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

matterandstuff

I suspect these ideas about cost-cutting to "prove" something to Microsoft so that they can do something cool later are just some serious wishful thinking.

You don't continue to make those profits by lopping off major pieces of basegame functionality, which both bleeds players (this week, ESO's Steam average player numbers crashed to pre-pandemic levels for the first time and continues to drop by the day; it has also seen the largest single-month percentage drop since March 2017) and specifically bleeds a portion of the player base that disproportionately spends money in the Crown Store.

Having to resort to that to keep the game functioning bodes really badly for the future of this game, and suggests that we won't be seeing any new features or content beyond the much smaller scale of High Isle anytime soon.

Nomadic_Atmoran

I've come to be convinced that the suits don't want to spend the money to actually do what's necessary to fix the issues. Instead they want the devs to jump through all sorts of hoops that the team knows won't work. But since they aren't making the decisions and they aren't able to shake loose more funding. They're stuck. So instead they're wasting money and dev time removing or slashing things that already exist to fix "performance".

If you've ever worked in a corporate environment. This is typically how it goes. Some idiot with an MBA doesn't want to spend the money that needs to be spent to fix the problem. So they task their subordinates to fix it with what they got. This ultimately costs the company more time and money because eventually when all else fails. They still have to go back to the "more expensive" option to fix it. In the meantime. The customer gets to suffer through all of the hassle of that suit getting his way.

wenchmore420b14_ESO

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

I've come to be convinced that the suits don't want to spend the money to actually do what's necessary to fix the issues. Instead they want the devs to jump through all sorts of hoops that the team knows won't work. But since they aren't making the decisions and they aren't able to shake loose more funding. They're stuck. So instead they're wasting money and dev time removing or slashing things that already exist to fix "performance".

If you've ever worked in a corporate environment. This is typically how it goes. Some idiot with an MBA doesn't want to spend the money that needs to be spent to fix the problem. So they task their subordinates to fix it with what they got. This ultimately costs the company more time and money because eventually when all else fails. They still have to go back to the "more expensive" option to fix it. In the meantime. The customer gets to suffer through all of the hassle of that suit getting his way.

“When the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, they end up running the companies. The product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products.”

_Steve Jobs (The Lost Interview)

Stamicka

Lumsdenml wrote: »

show previous quotes

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.

show previous quotes

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.

Many people wanted Account Wide Achievements, yes. However, in their Q & A, the reason they gave for not making AwA optional is that it would negate the performance gains that they are wanting. Very few people are mad that AwA was added. Many people ARE mad that it is not optional, that we have no control over it, and that they messed with our character data. So the worst part of AwA was done in the name of performance.

There’s way too much to be said about the “ESO PvP Update - January 2022” post. Just know that it’s not much different than what was said 7 years ago.

Kesstryl

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.



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

There's a thread looking specifically for stuff like this, and this should also be posted in bugs. The thread is here https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/600300/so-is-every-character-now-in-db-tg-due-to-awa-is-blackwood-un-re-playable-now#latest

Jaraal

Kesstryl 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.



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

There's a thread looking specifically for stuff like this, and this should also be posted in bugs. The thread is here https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/600300/so-is-every-character-now-in-db-tg-due-to-awa-is-blackwood-un-re-playable-now#latest

It doesn't really have anything to do with the Blackwood issues, and TBH, we've told ZOS about this early on in the PTS. [snip] They said they would be "monitoring the thread closely," so they are aware.

But I will post it.

[Edit for minor bashing.]

Paulytnz

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

ZOS should just shutdown the servers

No servers = no players = no performance issues!

= no cash cow too tho.

alberichtano

Stamicka wrote: »

show previous quotes

_Zathras_ wrote: »

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.

You answered your own question right there.

alberichtano

Stamicka wrote: »

show previous quotes

_Zathras_ wrote: »

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.

You answered your own question right there.

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

I've come to be convinced that the suits don't want to spend the money to actually do what's necessary to fix the issues. Instead they want the devs to jump through all sorts of hoops that the team knows won't work. But since they aren't making the decisions and they aren't able to shake loose more funding. They're stuck. So instead they're wasting money and dev time removing or slashing things that already exist to fix "performance".

