The Costs of Performance (Using Performance as an Excuse for Feature Removal)

BlueRaven

Amottica wrote: »

show previous quotes

RisenEclipse wrote: »

I think this decision to not fully explain themselves to the community has bit them pretty hard. I'm not talking about the actual implementing of AwA. I'm talking about them not explaining why they had to push AwA. Adding new things to the game that not everyone might have wanted? Sure, it's their game, they don't need to explain themselves on that one. I can at least understand that one.

But this severely impacted other people's accounts. It effected how some people just play the game. This was not something they should have been silent about and just left a footnote explanation on. They should have gone into detail with the player base on why AwA fixed performance, what this will mean for us in the future, what are they doing to ensure more things in the game don't get reduced in the name of performance, give us every detail on the why's and how's, so we can understand a change that dramatically effected people's game experience.

But because of who know who's choice to handle this, it really has fostered distrust and even resentment to ZOS. Which for a company, you DON'T want that to happen with your customers. I really hope that they see what the players are saying and at least talk to their customers. It's baffling the way this was handled.

Gina's explanation for the change in group size had nothing to do with performance. They said they like the change in behavior.

The change in behavior of whom?

RP groups? Guild WB events? These were the people most affected.

What did they do to merit the change?

RisenEclipse

Amottica wrote: »

show previous quotes

RisenEclipse wrote: »

I think this decision to not fully explain themselves to the community has bit them pretty hard. I'm not talking about the actual implementing of AwA. I'm talking about them not explaining why they had to push AwA. Adding new things to the game that not everyone might have wanted? Sure, it's their game, they don't need to explain themselves on that one. I can at least understand that one.

But this severely impacted other people's accounts. It effected how some people just play the game. This was not something they should have been silent about and just left a footnote explanation on. They should have gone into detail with the player base on why AwA fixed performance, what this will mean for us in the future, what are they doing to ensure more things in the game don't get reduced in the name of performance, give us every detail on the why's and how's, so we can understand a change that dramatically effected people's game experience.

But because of who know who's choice to handle this, it really has fostered distrust and even resentment to ZOS. Which for a company, you DON'T want that to happen with your customers. I really hope that they see what the players are saying and at least talk to their customers. It's baffling the way this was handled.

@RisenEclipse

Gina's explanation for the change in group size had nothing to do with performance. They said they like the change in behavior.

I am not certain where you got me talking about group size in there :P I didn't even mention that. This was talking about the communication in regards to AwA. The only part of my post which I can see you might have gotten confused about is "what are they doing to ensure more things in the game don't get reduced in the name of performance" which is talking about taking away more things in the FUTURE, such as with AwA in the name of performance. Group size was neither mentioned or indicated in that sentence. But thank you for the information in regards to group size.

RisenEclipse

BlueRaven wrote: »

show previous quotes

Amottica wrote: »

RisenEclipse wrote: »

I think this decision to not fully explain themselves to the community has bit them pretty hard. I'm not talking about the actual implementing of AwA. I'm talking about them not explaining why they had to push AwA. Adding new things to the game that not everyone might have wanted? Sure, it's their game, they don't need to explain themselves on that one. I can at least understand that one.

But this severely impacted other people's accounts. It effected how some people just play the game. This was not something they should have been silent about and just left a footnote explanation on. They should have gone into detail with the player base on why AwA fixed performance, what this will mean for us in the future, what are they doing to ensure more things in the game don't get reduced in the name of performance, give us every detail on the why's and how's, so we can understand a change that dramatically effected people's game experience.

But because of who know who's choice to handle this, it really has fostered distrust and even resentment to ZOS. Which for a company, you DON'T want that to happen with your customers. I really hope that they see what the players are saying and at least talk to their customers. It's baffling the way this was handled.

Gina's explanation for the change in group size had nothing to do with performance. They said they like the change in behavior.

The change in behavior of whom?

RP groups? Guild WB events? These were the people most affected.

What did they do to merit the change?

I have to agree with this though. Many forum posts have declared that this was more of a negative then a positive experience for players. So I am curious on what behavior they are referring to here?

Amottica

BlueRaven wrote: »

show previous quotes

Amottica wrote: »

RisenEclipse wrote: »

I think this decision to not fully explain themselves to the community has bit them pretty hard. I'm not talking about the actual implementing of AwA. I'm talking about them not explaining why they had to push AwA. Adding new things to the game that not everyone might have wanted? Sure, it's their game, they don't need to explain themselves on that one. I can at least understand that one.

But this severely impacted other people's accounts. It effected how some people just play the game. This was not something they should have been silent about and just left a footnote explanation on. They should have gone into detail with the player base on why AwA fixed performance, what this will mean for us in the future, what are they doing to ensure more things in the game don't get reduced in the name of performance, give us every detail on the why's and how's, so we can understand a change that dramatically effected people's game experience.

But because of who know who's choice to handle this, it really has fostered distrust and even resentment to ZOS. Which for a company, you DON'T want that to happen with your customers. I really hope that they see what the players are saying and at least talk to their customers. It's baffling the way this was handled.

Gina's explanation for the change in group size had nothing to do with performance. They said they like the change in behavior.

The change in behavior of whom?

RP groups? Guild WB events? These were the people most affected.

What did they do to merit the change?

Clearly, it would be the change of behavior of the players. They did not elaborate further. And it was basically because Zenimax liked whatever the change in behavior was.

Amottica

RisenEclipse wrote: »

show previous quotes

Amottica wrote: »

RisenEclipse wrote: »

I think this decision to not fully explain themselves to the community has bit them pretty hard. I'm not talking about the actual implementing of AwA. I'm talking about them not explaining why they had to push AwA. Adding new things to the game that not everyone might have wanted? Sure, it's their game, they don't need to explain themselves on that one. I can at least understand that one.

