false dichotomy to set up "new content" vs "performance". Its not mutually exclusive. A company the size of Zos should be doing both effectively. That they are failing in a number of performance areas, while related to new updates in some ways, is not the sole fault of teams creating and releasing new content. Removing the later will not magically improve the former.
As a community we should be demanding Zos improve performance yes, but not demanding they stop creating new content. It is not acceptable that new updates can negatively impact performance, it is not acceptable that performance issues are left unresolved for too long. It is not acceptable that performance in general remains often unusable.
Demand more from Zos.