If you've ever worked in a corporate environment. This is typically how it goes. Some idiot with an MBA doesn't want to spend the money that needs to be spent to fix the problem. So they task their subordinates to fix it with what they got. This ultimately costs the company more time and money because eventually when all else fails. They still have to go back to the "more expensive" option to fix it. In the meantime. The customer gets to suffer through all of the hassle of that suit getting his way.

Yep, this is what I believe as well. I remember how optimistic some people were that MS had purchased ZOS, imagining that MS would rain money over their new acquisition. But that is just not how it works, they didn't buy it to spend money over it, but to make them more profits. Cost cuts and demands on higher yields are far more probable than further investments into the brand; they must make profit for their owners and investors. By law.

alberichtano

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.



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

Please do spoil, otherwise I will never get to hear/read it.

tgrippa

The game has been going downhill since they got rid of Wrobel.

duagloth

tgrippa wrote: »

The game has been going downhill since they got rid of Wrobel.

I hope your joking, the true downfall was when nick kronkle and the original team left.

heaven13

Lumsdenml wrote: »

show previous quotes

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.

show previous quotes

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.

You know what else that post says?

ZOS_MattFiror wrote: »

So, in order to give everyone a good play experience in high-intensity situations like PvP and Trials, we need to essentially rewrite some of the foundational server code to account for it. This should dramatically increase server performance, but obviously we will need to test and evaluate as we go along.

We’ve been planning this for the last quarter and we’re starting work on it right now. But, as you can imagine, changing the fundamentals of a huge live game such as ESO is a delicate and multi-stepped process, so expect this to take up much of 2022. Much of the early work is going to happen behind the scenes and we are definitely not going to rush it. A re-architecture of this magnitude will require the entire game to be re-tested and evaluated, as this particular code is the foundation on which the game is built. It will take tons of QA and testing time as well, and I’m sure that when the time comes, we’ll do as large a test as we can on the PTS.

Despite the impact and entire destruction of the way the game has always played for alts, did the performance gains of AwA not count towards restructuring ESO and changing the fundamentals and therefore wasn't subject to ANY of those standards?

If Matt's promise of really taking their time and doing things right and lots of testing and QA is something we're supposed to hold them to, well, they've already fallen short. I have no faith they'll do the rest of it right and not just destroy other parts of the game people love for "performance".

Amottica

Jaraal wrote: »

show previous quotes

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?

But if they do not leave in droves then what does that mean?

Regardless, this ship has sailed. From what I understand, and I could be wrong, the related data per character is lost on PC except for any character we have not logged into.

Amottica

Lumsdenml wrote: »

show previous quotes

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.

You are correct as they gave at least two reasons. One was that players have been requesting this for a while. Considering the number of threads I have seen asking for it, one could suggest players have been asking for this in droves.

sarahthes

heaven13 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Lumsdenml wrote: »

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.

You know what else that post says?

show previous quotes

ZOS_MattFiror wrote: »

So, in order to give everyone a good play experience in high-intensity situations like PvP and Trials, we need to essentially rewrite some of the foundational server code to account for it. This should dramatically increase server performance, but obviously we will need to test and evaluate as we go along.

We’ve been planning this for the last quarter and we’re starting work on it right now. But, as you can imagine, changing the fundamentals of a huge live game such as ESO is a delicate and multi-stepped process, so expect this to take up much of 2022. Much of the early work is going to happen behind the scenes and we are definitely not going to rush it. A re-architecture of this magnitude will require the entire game to be re-tested and evaluated, as this particular code is the foundation on which the game is built. It will take tons of QA and testing time as well, and I’m sure that when the time comes, we’ll do as large a test as we can on the PTS.

Despite the impact and entire destruction of the way the game has always played for alts, did the performance gains of AwA not count towards restructuring ESO and changing the fundamentals and therefore wasn't subject to ANY of those standards?