But this severely impacted other people's accounts. It effected how some people just play the game. This was not something they should have been silent about and just left a footnote explanation on. They should have gone into detail with the player base on why AwA fixed performance, what this will mean for us in the future, what are they doing to ensure more things in the game don't get reduced in the name of performance, give us every detail on the why's and how's, so we can understand a change that dramatically effected people's game experience.

But because of who know who's choice to handle this, it really has fostered distrust and even resentment to ZOS. Which for a company, you DON'T want that to happen with your customers. I really hope that they see what the players are saying and at least talk to their customers. It's baffling the way this was handled.

@RisenEclipse

Gina's explanation for the change in group size had nothing to do with performance. They said they like the change in behavior.

I am not certain where you got me talking about group size in there :P I didn't even mention that. This was talking about the communication in regards to AwA. The only part of my post which I can see you might have gotten confused about is "what are they doing to ensure more things in the game don't get reduced in the name of performance" which is talking about taking away more things in the FUTURE, such as with AwA in the name of performance. Group size was neither mentioned or indicated in that sentence. But thank you for the information in regards to group size.

Oops, misread and do not see how.

But they did state, as clear as they wanted to, why they made the changes to achievements. So they did explain it even if some do not like the explanation.

RisenEclipse

Amottica wrote: »

show previous quotes

RisenEclipse wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

RisenEclipse wrote: »

I think this decision to not fully explain themselves to the community has bit them pretty hard. I'm not talking about the actual implementing of AwA. I'm talking about them not explaining why they had to push AwA. Adding new things to the game that not everyone might have wanted? Sure, it's their game, they don't need to explain themselves on that one. I can at least understand that one.

But this severely impacted other people's accounts. It effected how some people just play the game. This was not something they should have been silent about and just left a footnote explanation on. They should have gone into detail with the player base on why AwA fixed performance, what this will mean for us in the future, what are they doing to ensure more things in the game don't get reduced in the name of performance, give us every detail on the why's and how's, so we can understand a change that dramatically effected people's game experience.

But because of who know who's choice to handle this, it really has fostered distrust and even resentment to ZOS. Which for a company, you DON'T want that to happen with your customers. I really hope that they see what the players are saying and at least talk to their customers. It's baffling the way this was handled.

@RisenEclipse

Gina's explanation for the change in group size had nothing to do with performance. They said they like the change in behavior.

I am not certain where you got me talking about group size in there :P I didn't even mention that. This was talking about the communication in regards to AwA. The only part of my post which I can see you might have gotten confused about is "what are they doing to ensure more things in the game don't get reduced in the name of performance" which is talking about taking away more things in the FUTURE, such as with AwA in the name of performance. Group size was neither mentioned or indicated in that sentence. But thank you for the information in regards to group size.

Oops, misread and do not see how.

But they did state, as clear as they wanted to, why they made the changes to achievements. So they did explain it even if some do not like the explanation.

My opinion of that is that they did not explain enough. There is a very large difference between dropping a DLC or new thing into the game, and doing something that so severely impacts everyone's accounts that it basically has caused dramatic change in how people view playing the game. The first one you can get away with "it's our game, we do what we want". That is absolutely true, and they have every right to do that. But the other effects the player so dramatically that a footnote statement of "it fixes performances" isnt going to cut it. In fact a lot of the outcry for AwA might have been reduced if ZOS had bothered to EFFECTIVELY communicate with the players. But they didn't. Which naturally will cause resentment towards them. This could have been avoided with more transparency with the issue and allowing us players to realize why AwA is important or even worth it. I think a lot of people are just confused on how precisely this fixes performances and what more in the future they are going to cut from the game for "performance fixes". It is even worse if the player base doesnt actually see any improvements on their end, which creates skepticism if it was even needed at all. Considering your account is not just an important part of your gaming experience, but a necessary one, players need to know if the money and time spent into them is even going to be worth it if ZOS is just going to turn around the corner and cause such a dramatic change to them and just explain it away with "we did it cuz we wanted to fix something". More people would rather go to another game where their accounts are more respected by the gaming company, then one where they drop this on us and don't bother helping the players effected by this to understand it at all.

Stamicka

alberichtano wrote: »

show previous quotes

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

but why should we be the ones that pay?

Who do you suggest deals with the changes to the game if not us? There is no other party.

ZOS is the other party. You can change behind the scenes implementation without having a direct impact on how the players experience the game. With the account wide achievements for example, they could work on a way to make achievement storage more efficient on their end and we would never have to know.

How would Zenimax "pay" (as you put it)?

Also, it is an assumption that the database section related to achievements was not already very efficient.

Regardless, it is past time to split hairs on this as it has already gone live. In a short period of time we will see how big a deal this really is.

Let’s take Google for example. Yes they are a huge company with tons of resources, but it’s a good example. For a long time now, you can go to google.com and you can type something into the search bar and expect to see results. There’s been some slight changes to the appearance of the front page, but for as long as I can remember it’s been very similar to the way it looks now. Behind the scenes however, Google has grown and so has the amount of data they have. I’m sure they’ve implemented new search algorithms, more efficient ways to store their data, and all kinds of stuff to keep it scalable. I don’t need to know that. I just go to the website and expect it to work quickly and to give me good results. Their growth has not negatively impacted my experience using the search engine. This is what I mean.

In regards to your other point, this isn’t just about the achievements though. This is a trend, they make changes for performance and performance never increases.

I think this is a bit of "economics" here. See, in economy you always have a bit of a creep in prices, inflation. Even if nothing big happens, the cost of things tend to rise, if only slightly. Big changes, special events and the like can cause more inflation.

