is it time to admit defeat when it comes to performance?

twev

Khrogo wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

My client gets a solid 180 FPS which is what I have it capped at. The smooth performance is what drew me back to the game, actually. The animations are so nice on a display with a fast refresh.

If you don’t mind me asking, what are you graphics settings (low/medium/high/ultra)? And what are the specs of your PC?

Just as a guess: I'd venture his equipment specs put him in the 97th percentile for PCs +/- 5%.
But I seriously doubt his rig is anywhere near the 80th percentile for PC users assuming ZOS' recommended specs:

"PC RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

Operating System: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel® Core™ i5 2300 or AMD FX4350
System RAM: 8GB
Hard Disk Space: 105GB free HDD space
GPU: Direct X 11.0 compliant video card with 4GB of RAM (NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 970 or AMD Radeon™ RX 570) or higher
Sound: DirectX compatible sound card
Internet: Internet Broadband Connection"

Also notice ZOS makes no mention of monitor spec at all.

Obviously ZOS can't make any claims about end user performance since some of the results are beyond ZOS' control, and many/most of them (outside of PC and in-home infrastructure) are beyond the end user's control.

[Edit to add: Neither ZOS or the end user has any control over the ping/packet loss in the overall internet outside of Akamai and anti-cheat systems, which are part of ZOS, not the end user.]

My comment is just to showcase some of the datapoints germane to the conversation that users need to keep in mind.

ProudMary

Paramedicus wrote: »

you can't loose if you don't really try

Or something liek that

Sadly, I think you nailed it.

After enough empty promises and unmet goals it's not inappropriate to determine that the effort probably isn't up to the standard we're being told they are.

twev

Warhawke_80 wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Warhawke_80 wrote: »

I'm a PVE player and I think the performance is excellent, does anyone even go to Cyridil anymore?


I was hoping that the devs would turn it into a PVE area... just think of all the quests/delves/dungeons they could have there

There are already quests and delves there.

Still...I was hoping that the devs would turn it into a PVE area

So there would be more than say five people using such a huge area...you know since most people don't like or want PVP in their TES game...

MMO doesn't or at least shouldn't mean forced PVP areas after all.

Well aside from 1X1 duels and battlegrounds - the rest of ESO is open-world and forced PvE.
What you're proposing would mean that more players would leave the game.

[edit - left out a word]

Bammlschwamml

like fusion reactors, good performance is ESO is just 10 years away... forever...

katanagirl1

This is why I did not like giving up new content release for bug fixes. Even if there were some good fixes implemented, without significant progress on things like frame rate drops when supposedly locked at 60 fps on PS5 and sudden lag spikes like we have experienced lately, or the sudden boot of many players in a Cyrodiil campaign, it seems like a bad trade. It’s hard for them to win.

Their trend with communication seems to be only when they have a fix ready to implement, then we hear about it. So there is no way to know about the other bug fixes, whether they are being worked, or not started yet, or they looked into it and were not able to reproduce so they are going to ignore it. Everyone always assumes the worse when there is no feedback, which is natural. I believe this method of communication is being passed down from above so I do not fault the people here on the forums, it’s just policies and procedures.

As for admitting failure, my experience in the working world is that no one ever does that. One of my coworkers used to say, “we redefine success and move on”.

Lags

LaintalAy wrote: »

Lags wrote: »

Or does zos have something else planned? Because i know they like to pretend that the restructure thing improved performance, but it didnt. It did for a month or so, otherwise its been business as usual. Then there was the multithread thing that seemingly went nowhere, according to the last update on this issue from matt firor last year. And when you go to the eso help page about performance and click on their performance plan you get sent to their plan from back in like 2019-2020.

im just wondering like, at what point when something has been so bad for so long do you just admit defeat? Im not a game developer, i dont write code, i know nothing about this. But what i do know is that, in most careers or businesses, if a part of your product has been working very poorly for 3 4 5 6 7 8 years, with the same type of issue, with no resolution in sight, it comes down to either it cant be fixed or we refuse to invest what is needed to fix it.

10 years is a very long time. If something is a top priority, is 10 years not enough? How about 15? Is that enough? Like if in 5 years time the issue is still the same, would that be when we admit defeat? So many questions, and no answers.

Did they make 200M USD last year? I can't see anyone in ZOS admitting defeat.

My own view is that the initial problem started with the introduction of the original Champion Point (CP) system. It got worse as every release increased the maximum CP level.

The problems abated for a while after the CP 2.0 revision, but appear to have gradually returned. CP2 is where they moved to slottable stars. This reduces the number of active perks to four per tree.

Same scenario after the 'restructure thing'. On this, my FPS increased by 400% - from average of 6 fps (yes...) to around 24. So I'm of the opinion that it actually was a successful change.

I'd say that it's likely that it can't be fixed permanently. I'd also say that any investment after 10 years, would probably be more into a replacement of ESO (V2.0) and less into temporary fixes.

Or does zos have something else planned?

Housing.

FPS has nothing to do with it. Nothing. You expect low FPS when in an area with hundreds of players running around fighting. This thread is about performance. Skill delay, input lag, rubber banding, etc.

You say they made 200m last year? Wow, thats great, all the more reason to put in the time, resources, and effort, to actually fix the problem. Instead of doing things like the restructure, saying it probably wont help performance to cover your bases, and then claiming victory when you implement it and performance is slightly better for a few weeks.

Ive said it multiple times in this thread, and ill say it again now. Matt firor says "they can do anything" it just comes down to if its worth the effort. No, i do not believe it is likely that it cannot be fixed. [Snip].

Ill ask the same question as my op. 10 years is a very long time. If something is a top priority, is 10 years not enough? Just because this issue isnt your issue, or whoevers, does not mean it should not be fixed.

We dont know what the issue is, only zos does. Ive heard interesting theories and ideas but we dont know. But i will say, ive heard fengrush bring up this idea from time to time, and its basically that when they restart the servers, or take them down for maintenance for a bit, performance is better. For a few days, then it goes back to normal. And its something i have deff noticed over the years. Which makes me wonder why its something they dont try and look into, and if it helps do it on a weekly basis.

[Edited for Conspiracy theory/bashing]

Elsonso

Lags wrote: »

Ive said it multiple times in this thread, and ill say it again now. Matt firor says "they can do anything" it just comes down to if its worth the effort. No, i do not believe it is likely that it cannot be fixed. [Snip].

We dont know what the issue is, only zos does. Ive heard interesting theories and ideas but we dont know.

Yeah, I expect that it can be fixed, but I also expect that they are pushing the hardware that they have to the limit. There is a limit to how much conventional server hardware can do. Future performance improvements will happen when a new generation of hardware can be obtained or they are able to optimize the server performance. The latter is what I am guessing they were attempting to address with the multi-threading work.

The two road blocks that I see are whether they have the skilled staff that is able to further optimize server performance, and do they have the financial backing of the upstream management to continue to address it. They had backing under the old management to fix the game after launch, as they have said repeatedly, but who knows what XBox thinks.

[Edited quote]