If Matt's promise of really taking their time and doing things right and lots of testing and QA is something we're supposed to hold them to, well, they've already fallen short. I have no faith they'll do the rest of it right and not just destroy other parts of the game people love for "performance".

I do not think the AwA changes are what Matt is referring to, no.

Jaraal

Amottica wrote: »

show previous quotes

Jaraal wrote: »

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?

But if they do not leave in droves then what does that mean?

Over 1/5 of the Steam players have left since this hit the PTS, and the number gets larger every day. I guess it depends on your definition of "droves."

https://steamcharts.com/app/306130

Gaeliannas

.

Amottica wrote: »

show previous quotes

Jaraal wrote: »

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?

But if they do not leave in droves then what does that mean?

Regardless, this ship has sailed. From what I understand, and I could be wrong, the related data per character is lost on PC except for any character we have not logged into.

Ships don't sail in the Enterprise IT world, there is always a backout plan. They could somewhat easily revert the game to pre-patch and not implement the recent changes until they figure out what went wrong. Yes, it would erase the past weeks worth of player history, which is why most games that achieved this level of mess perform the rollback almost immediately upon discovering it.

I personally would have been fine with a Tuesday rollback and been able to play all week, than have to deal with this mess. To be honest, I would still be fine with a rollback today or tomorrow erasing this whole week of progress (which is really nothing in the scheme of things), than count on all these issues getting addressed anytime soon. Best case scenario right now, is they start fixing one issue after another, and are probably prioritizing them as we chat here. How soon until entering my guild hall gets fixed? A lot of players spent a lot of crowns building it, now we can't use it or any of the services we put in there.

Easy fix:
1. Roll back the update.
2. Offer 2x-4x XP/AP for the next week as an apology.
3. Offer 2x-4x rewards from all other sources as well.
4. Fix the issues before releasing them again.

LashanW

Amottica wrote: »

show previous quotes

Lumsdenml wrote: »

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.

You are correct as they gave at least two reasons. One was that players have been requesting this for a while. Considering the number of threads I have seen asking for it, one could suggest players have been asking for this in droves.

Yes they stated 2 reasons. No, player asking for it is NOT the biggest reason. I assume you looked at their Q&A thread? Read the final question and carefully read the answer they gave.

Performance wasn't a side benefit, it was the main thing. If meeting player requests was the main reason, they would've found a way to make it optional.

Performance gains are very nice as long as it doesn't reduce the ways you can enjoy the game and doesn't cause any other issues with accessing and playing the game.

I hope the devs can someday convince the decision takers of this game that spending money on keeping the server hardware up-to-date (and scale up when the game get bigger) is NOT a waste but rather an investment that will be worth it.

RisenEclipse

I am going to add something here though. I do not believe in anyway that the very rushed job with AwA was a fault of the devs working on it. I think they were given an impossible time slot to push this out, and it shows. Something like this should have taken months to integrate into the game, and ensure that everything associated with the player's account was as perfect as can be before launch. The systems associated with achievements (titles, map markers, map tracker, as well as adding ways to see what individual characters had completed) should have been updated and added first before going live with AwA.

I mean look at Minecraft's deep dark update. It was originally supposed to be apart of their Cave's and Cliffs update. But due to them not feeling like it was finished yet, the Deep Dark was pushed to the Wild update. Which was further pushed a further few months, due to them feeling like it wasnt ready for a full release. THAT is what should have happened here. When there are people on the PTS were saying it wasnt ready, the time slot should have been extended significantly. Which I assume most of the people who worked on it had no control of that time frame. So I dont think anyone here should be upset at mods or devs for this.

S0Z0H

All this is going to make me do lots of research on live service games and server performance. We aren't getting enough info, so I'm going to learn about all this technology and stuff myself lol

Gaeliannas

S0Z0H wrote: »

All this is going to make me do lots of research on live service games and server performance. We aren't getting enough info, so I'm going to learn about all this technology and stuff myself lol

It is actually pretty straight forward stuff, which is why many of us in the industry are so confused as to what is happening with ESO, as it should have been fairly easily avoided.