I imagine that there is something similar with big computer networks - even normal usage by an increasing amount of people or information (ie new alts, new motifs etc) take a toll on the existing resources, slowly bogging it down bit by bit, just like inflation. Now new, big changes, like a whole new area, or entirely new minigames will have a larger effect.

That would mean that ZOS could very well be fighting this inflation, this slow strangulation of available resources, and still just stand at status quo from the users perspective. They may very well have had a lot of work done with lag - compared to what we would have had without that work, and getting new features.

If you are making a massively multiplayer online game, you should design it with the intention that one day the playerbase may become… massive. If they somehow didn’t think the game would one day get big, it’s not too late to problem solve.

Amottica wrote: »

show previous quotes

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

but why should we be the ones that pay?

Who do you suggest deals with the changes to the game if not us? There is no other party.

ZOS is the other party. You can change behind the scenes implementation without having a direct impact on how the players experience the game. With the account wide achievements for example, they could work on a way to make achievement storage more efficient on their end and we would never have to know.

How would Zenimax "pay" (as you put it)?

Also, it is an assumption that the database section related to achievements was not already very efficient.

Regardless, it is past time to split hairs on this as it has already gone live. In a short period of time we will see how big a deal this really is.

Let’s take Google for example. Yes they are a huge company with tons of resources, but it’s a good example. For a long time now, you can go to google.com and you can type something into the search bar and expect to see results. There’s been some slight changes to the appearance of the front page, but for as long as I can remember it’s been very similar to the way it looks now. Behind the scenes however, Google has grown and so has the amount of data they have. I’m sure they’ve implemented new search algorithms, more efficient ways to store their data, and all kinds of stuff to keep it scalable. I don’t need to know that. I just go to the website and expect it to work quickly and to give me good results. Their growth has not negatively impacted my experience using the search engine. This is what I mean.

In regards to your other point, this isn’t just about the achievements though. This is a trend, they make changes for performance and performance never increases.

Google processes 3.8 million searches per minute which is 5.6 billion per day. Only 15% of searches have never been searched before on Google. The more popular searches are cached to reduce the load on their system.

This is something Zenimax cannot utilize for character or even account achievements since each one is very unique.

Additionally, Google's search engine is designed for a single solitary purpose which allows for efficiencies that cannot be obtained with a server system designed to do dozens to hundreds of different functions.

In other words, comparing Google to ESO is like comparing apples to oranges. Better yet, it is like comparing apples to Zucchini.

This is completely missing the point of the example. It also derails the point of the thread. Of course ESO is very different than Google. I'm not comparing the functionality of the two. The point of the example and the post is that despite the growth of a company, the company can offer the same experience or an improved experience without taking stuff away from user. In other words, efficiency doesn't have to be at the expense of the user. There are many ways of accomplishing the same tasks in programming, especially when it relates to data. As long as the same task is being accomplished behind the scenes, HOW the task is being accomplished can be changed or improved. Other companies do this very well.

Jaraal

BlueRaven wrote: »

Just wanted to add the reduction to group sizes was also done for performance, yet had no noticeable performance effect.

I challenge anyone to prove that ANY of these things they say were done to improve performance has actually been successful.

After installing Update 33, my game is the laggiest and most desynched it's ever been. And the loading screens are longer than ever. All that resource-hogging achievement data deleted.... and things are actually worse!

Jaraal

Amottica wrote: »

show previous quotes

RisenEclipse wrote: »

I think this decision to not fully explain themselves to the community has bit them pretty hard. I'm not talking about the actual implementing of AwA. I'm talking about them not explaining why they had to push AwA. Adding new things to the game that not everyone might have wanted? Sure, it's their game, they don't need to explain themselves on that one. I can at least understand that one.

But this severely impacted other people's accounts. It effected how some people just play the game. This was not something they should have been silent about and just left a footnote explanation on. They should have gone into detail with the player base on why AwA fixed performance, what this will mean for us in the future, what are they doing to ensure more things in the game don't get reduced in the name of performance, give us every detail on the why's and how's, so we can understand a change that dramatically effected people's game experience.

But because of who know who's choice to handle this, it really has fostered distrust and even resentment to ZOS. Which for a company, you DON'T want that to happen with your customers. I really hope that they see what the players are saying and at least talk to their customers. It's baffling the way this was handled.

@RisenEclipse

Gina's explanation for the change in group size had nothing to do with performance. They said they like the change in behavior.

That was the initial spin on it. But she finally admitted the "performance" aspect here:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7254315/#Comment_7254315

RoseTheSnowElf

LostHorizon1933 wrote: »

Solution for PVP:

• Get rid of all combat calculation and just treat any attack as 3d6, and any defense as 2d6. If attack > defense, you die. To make it more realistic, you get an extra die on each side for every year you've spent in Cyrodiil.
• Replace classes in Cyrodiil with "Here for Combat" (rules above apply) and "Just Doing Quests". No real difference, but a sad little angel drifts toward the heavens if the latter dies on a mission.
• Additional combat classes "Runaway Turkey" for the people who like to jump around in keeps, "Highway Patrol" for people who hide and attack (all their dice go to attack, no defense), "Kentucky Derby" with extra horse speed for doing those recon missions.
• Effects still animate as if the real math was going on, except for DK, who get the special class "Windows Task Manager" because they often can't close.

Jonathan Swift thanks your for your attention!

This made me chuckle.

SimonThesis

Unfortunately, I have to agree performance has only gotten worse never better as more and more features have been cut. 12 man groups especially disbanded a lot of guilds and broke up a lot of communities for no noticeable increase in performance. There hasn't been a new feature added to cyrodiil in years even when there are communities of people who only Pvp in cyrodiil.

