I'm interested zos

TDVM

ZOS will be modding the game engine to solve problems and increase playability? why not skip one year of chapter release and do modding with the game engine? I'm sure that if you improve the game engine for the game it will be good for the game.

Danikat

They sort-of did this in 2019 and 2020. They didn't completely stop developing new things but they did a 'year long performance improvement plan' where they prioritised fixing performance issues and bugs and gave us regular updates on it.

I'm not sure if it's the last one but here's the most recent update I could find: https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/56681

They gave up on it because, aside from a few specific things, it wasn't making any significant difference for most players.

Tandor

A lot more players will miss new content than those who suffer game-breaking performance issues.

TaSheen

Where did ZOS address they'd be "modding the game engine to solve problems and increase playability"? Source please.

TDVM

TaSheen wrote: »

Where did ZOS address they'd be "modding the game engine to solve problems and increase playability"? Source please.

reread it again, you misunderstood the meaning of the post

JustLovely

TDVM wrote: »

ZOS will be modding the game engine to solve problems and increase playability? why not skip one year of chapter release and do modding with the game engine? I'm sure that if you improve the game engine for the game it will be good for the game.

I don't think ZOS has anyone on staff anymore that could make the needed changes to the engine code, even if ZOS wanted to invest in making some needed changes.

manukartofanu

Tandor wrote: »

A lot more players will miss new content than those who suffer game-breaking performance issues.

Any proof on that?

colossalvoids

manukartofanu wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

A lot more players will miss new content than those who suffer game-breaking performance issues.

Any proof on that?

Should there be any? If most players suffered severely from those issues game won't be playable and won't be around anymore. Performance issues are mostly felt and make a difference for people playing competitive/endgame content which are obvious minority for various reasons so it's easier to pursue new players, feed new landmasses rather than risk everything with new architecture for the entire game that would solve those issues for some couple (ten) thousands people who are still around waiting for it. It's not a niche game where the core audience is prioritised, sadly. It probably would be one day as game is aging and starting to slow down a lot compared to what we saw previously, but certainly not in a short perspective.

RexyCat

colossalvoids wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

A lot more players will miss new content than those who suffer game-breaking performance issues.

Any proof on that?

Should there be any? If most players suffered severely from those issues game won't be playable and won't be around anymore. Performance issues are mostly felt and make a difference for people playing competitive/endgame content which are obvious minority for various reasons so it's easier to pursue new players, feed new landmasses rather than risk everything with new architecture for the entire game that would solve those issues for some couple (ten) thousands people who are still around waiting for it. It's not a niche game where the core audience is prioritised, sadly. It probably would be one day as game is aging and starting to slow down a lot compared to what we saw previously, but certainly not in a short perspective.

It is more likely that it is more complex to increase performance and at same time avoid downtime as this is about all clients that need to communicate with ZoS servers and on their side internally also handle different server load like log in, different databases handling mail, trading, every clients account progression etc.

There is also the limit on hardware side where cost is part of this and how fast Internet really are when we start to talk about large groups connected to same node (ping) to be in the same in game world and have feeling that that they can act on what is happening on screen without someone getting a very fast response while other player have a very delayed response without getting kicked out of the same in game world.

Don't forget that game servers like ZoS also need to make sure that no malicious inject can be done to manipulate servers which also adds to how fast server can handle large scale connection from a large amount of clients (players).

This isn't just about money or even technological knowledge, but about how scaling and complexity have limits.

SeaGtGruff

manukartofanu wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

A lot more players will miss new content than those who suffer game-breaking performance issues.

Any proof on that?

The forums? Look at how many people already complain about the fact that what used to be a zone DLC release in the 4th quarter has been done away with and replaced by bug fixes and QOL updates.

manukartofanu

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

The forums? Look at how many people already complain about the fact that what used to be a zone DLC release in the 4th quarter has been done away with and replaced by bug fixes and QOL updates.

Forums prove exactly the opposite. Look at how many players complain about gameplay issues.

manukartofanu

colossalvoids wrote: »

Should there be any?

Well, if such a categorical statement is made, there should be at least some evidence to support it, right?

colossalvoids wrote: »

If most players suffered severely from those issues game won't be playable and won't be around anymore.

In the past two months, many people have encountered problems in the game. During the same period, the online player count has been dropping. In Steam, ESO has fallen out of the top 100 and only climbs back for a few peak hours. Meanwhile, Skyrim's player count has increased. Coincidence?

colossalvoids wrote: »

Performance issues are mostly felt and make a difference for people playing competitive/endgame content which are obvious minority for various reasons so it's easier to pursue new players, feed new landmasses rather than risk everything with new architecture for the entire game that would solve those issues for some couple (ten) thousands people who are still around waiting for it. It's not a niche game where the core audience is prioritised, sadly. It probably would be one day as game is aging and starting to slow down a lot compared to what we saw previously, but certainly not in a short perspective.