Aside from concerns about poor coding and database design, both of which are fixable, it comes down to hardware and scaling it up to meet the needs of the underlying application, database and those accessing it. When performance coding/design fails, you can always throw more hardware at an issue to fix it. It should also be taken into account, that adding load on your hardware (in the form of new zones, instances, increased player count, etc), without ever increasing the underlying compute resources, will always result in decreased performance, which (based on lack of other information) is what seems to be happening.

danno8

Jaraal wrote: »

show previous quotes

Amottica wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

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?

But if they do not leave in droves then what does that mean?

Over 1/5 of the Steam players have left since this hit the PTS, and the number gets larger every day. I guess it depends on your definition of "droves."

https://steamcharts.com/app/306130

It's hard to say though. I mean the numbers for FF14 and New World are both -20% and -30% in the last 30 days respectively as well. I think we are seeing the world going back to the office/in-person everything rather than a specific downturn for this latest release. Time will tell I guess.

https://steamcharts.com/app/39210

https://steamcharts.com/app/1063730

Stamicka

S0Z0H wrote: »

All this is going to make me do lots of research on live service games and server performance. We aren't getting enough info, so I'm going to learn about all this technology and stuff myself lol

I wish they were much more open as well. Unfortunately without knowing how ZOS in particular does things, there’s no way to know what’s going on. I know not everyone is interested in the technical side of things, but communicating this information for those that are would lead to much more trust.

Saieden

danno8 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Jaraal wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

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?

But if they do not leave in droves then what does that mean?

Over 1/5 of the Steam players have left since this hit the PTS, and the number gets larger every day. I guess it depends on your definition of "droves."

https://steamcharts.com/app/306130

It's hard to say though. I mean the numbers for FF14 and New World are both -20% and -30% in the last 30 days respectively as well. I think we are seeing the world going back to the office/in-person everything rather than a specific downturn for this latest release. Time will tell I guess.

https://steamcharts.com/app/39210

https://steamcharts.com/app/1063730

Lost Ark, despite the controversy, and Elden Ring, are major factors as well. Also, Smilegate just put up a massive apology the other day for the p2w crunch players have been feeling, and openly admitted to mistakes made and outlined steps redress them as well as give players respectable in game compensation. The complete opposite of how Zos have handled AWA.

wenchmore420b14_ESO

LashanW wrote: »

show previous quotes

Amottica wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

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.

You are correct as they gave at least two reasons. One was that players have been requesting this for a while. Considering the number of threads I have seen asking for it, one could suggest players have been asking for this in droves.

Yes they stated 2 reasons. No, player asking for it is NOT the biggest reason. I assume you looked at their Q&A thread? Read the final question and carefully read the answer they gave.

Performance wasn't a side benefit, it was the main thing. If meeting player requests was the main reason, they would've found a way to make it optional.

Performance gains are very nice as long as it doesn't reduce the ways you can enjoy the game and doesn't cause any other issues with accessing and playing the game.

I hope the devs can someday convince the decision takers of this game that spending money on keeping the server hardware up-to-date (and scale up when the game get bigger) is NOT a waste but rather an investment that will be worth it.

In the Global Reveal, "players want this" is the ONLY reason they gave for AwA. No where in the initial show did they mention Performance Improvement.
Look at the date of the so called "Q&A" and then look at how many pages of the 94+ page PTS Feedback went for before they gave us the "Q&A". And if you read the PTS Thread, ( I assume you read the PTS thread) what the Q&A gave us was a 'generic PR response that didn't address our true concerns.
Had this (performance improvement) been the real reason for destroying our re-playability, they would have had that as a main focus in the World Reveal. Remember how proud they were to remove deer and bugs from PvP?
No, the idea of performance just feels too much like a after thought because of all the backlash from those who tested this mess on PTS.
FYI, this DID reduce not just the enjoyment of playing but locked out re-playability of game. Welcome to Tamriel Once.