S0Z0H

When it works, it works very good. We can almost all kinda agree that ESO has its moments of greatness.
I'm typing this while I've literally made my 8th attempt to login, can't even get to the character screen yet...once u see the dreaded " this may be a long load time" message ...we all know it's time to exit the game application and restart lol.
ZOS hasn't the man power to fix anything the way they should. And I think they are actually trying to keep costs down super low right now while they are being watched by daddy Microsoft. This is all intentional. ZOS wants to show mega profits to Microsoft , so they can come to them with requests for things to improve the game. 2022 is the year of knuckling down and sucking it up. They are trying to keep all operating costs down, the goal is to prove ESO is immensely profitable whilst not costing a lot to run. Remember they made a deal, just because Microsoft owns ESO doesn't mean it can't make a profit , the guys at ZoS know they must make a profit and they want to show the profit data to be immense right out the gate with the aquisition , so they can be counted as an asset to the company. This is all strategy I think. Stuff most players can't or wouldn't understand.

Iron_Warrior

ZOS should just shutdown the servers

No servers = no players = no performance issues!

_Zathras_

RisenEclipse wrote: »

I think this decision to not fully explain themselves to the community has bit them pretty hard.

I think its worse than that: they didn't tell us the truth at all.

On the PTS, in the feedback thread itself and in other loose threads, coders and technical experts in their computer science fields gave their input to the viability of what they were actually claiming. Every single one of them cast serious doubt on the A=B rationale; that augmenting the achievement database in this way would give tangible impact on performance. Some said, at best, it might shave a second or two off a loading screen.

So that's the ironic part when companies try to do this: they forget some of their customers are educated as well, or more, than they. So, we know when we are being fed a line.

RisenEclipse wrote: »

But because of who know who's choice to handle this, it really has fostered distrust and even resentment to ZOS. Which for a company, you DON'T want that to happen with your customers. I really hope that they see what the players are saying and at least talk to their customers. It's baffling the way this was handled.

There is a studio out there with a producer that would have been personally embarrassed by the degree of player upset, and yanked this whole AWA, then apologized to the community. That is the bar this studio will never reach.

alberichtano

Stamicka wrote: »

show previous quotes

alberichtano wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

but why should we be the ones that pay?

Who do you suggest deals with the changes to the game if not us? There is no other party.

ZOS is the other party. You can change behind the scenes implementation without having a direct impact on how the players experience the game. With the account wide achievements for example, they could work on a way to make achievement storage more efficient on their end and we would never have to know.

How would Zenimax "pay" (as you put it)?

Also, it is an assumption that the database section related to achievements was not already very efficient.

Regardless, it is past time to split hairs on this as it has already gone live. In a short period of time we will see how big a deal this really is.

Let’s take Google for example. Yes they are a huge company with tons of resources, but it’s a good example. For a long time now, you can go to google.com and you can type something into the search bar and expect to see results. There’s been some slight changes to the appearance of the front page, but for as long as I can remember it’s been very similar to the way it looks now. Behind the scenes however, Google has grown and so has the amount of data they have. I’m sure they’ve implemented new search algorithms, more efficient ways to store their data, and all kinds of stuff to keep it scalable. I don’t need to know that. I just go to the website and expect it to work quickly and to give me good results. Their growth has not negatively impacted my experience using the search engine. This is what I mean.

In regards to your other point, this isn’t just about the achievements though. This is a trend, they make changes for performance and performance never increases.

I think this is a bit of "economics" here. See, in economy you always have a bit of a creep in prices, inflation. Even if nothing big happens, the cost of things tend to rise, if only slightly. Big changes, special events and the like can cause more inflation.

I imagine that there is something similar with big computer networks - even normal usage by an increasing amount of people or information (ie new alts, new motifs etc) take a toll on the existing resources, slowly bogging it down bit by bit, just like inflation. Now new, big changes, like a whole new area, or entirely new minigames will have a larger effect.

That would mean that ZOS could very well be fighting this inflation, this slow strangulation of available resources, and still just stand at status quo from the users perspective. They may very well have had a lot of work done with lag - compared to what we would have had without that work, and getting new features.

If you are making a massively multiplayer online game, you should design it with the intention that one day the playerbase may become… massive. If they somehow didn’t think the game would one day get big, it’s not too late to problem solve.

show previous quotes

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

but why should we be the ones that pay?

Who do you suggest deals with the changes to the game if not us? There is no other party.

ZOS is the other party. You can change behind the scenes implementation without having a direct impact on how the players experience the game. With the account wide achievements for example, they could work on a way to make achievement storage more efficient on their end and we would never have to know.

How would Zenimax "pay" (as you put it)?

Also, it is an assumption that the database section related to achievements was not already very efficient.

Regardless, it is past time to split hairs on this as it has already gone live. In a short period of time we will see how big a deal this really is.

Let’s take Google for example. Yes they are a huge company with tons of resources, but it’s a good example. For a long time now, you can go to google.com and you can type something into the search bar and expect to see results. There’s been some slight changes to the appearance of the front page, but for as long as I can remember it’s been very similar to the way it looks now. Behind the scenes however, Google has grown and so has the amount of data they have. I’m sure they’ve implemented new search algorithms, more efficient ways to store their data, and all kinds of stuff to keep it scalable. I don’t need to know that. I just go to the website and expect it to work quickly and to give me good results. Their growth has not negatively impacted my experience using the search engine. This is what I mean.

In regards to your other point, this isn’t just about the achievements though. This is a trend, they make changes for performance and performance never increases.

