Zbigb4life wrote: »lordrichter wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »At this point, it isn't so much a question of 'should', so much as a question of 'can they'. I dont think they can.
I think they could have more servers and one specifically for PVP. I think it'd make a massive difference especially on console, other games have a lot more servers than this and it should be the other way around. Its a broken product at the end of the day.
Separate servers (breaking up the megaservers) would probably not make any difference. It would probably make things worse.
And there I thought it couldn't get worse
They have multiple times. That's why they talk about stability improvements and work on ways to cut the load in PvP.Zbigb4life wrote: »lordrichter wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »At this point, it isn't so much a question of 'should', so much as a question of 'can they'. I dont think they can.
I think they could have more servers and one specifically for PVP. I think it'd make a massive difference especially on console, other games have a lot more servers than this and it should be the other way around. Its a broken product at the end of the day.
Separate servers (breaking up the megaservers) would probably not make any difference. It would probably make things worse.
And there I thought it couldn't get worse
They just need to address that its an issue at least, it would go a long way.
I didn't vote because I feel your poll is too limiting and directional. Your forcing people to choose one of two drastic choices. Why not have a choice to add new content, but also push server stability to the forefront as well?
It's not like they only have one dev, and they have to choose which direction they will go. They can move resources to multiple areas.
If you added a third option, to do both, I may vote. As it is this poll is forcibly misleading.
I'm sorry, but I made the poll based on what is urgent and history of ZOS patches. They keep adding new content, etc. Yet they are unable to solve issues in the game since it was launch, and more important the performance is just getting worse and worse.
So if they are unable to even improve the performance in past years, but at same time adding content means they should focus all their resources in fixing the damm game before adding more things.
Your call if you dont want to vote, but from experience they are incapable of doing both at same time. I doubt they can even fix the performance by now.
I know this is going to tick off a lot of people but I dont care. From my experience, most issues can be solved by spending real money for a real pc. Combined with spending real money for a real ISP, a lot of issues go bye bye.
Old machine... i5/ R7-200/ 16GB RAM/ 1TB HDD and ISP 50 Mbps
New Machine i7 7700k/ Twin GTX 1080s/32GB RAM/ 1TB SDD and 200Mbps
Those improvements gave me a marked improvement. Performance with the new machine on maxed graphics(mineus grass for being able to see nodes better) vs the old machine on a combination of medium and low is a huge difference. Not to say that there isnt any issues. Mostly due to the mods I use. But there is some problems with ESO. I cant assign it to the servers knowing how many program issue there have been. If some one had the server specifications, we might be able to see if the issue is the hardware but that'll probably never happen.
lordrichter wrote: »
actual image of people responsible for "DLC and decoration" improving the servers
i'm no fan of ZOS but if you think "improving the servers" is as simple as getting everybody in the office [since you seem to think that doing "DLC and decoration" directly substracts from server-improving time, it can only be assumed you think the people doing that should work on servers], i think you've got no clue at all what ZOS can in fact do server-wise
which is to direct funds there
which means they need to roll out more cash grabs to have more funds
i'm fine with the current servers
DieAlteHexe wrote: »lordrichter wrote: »
Hmmmm. I've a feeling some folk might have a few things to say about that.
Then a month later they'll make threads complaining about how the game is not visually pleasing because everything is so dull.Ydrisselle wrote: »actual image of people responsible for "DLC and decoration" improving the servers
i'm no fan of ZOS but if you think "improving the servers" is as simple as getting everybody in the office [since you seem to think that doing "DLC and decoration" directly substracts from server-improving time, it can only be assumed you think the people doing that should work on servers], i think you've got no clue at all what ZOS can in fact do server-wise
which is to direct funds there
which means they need to roll out more cash grabs to have more funds
i'm fine with the current servers
My impression is that they want to see the message "we fired the artists and hired network professionals" from ZOS...
Lol, look at the numbers, at still no comment from ZoS. Thats very telling.
Believe me,the server status is fine if u give up Cyrodiil
I know this is going to tick off a lot of people but I dont care. From my experience, most issues can be solved by spending real money for a real pc. Combined with spending real money for a real ISP, a lot of issues go bye bye.
Old machine... i5/ R7-200/ 16GB RAM/ 1TB HDD and ISP 50 Mbps
New Machine i7 7700k/ Twin GTX 1080s/32GB RAM/ 1TB SDD and 200Mbps
Those improvements gave me a marked improvement. Performance with the new machine on maxed graphics(mineus grass for being able to see nodes better) vs the old machine on a combination of medium and low is a huge difference.
True but again like i said if you go to the alliance capitol cities to duel you will get the same issue. so i guess either get people to duel in eastmarch or just pve.lordrichter wrote: »