So a new chapter was released, the player count temporarily increased for about two weeks, and now it's dropping again. Should an entire yearly development cycle be built around players who log in for just two weeks?
What's the point of having content that's painful to play because of bugs?

CrazyKitty

Tandor wrote: »

A lot more players will miss new content than those who suffer game-breaking performance issues.

Why can't ZOS do both code clean up to fix performance issues and new content releases at the same time? I thought ZOS was a billion$/year company.

kargen27

manukartofanu wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

A lot more players will miss new content than those who suffer game-breaking performance issues.

Any proof on that?

We might not have any proof on that but ZoS does. They can see what activities players are engaging and they also send out questionnaires to get player insight. The information they gather from those questionnaires I'm guessing are not ignored and are instead used as part of the planning process going forward.

GuuMoonRyoung

colossalvoids wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

A lot more players will miss new content than those who suffer game-breaking performance issues.

Any proof on that?

Should there be any? If most players suffered severely from those issues game won't be playable and won't be around anymore. Performance issues are mostly felt and make a difference for people playing competitive/endgame content which are obvious minority for various reasons so it's easier to pursue new players, feed new landmasses rather than risk everything with new architecture for the entire game that would solve those issues for some couple (ten) thousands people who are still around waiting for it. It's not a niche game where the core audience is prioritised, sadly. It probably would be one day as game is aging and starting to slow down a lot compared to what we saw previously, but certainly not in a short perspective.

If you are in a large guild, you would hear people talk about how many game breaking instances they experience every day. However, people just deal with and forget about it. They consume the newest content as fast as possible and then move on to other games. That is why the devs focus on new content rather than fixing bugs in engine.

colossalvoids

GuuMoonRyoung wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

A lot more players will miss new content than those who suffer game-breaking performance issues.

Any proof on that?

Should there be any? If most players suffered severely from those issues game won't be playable and won't be around anymore. Performance issues are mostly felt and make a difference for people playing competitive/endgame content which are obvious minority for various reasons so it's easier to pursue new players, feed new landmasses rather than risk everything with new architecture for the entire game that would solve those issues for some couple (ten) thousands people who are still around waiting for it. It's not a niche game where the core audience is prioritised, sadly. It probably would be one day as game is aging and starting to slow down a lot compared to what we saw previously, but certainly not in a short perspective.

If you are in a large guild, you would hear people talk about how many game breaking instances they experience every day. However, people just deal with and forget about it. They consume the newest content as fast as possible and then move on to other games. That is why the devs focus on new content rather than fixing bugs in engine.

Yeah, large guilds, large discords and in most big and detailed feedback pieces. We still don't matter that much for it to happen as seasonal players make this game for the company and they feel no real consequences for not retaining most of their "hardcore" audience which is leaking.

manukartofanu wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

Should there be any?

Well, if such a categorical statement is made, there should be at least some evidence to support it, right?

colossalvoids wrote: »

If most players suffered severely from those issues game won't be playable and won't be around anymore.

In the past two months, many people have encountered problems in the game. During the same period, the online player count has been dropping. In Steam, ESO has fallen out of the top 100 and only climbs back for a few peak hours. Meanwhile, Skyrim's player count has increased. Coincidence?

colossalvoids wrote: »

Performance issues are mostly felt and make a difference for people playing competitive/endgame content which are obvious minority for various reasons so it's easier to pursue new players, feed new landmasses rather than risk everything with new architecture for the entire game that would solve those issues for some couple (ten) thousands people who are still around waiting for it. It's not a niche game where the core audience is prioritised, sadly. It probably would be one day as game is aging and starting to slow down a lot compared to what we saw previously, but certainly not in a short perspective.

So a new chapter was released, the player count temporarily increased for about two weeks, and now it's dropping again. Should an entire yearly development cycle be built around players who log in for just two weeks?
What's the point of having content that's painful to play because of bugs?

I actually do think it's coincidence if true, as don't see ESO as just an extension of Skyrim or Skyrim to be the only alternative here. One is dropping which is ESO and the reasons are obviously not just one thing but a melting pot of those (not only issues, it's summer after all which is affecting different types of games / demographics differently, kids free from school is working in Skyrim favour and old bones needing some sun is working against ESO pop). Recent ESO live, performance, new update being underwhelming which can be stretched from first PTS cycle, 14 day sale limit a lot of those contributed for us to drop. For me it was Elden Ring dlc that capped it on top not making me want to return anytime soon.

Surely I myself logout when see my ping pummel without any reason and not coming back until have next dungeon run in a week or so, but most people just don't care about such things. They do quests where latency of 600-999 is completely fine and health regen takes care of it and you don't making your teammates sweat because your twitching almost costed them a vitality.