Google processes 3.8 million searches per minute which is 5.6 billion per day. Only 15% of searches have never been searched before on Google. The more popular searches are cached to reduce the load on their system.

This is something Zenimax cannot utilize for character or even account achievements since each one is very unique.

Additionally, Google's search engine is designed for a single solitary purpose which allows for efficiencies that cannot be obtained with a server system designed to do dozens to hundreds of different functions.

In other words, comparing Google to ESO is like comparing apples to oranges. Better yet, it is like comparing apples to Zucchini.

This is completely missing the point of the example. It also derails the point of the thread. Of course ESO is very different than Google. I'm not comparing the functionality of the two. The point of the example and the post is that despite the growth of a company, the company can offer the same experience or an improved experience without taking stuff away from user. In other words, efficiency doesn't have to be at the expense of the user. There are many ways of accomplishing the same tasks in programming, especially when it relates to data. As long as the same task is being accomplished behind the scenes, HOW the task is being accomplished can be changed or improved. Other companies do this very well.

Just answering to your reply on my bit here.

Sure. In theory a good and proactive corporation would prepare for expansion. Unfortunately, Bethesda has owners in ZOS, who now in turn have owners in MS. And they are the end all-deciders in where the money goes. As companies, they want profit, preferrably with at little cost as possible attached to it, as any further investment just means smaller profits. And since profits are the ambrosia of investors, the profits must be large and increasing. That makes it harder for subcorps to get what they need to keep up with increases in needed hardware or employees.

If we were talking about, say, cars, it would be easy - more machines and more employees means more cars, means more profit (given that there is a growing interest for that brand of cars of course, otherwise it is just a waste and, again, lower profits), but for an MMO, it isn't all that clear cut. Why invest in more hardware if it doesn't GUARANTEE more profits? Why spend money on more workers if you cannot GUARANTEE that that will mean more players and more purchases? And because it is impossible to guarantee anything of the kind, the investments are not made.

BlueRaven

Jaraal wrote: »

show previous quotes

Amottica wrote: »

RisenEclipse wrote: »

I think this decision to not fully explain themselves to the community has bit them pretty hard. I'm not talking about the actual implementing of AwA. I'm talking about them not explaining why they had to push AwA. Adding new things to the game that not everyone might have wanted? Sure, it's their game, they don't need to explain themselves on that one. I can at least understand that one.

But this severely impacted other people's accounts. It effected how some people just play the game. This was not something they should have been silent about and just left a footnote explanation on. They should have gone into detail with the player base on why AwA fixed performance, what this will mean for us in the future, what are they doing to ensure more things in the game don't get reduced in the name of performance, give us every detail on the why's and how's, so we can understand a change that dramatically effected people's game experience.

But because of who know who's choice to handle this, it really has fostered distrust and even resentment to ZOS. Which for a company, you DON'T want that to happen with your customers. I really hope that they see what the players are saying and at least talk to their customers. It's baffling the way this was handled.

Gina's explanation for the change in group size had nothing to do with performance. They said they like the change in behavior.

That was the initial spin on it. But she finally admitted the "performance" aspect here:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7254315/#Comment_7254315

I could have sworn they said it was done for performance at some point. Nice find!

Stamicka

_Zathras_ wrote: »

show previous quotes

RisenEclipse wrote: »

I think this decision to not fully explain themselves to the community has bit them pretty hard.

I think its worse than that: they didn't tell us the truth at all.

On the PTS, in the feedback thread itself and in other loose threads, coders and technical experts in their computer science fields gave their input to the viability of what they were actually claiming. Every single one of them cast serious doubt on the A=B rationale; that augmenting the achievement database in this way would give tangible impact on performance. Some said, at best, it might shave a second or two off a loading screen.

Exactly this. Even if somehow achievements take up a lot of space, why do they let players have so many characters? They have increased the maximum allowed character slots multiple times, and they also sell these slots in the crown store. If they did this without considering the consequences, it just looks like negligence.

Amottica

Stamicka wrote: »

show previous quotes

alberichtano wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

but why should we be the ones that pay?

Who do you suggest deals with the changes to the game if not us? There is no other party.

ZOS is the other party. You can change behind the scenes implementation without having a direct impact on how the players experience the game. With the account wide achievements for example, they could work on a way to make achievement storage more efficient on their end and we would never have to know.

How would Zenimax "pay" (as you put it)?

Also, it is an assumption that the database section related to achievements was not already very efficient.

Regardless, it is past time to split hairs on this as it has already gone live. In a short period of time we will see how big a deal this really is.

Let’s take Google for example. Yes they are a huge company with tons of resources, but it’s a good example. For a long time now, you can go to google.com and you can type something into the search bar and expect to see results. There’s been some slight changes to the appearance of the front page, but for as long as I can remember it’s been very similar to the way it looks now. Behind the scenes however, Google has grown and so has the amount of data they have. I’m sure they’ve implemented new search algorithms, more efficient ways to store their data, and all kinds of stuff to keep it scalable. I don’t need to know that. I just go to the website and expect it to work quickly and to give me good results. Their growth has not negatively impacted my experience using the search engine. This is what I mean.

In regards to your other point, this isn’t just about the achievements though. This is a trend, they make changes for performance and performance never increases.

I think this is a bit of "economics" here. See, in economy you always have a bit of a creep in prices, inflation. Even if nothing big happens, the cost of things tend to rise, if only slightly. Big changes, special events and the like can cause more inflation.

I imagine that there is something similar with big computer networks - even normal usage by an increasing amount of people or information (ie new alts, new motifs etc) take a toll on the existing resources, slowly bogging it down bit by bit, just like inflation. Now new, big changes, like a whole new area, or entirely new minigames will have a larger effect.