Well, it's live now, still crickets from ZoS, and gee, look at the responses of just how great the performance improvements are going. Lol.
Just my 2 drakes.
Huzzah!

Jaraal

RisenEclipse wrote: »

I am going to add something here though. I do not believe in anyway that the very rushed job with AwA was a fault of the devs working on it. I think they were given an impossible time slot to push this out, and it shows. Something like this should have taken months to integrate into the game, and ensure that everything associated with the player's account was as perfect as can be before launch. The systems associated with achievements (titles, map markers, map tracker, as well as adding ways to see what individual characters had completed) should have been updated and added first before going live with AwA.

Yes, there are two known facts here.

1)

Most importantly, however, this change helps keep the game performant as we continue to add new content and achievements in the future.

and

2)

The High Isle Chapter also introduces a gameplay system, Tales of Tribute. A tavern card game that allows you to compete against your fellow players and NPCs, this fast-paced, deck-building game provides a new way for Tamriel’s adventurers to relax and play. As you unlock decks and cards, you can challenge NPCs in taverns all over Tamriel, and compete with your fellow players to rise up the leaderboards. Visit local taverns and win to unlock unique rewards, including achievements, collectibles, and more!

The individual character achievements were removed to make room for the card game achievements (and other achievements). High Isle drops June 6. So, the devs were given a timeline to get this all done. There's no delaying the preset development schedule. So, yes.... the devs are working as fast and as hard as they can to meet the deadlines. It's absolutely not on them. This is 100% a management call. Therefore:

Things were not always so rosy for the ESO dev team, though. We kept our aggressive development schedule that, in hindsight, might not have been the right strategy.

.... the development schedule seems to be back to it's usual frenetic pace. And if any issues pop up along the way (as hundreds of pages of player feedback seem to indicate), they will just have to do what they can and let the chips (or cards, in this case) fall where they may.

LashanW

wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »

In the Global Reveal, "players want this" is the ONLY reason they gave for AwA. No where in the initial show did they mention Performance Improvement.
Look at the date of the so called "Q&A" and then look at how many pages of the 94+ page PTS Feedback went for before they gave us the "Q&A". And if you read the PTS Thread, ( I assume you read the PTS thread) what the Q&A gave us was a 'generic PR response that didn't address our true concerns.
Had this (performance improvement) been the real reason for destroying our re-playability, they would have had that as a main focus in the World Reveal. Remember how proud they were to remove deer and bugs from PvP?
No, the idea of performance just feels too much like a after thought because of all the backlash from those who tested this mess on PTS.
FYI, this DID reduce not just the enjoyment of playing but locked out re-playability of game. Welcome to Tamriel Once.

Well, it's live now, still crickets from ZoS, and gee, look at the responses of just how great the performance improvements are going. Lol.
Just my 2 drakes.
Huzzah!

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that performance gains are nice as long as it doesn't reduce/remove content. And that's not how they did things this time. So I'm not ok with it.
I'm not seeing any performance improvements in-game with current update. It's worse. I already gave my feedback regarding that in the DLC feedback thread.

I don't usually bother reading PTS threads anymore. Player feedback is ignored there all the time. It's been like that for years. It's no secret to endgame players and PvPers.

wenchmore420b14_ESO

I got ya. No disrespect meant.
Your mention of not reading PTS threads anymore. I agree 100%, but ZoS is still referring us to post there as they close threads discussing AwA.. Hmmmm...
Huzzah!

Kesstryl

danno8 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Jaraal wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

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?

But if they do not leave in droves then what does that mean?

Over 1/5 of the Steam players have left since this hit the PTS, and the number gets larger every day. I guess it depends on your definition of "droves."

https://steamcharts.com/app/306130

It's hard to say though. I mean the numbers for FF14 and New World are both -20% and -30% in the last 30 days respectively as well. I think we are seeing the world going back to the office/in-person everything rather than a specific downturn for this latest release. Time will tell I guess.

https://steamcharts.com/app/39210

https://steamcharts.com/app/1063730

New World has problems worse than ESO. FF14 has way more players than ESO, I wonder how they handle their achievements?