Performance (lack of) overall isn't a new issue, it's already killed one game mode almost entirely. All their confirmed attempts to improve things failed and some were just swept under the rug to never talk of it again so most people just prefer getting new toys instead of making them work, as the majority doesn't care or don't see those issues and want a steady coming of fresh stuff instead.

manukartofanu

colossalvoids wrote: »

Surely I myself logout when see my ping pummel without any reason and not coming back until have next dungeon run in a week or so, but most people just don't care about such things. They do quests where latency of 600-999 is completely fine and health regen takes care of it and you don't making your teammates sweat because your twitching almost costed them a vitality.

I like how you confidently assert what the majority of players do, explaining the strange statistics (which, by the way, haven't been seen in the last 5 years) as a coincidence, without interacting with players in guild discords, and not even playing the game. You are either already a great manager or could become one. Meanwhile, you claim that you would immediately stop playing and try again in a week. But what would you do if you couldn't log in a week later? And then another week later, there's still ping. What then?

colossalvoids wrote: »

Performance (lack of) overall isn't a new issue, it's already killed one game mode almost entirely. All their confirmed attempts to improve things failed and some were just swept under the rug to never talk of it again so most people just prefer getting new toys instead of making them work, as the majority doesn't care or don't see those issues and want a steady coming of fresh stuff instead.

So what makes you think that PvE won't be killed by the same reason? PvP is initially for more hardcore players. Casuals play PvE. Why should casuals be more resilient than hardcores in tolerating constant problems?

colossalvoids

manukartofanu wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

Surely I myself logout when see my ping pummel without any reason and not coming back until have next dungeon run in a week or so, but most people just don't care about such things. They do quests where latency of 600-999 is completely fine and health regen takes care of it and you don't making your teammates sweat because your twitching almost costed them a vitality.

I like how you confidently assert what the majority of players do, explaining the strange statistics (which, by the way, haven't been seen in the last 5 years) as a coincidence, without interacting with players in guild discords, and not even playing the game. You are either already a great manager or could become one. Meanwhile, you claim that you would immediately stop playing and try again in a week. But what would you do if you couldn't log in a week later? And then another week later, there's still ping. What then?

colossalvoids wrote: »

Performance (lack of) overall isn't a new issue, it's already killed one game mode almost entirely. All their confirmed attempts to improve things failed and some were just swept under the rug to never talk of it again so most people just prefer getting new toys instead of making them work, as the majority doesn't care or don't see those issues and want a steady coming of fresh stuff instead.

So what makes you think that PvE won't be killed by the same reason? PvP is initially for more hardcore players. Casuals play PvE. Why should casuals be more resilient than hardcores in tolerating constant problems?

Not sure where you took part of your reply from but some assertions are pretty wrong, you got it backwards like about discords and guilds etc. If you'll look up last 4-5 years of ESO history you'd go to the same conclusion about what playerbase "matters" more and how they've been using their resources since.

I don't claim, I'm doing it right now as it's barely playable at times. What I'll do? I already was in a same exact situation and that was the time I and other players having issues just left until it was fixed next update, it's the same every single time they're breaking their game's code for some configurations of software/hardware.

What exact pve you're talking about? Endgame pve already in a hard decline for various reasons, performance being one of the last ones honestly. But still, we've been told numerous times that their target audience is a casual players knocking out quests and playing for a week or two new content comes out, those people don't care for game's issues and apparently loving the game's state being largely not affected by such issues. If they were largely affected the whole forum/twitter/whatever would be on fire as those are an absolute majority of players. So while most can play the new shiny other's surely not getting a year off to fix the game cause of that, that's not the company who's doing such things. Massive issues aren't there first time, won't be the last.

manukartofanu

colossalvoids wrote: »

What exact pve you're talking about? Endgame pve already in a hard decline for various reasons, performance being one of the last ones honestly. But still, we've been told numerous times that their target audience is a casual players knocking out quests and playing for a week or two new content comes out, those people don't care for game's issues and apparently loving the game's state being largely not affected by such issues. If they were largely affected the whole forum/twitter/whatever would be on fire as those are an absolute majority of players. So while most can play the new shiny other's surely not getting a year off to fix the game cause of that, that's not the company who's doing such things. Massive issues aren't there first time, won't be the last.

I'm talking about all PvE. Now you can be kicked out during any activity and even inactivity with "Unexpected error". Doing quests? Well, at some point you'll experience this.

The idea that temporary players, who play the game for 10-20 hours a year, would complain on all platforms is doubtful. They might experience crashes 5-10 times during that period, then just close the game and forget about it. People generally aren't inclined to look for places to complain, and we shouldn't overestimate the audience of ESO and its social networks. For the reaction you are suggesting to happen, ESO would need to have at least 3 million players.

By the way, just read the forums, there are a lot of complaints. And this is despite the fact that very few people want to visit the forums, most of them hang out on Discord.