That would mean that ZOS could very well be fighting this inflation, this slow strangulation of available resources, and still just stand at status quo from the users perspective. They may very well have had a lot of work done with lag - compared to what we would have had without that work, and getting new features.

If you are making a massively multiplayer online game, you should design it with the intention that one day the playerbase may become… massive. If they somehow didn’t think the game would one day get big, it’s not too late to problem solve.

show previous quotes

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

but why should we be the ones that pay?

Who do you suggest deals with the changes to the game if not us? There is no other party.

ZOS is the other party. You can change behind the scenes implementation without having a direct impact on how the players experience the game. With the account wide achievements for example, they could work on a way to make achievement storage more efficient on their end and we would never have to know.

How would Zenimax "pay" (as you put it)?

Also, it is an assumption that the database section related to achievements was not already very efficient.

Regardless, it is past time to split hairs on this as it has already gone live. In a short period of time we will see how big a deal this really is.

Let’s take Google for example. Yes they are a huge company with tons of resources, but it’s a good example. For a long time now, you can go to google.com and you can type something into the search bar and expect to see results. There’s been some slight changes to the appearance of the front page, but for as long as I can remember it’s been very similar to the way it looks now. Behind the scenes however, Google has grown and so has the amount of data they have. I’m sure they’ve implemented new search algorithms, more efficient ways to store their data, and all kinds of stuff to keep it scalable. I don’t need to know that. I just go to the website and expect it to work quickly and to give me good results. Their growth has not negatively impacted my experience using the search engine. This is what I mean.

In regards to your other point, this isn’t just about the achievements though. This is a trend, they make changes for performance and performance never increases.

Google processes 3.8 million searches per minute which is 5.6 billion per day. Only 15% of searches have never been searched before on Google. The more popular searches are cached to reduce the load on their system.

This is something Zenimax cannot utilize for character or even account achievements since each one is very unique.

Additionally, Google's search engine is designed for a single solitary purpose which allows for efficiencies that cannot be obtained with a server system designed to do dozens to hundreds of different functions.

In other words, comparing Google to ESO is like comparing apples to oranges. Better yet, it is like comparing apples to Zucchini.

This is completely missing the point of the example. It also derails the point of the thread. Of course ESO is very different than Google. I'm not comparing the functionality of the two. The point of the example and the post is that despite the growth of a company, the company can offer the same experience or an improved experience without taking stuff away from user. In other words, efficiency doesn't have to be at the expense of the user. There are many ways of accomplishing the same tasks in programming, especially when it relates to data. As long as the same task is being accomplished behind the scenes, HOW the task is being accomplished can be changed or improved. Other companies do this very well.

I did get the point of the example. I merely pointed out that an example of a system doing something completely different and very specific is not very comparable to a significantly more complex, though smaller, MMORPG that does dozens and dozens of different functions every minute.

Further, neither of us has seen the complexity or structure of the database on the server-side of ESO. Even the most knowledgeable db expert would not be able to state that the db design is far from optimal if they have not seen it.

I respect your opinion and that you do not like these changes, but all the two of us can do is present our opinions on the matter. Nice discussion. Have a good day.

S0Z0H

The mystery behind all this shenanigans is MONEY....it's not that hard, it's just ZOS is playing the game , Not ESO, but the money business game. We all know they barely play the game lol.
But they are trying to keep costs down super low right now while they are being observed by Microsoft since they were bought out recently.
There are contract agreements I think they have to keep, in order for everything to stay cool for ZOS. And one major thing ZOS is trying to do, is show Microsoft they are hugely profitable while having a tiny operation cost. That's the big impression they are trying to give and to maintain , so they can ask Microsoft for more funds and be priority over other games to get more money.
[snip]
ZOS may have been given creative liberty and no micromanaging over their team, but ZOS aren't dumb. If the game doesn't make big profits , then Microsoft will start looking at them with concern...and worst come to worst....Microsoft will start forcing a lineup change within ZOS , if the existing team can't meet their goals.
If you've ever worked in marketing or sales for a long time , then you know all about this wonderful rollercoaster ride. Lol
Just a different perspective here I'm offering, from a corporate business MONEY perspective.

Now none of this should give anyone an excuse to destroy the game. NO. They aren't trying to destroy the game. Stuff is just complicated right now. And ZOS has to be careful. Live Service games in general are very popular and there's tons of competition , and ESO has to remain profitable so it can do those game engine graphic upgrades it may need. So it can upgrade to a modern more powerful server. So they can afford to hire truly amazingly competent guys that can code and fix issues very fast. It takes money to get a team of those guys to work consistently together , so everyone is on the same page.

Again, not making excuses for ZOS. Just trying to look at this realistically , whilst still demanding that we get a better experience in ESO. And right now, we need a STABLE experience. So that we can add more things to it in the future without it running like [snip].

[edited for profanity bypass & conspiracy theory]

Jaraal

S0Z0H wrote: »

But they are trying to keep costs down super low right now while they are being observed by Microsoft since they were bought out recently.
There are contract agreements I think they have to keep, in order for everything to stay cool for ZOS. And one major thing ZOS is trying to do, is show Microsoft they are hugely profitable while having a tiny operation cost. That's the big impression they are trying to give and to maintain , so they can ask Microsoft for more funds and be priority over other games to get more money.

But how do they expect to be profitable when players are leaving in droves in disgust? They've had a couple of months to see that there's a huge backlash against AWA in the form that dropped on the PTS. Yet they chose to go all in on it. Surely the investors at MS are aware of this?

Stamicka

S0Z0H wrote: »

The mystery behind all this shenanigans is MONEY....it's not that hard, it's just ZOS is playing the game , Not ESO, but the money business game. We all know they barely play the game lol.
But they are trying to keep costs down super low right now while they are being observed by Microsoft since they were bought out recently.
There are contract agreements I think they have to keep, in order for everything to stay cool for ZOS. And one major thing ZOS is trying to do, is show Microsoft they are hugely profitable while having a tiny operation cost. That's the big impression they are trying to give and to maintain , so they can ask Microsoft for more funds and be priority over other games to get more money.
[snip]
ZOS may have been given creative liberty and no micromanaging over their team, but ZOS aren't dumb. If the game doesn't make big profits , then Microsoft will start looking at them with concern...and worst come to worst....Microsoft will start forcing a lineup change within ZOS , if the existing team can't meet their goals.
If you've ever worked in marketing or sales for a long time , then you know all about this wonderful rollercoaster ride. Lol
Just a different perspective here I'm offering, from a corporate business MONEY perspective.

Now none of this should give anyone an excuse to destroy the game. NO. They aren't trying to destroy the game. Stuff is just complicated right now. And ZOS has to be careful. Live Service games in general are very popular and there's tons of competition , and ESO has to remain profitable so it can do those game engine graphic upgrades it may need. So it can upgrade to a modern more powerful server. So they can afford to hire truly amazingly competent guys that can code and fix issues very fast. It takes money to get a team of those guys to work consistently together , so everyone is on the same page.

Again, not making excuses for ZOS. Just trying to look at this realistically , whilst still demanding that we get a better experience in ESO. And right now, we need a STABLE experience. So that we can add more things to it in the future without it running like [snip].

Try to steer away from this type of thing please. There’s a line between using ZOS’ own words and actions to give feedback and straight up sharing conspiracy theories. I don’t want this thread closed.

We have no way of knowing how they use their money or what’s going on in terms of management. All we can do here is share how citing “performance” as a reason for feature removal has soured the game for us.

[edited to remove quote]

S0Z0H

Stamicka wrote: »

show previous quotes

S0Z0H wrote: »

The mystery behind all this shenanigans is MONEY....it's not that hard, it's just ZOS is playing the game , Not ESO, but the money business game. We all know they barely play the game lol.
But they are trying to keep costs down super low right now while they are being observed by Microsoft since they were bought out recently.
There are contract agreements I think they have to keep, in order for everything to stay cool for ZOS. And one major thing ZOS is trying to do, is show Microsoft they are hugely profitable while having a tiny operation cost. That's the big impression they are trying to give and to maintain , so they can ask Microsoft for more funds and be priority over other games to get more money.
[snip]
ZOS may have been given creative liberty and no micromanaging over their team, but ZOS aren't dumb. If the game doesn't make big profits , then Microsoft will start looking at them with concern...and worst come to worst....Microsoft will start forcing a lineup change within ZOS , if the existing team can't meet their goals.
If you've ever worked in marketing or sales for a long time , then you know all about this wonderful rollercoaster ride. Lol
Just a different perspective here I'm offering, from a corporate business MONEY perspective.

Now none of this should give anyone an excuse to destroy the game. NO. They aren't trying to destroy the game. Stuff is just complicated right now. And ZOS has to be careful. Live Service games in general are very popular and there's tons of competition , and ESO has to remain profitable so it can do those game engine graphic upgrades it may need. So it can upgrade to a modern more powerful server. So they can afford to hire truly amazingly competent guys that can code and fix issues very fast. It takes money to get a team of those guys to work consistently together , so everyone is on the same page.

Again, not making excuses for ZOS. Just trying to look at this realistically , whilst still demanding that we get a better experience in ESO. And right now, we need a STABLE experience. So that we can add more things to it in the future without it running like [snip].

Try to steer away from this type of thing please. There’s a line between using ZOS’ own words and actions to give feedback and straight up sharing conspiracy theories. I don’t want this thread closed.

We have no way of knowing how they use their money or what’s going on in terms of management. All we can do here is share how citing “performance” as a reason for feature removal has soured the game for us.

True, I knew this may be riding the line. But my perspective and intention is that players could see things from a more mature , realistic perspective , but il be careful.

I just know a little thing about sales, marketing and business. I was careful not to name drop or make it a negative thing. To me, with other people who have worked in sales based industry , all this is common knowledge but video gamers sometimes forget this.
It's usually assumed the dev teams for games are just lazy or don't care, and I do not think that is the issue at ZOS.

If anything, these are theoretical things that do in fact , take place at companies. And I feel if people understood some of this , people would feel way more enlightened to the bigger picture of things.

But I got you, some things may be misconstrued as negative or touching on nearing a sensitive subject in an environment that can be known to be pretty toxic and not understanding.

[edited to remove quote]

Kesstryl

S0Z0H wrote: »

The mystery behind all this shenanigans is MONEY....it's not that hard, it's just ZOS is playing the game , Not ESO, but the money business game. We all know they barely play the game lol.
But they are trying to keep costs down super low right now while they are being observed by Microsoft since they were bought out recently.
There are contract agreements I think they have to keep, in order for everything to stay cool for ZOS. And one major thing ZOS is trying to do, is show Microsoft they are hugely profitable while having a tiny operation cost. That's the big impression they are trying to give and to maintain , so they can ask Microsoft for more funds and be priority over other games to get more money.
[snip]
ZOS may have been given creative liberty and no micromanaging over their team, but ZOS aren't dumb. If the game doesn't make big profits , then Microsoft will start looking at them with concern...and worst come to worst....Microsoft will start forcing a lineup change within ZOS , if the existing team can't meet their goals.
If you've ever worked in marketing or sales for a long time , then you know all about this wonderful rollercoaster ride. Lol
Just a different perspective here I'm offering, from a corporate business MONEY perspective.

Now none of this should give anyone an excuse to destroy the game. NO. They aren't trying to destroy the game. Stuff is just complicated right now. And ZOS has to be careful. Live Service games in general are very popular and there's tons of competition , and ESO has to remain profitable so it can do those game engine graphic upgrades it may need. So it can upgrade to a modern more powerful server. So they can afford to hire truly amazingly competent guys that can code and fix issues very fast. It takes money to get a team of those guys to work consistently together , so everyone is on the same page.

Again, not making excuses for ZOS. Just trying to look at this realistically , whilst still demanding that we get a better experience in ESO. And right now, we need a STABLE experience. So that we can add more things to it in the future without it running like [snip].

But what will they say about those profits with all the players leaving over the bugs and consequences of AwA? That dip on Steam Charts statistically has to represent a larger exodus, myself included. That's definitely hurting profits.

I'm in that exodus, but let me say I'll be glad to sub again when all the bugs with immersion and NPCs are fixed by decoupling them from achievements and moving them to completed quests, including dungeon ones. I don't care about progression or end game, something which I was taking part it, when I can't go back to the stories and enjoy them like I used to. I can't just pretend that NPC didn't say this to my alt who never did such a thing and go on like nothing is wrong because I'm one of the people who plays with the game audio turned on. I can't quest without previous actions by previous alt play through already deciding how the NPCs will respond to me because an alt already played that quest and got the achievement. I still don't see how this is ok. I just don't.

I'm seeing threads about AwA being locked again and redirected to the PTS thread.

[edited to remove quote]

Kirawolfe

Kesstryl wrote: »

I'm seeing threads about AwA being locked again and redirected to the PTS thread.

Where they have no right to be, because they're not about the PTS.

I'm seeing a lot of conflicting reports right now. Folks saying that NPCs are reacting differently to them when they shouldn't, and folks saying that no, the responses are appropriate and not based on what they'd done on another character.

I'd love to know definitively what's been affected, and that's not clearly stated anywhere.

wenchmore420b14_ESO

Continuing journeys of my New AwA toon~

Raz does have the correct dialog to new characters.
WB, Delvs and Delv Bosses still click as done, even just walking by borders of "cell".
Skyshards seem to working normal today.
Todays tests done in Summerset.

Huzzah!

Jaraal

Kirawolfe wrote: »

show previous quotes

Kesstryl wrote: »

I'm seeing threads about AwA being locked again and redirected to the PTS thread.

Where they have no right to be, because they're not about the PTS.

I'm seeing a lot of conflicting reports right now. Folks saying that NPCs are reacting differently to them when they shouldn't, and folks saying that no, the responses are appropriate and not based on what they'd done on another character.

I'd love to know definitively what's been affected, and that's not clearly stated anywhere.

Taken today, on Live. The game is asking my lowbie character, who has never been Empress, to lie.



I won't spoil the rest of the dialogue, but it's hilariously wrong.

kringled_1

Jaraal wrote: »

show previous quotes

Kirawolfe wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

I'm seeing threads about AwA being locked again and redirected to the PTS thread.

Where they have no right to be, because they're not about the PTS.

I'm seeing a lot of conflicting reports right now. Folks saying that NPCs are reacting differently to them when they shouldn't, and folks saying that no, the responses are appropriate and not based on what they'd done on another character.

I'd love to know definitively what's been affected, and that's not clearly stated anywhere.

Taken today, on Live. The game is asking my lowbie character, who has never been Empress, to lie.

That's one of the cases that we know can't really be fixed properly because it was only achievement tracked (and I'm sure you know, just context for others)

Jaraal

kringled_1 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Jaraal wrote: »

Kirawolfe wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

I'm seeing threads about AwA being locked again and redirected to the PTS thread.

Where they have no right to be, because they're not about the PTS.

I'm seeing a lot of conflicting reports right now. Folks saying that NPCs are reacting differently to them when they shouldn't, and folks saying that no, the responses are appropriate and not based on what they'd done on another character.

I'd love to know definitively what's been affected, and that's not clearly stated anywhere.

Taken today, on Live. The game is asking my lowbie character, who has never been Empress, to lie.

That's one of the cases that we know can't really be fixed properly because it was only achievement tracked (and I'm sure you know, just context for others)

And you know why it can't be fixed properly? Because the game has been butchered into something it was not designed to be.

How many more things that can't be fixed properly will be altered on the fly in the future? Perhaps the game will at some point be renamed to ESO in Wonderland due to all the nonsensical text. Like the broken Bosmer stealth dialogue, the illogical Argonian poison dialogue, the strange dialogue involving heroes sacrificed in the main story who were magically brought back to life to sell new chapters.... where does it all end?

Lumsdenml

Stamicka wrote: »

Account Wide Achievements
This is the most recent change that was done for the sake of performance.

I don't think this was the sole reason it was done. I think a lot of people (despite what the vocal minority on the forums say) asked for this, and they just mentioned that one of the side benefits is that it would help with performance. I'd say we are too early in to say if that is true or not, but I don't think performance was the driving reason for this.

Stamicka wrote: »

Cyrodiil Populations
Instead of working towards a solution to allow for smooth large scale PvP battles

There is leterally an entire thread entitled "ESO PvP Update – January 2022" where they tell you they are working on a solution to this issue.

Kirawolfe

Jaraal wrote: »

Taken today, on Live. The game is asking my lowbie character, who has never been Empress, to lie.



I won't spoil the rest of the dialogue, but it's hilariously wrong.

Thank you for doing this. Can you also post this on the Blackwood thread that's going on at the moment where they're talking about misinformation?

It's so disheartening.