Maintenance for the week of April 13:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 13
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 13
Still No Statement?
-
Sephyr✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭SpiderKnight wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
ZOS can just go "We recognize the current lag at hand and how since February it has been worse."
-> Instead we're forced a new Chapter down our throats.... Shoot, i'd pay $40 for 100% improved performance over another story chapter with lacking content.
This. Just some acknowledgement there's still a problem and is getting worse for some players.
They have recognized the issues! Is everyone going to keep ignoring the performance plan that is updated each month. what the funk is "we know" going to do for you?? 5 days, then if these performance fixes still do nothing, come back with your pitchforks...
AFAIK, they've yet to specifically address that the February 5th patch broke combat. Correct me if I'm wrong. Sure, they've acknowledged performance through monthly updates, which are scant at best, but we don't get any specifics that we're owed at this point.
Animation changes really hurt combat especially with animations getting stuck in lag.
And even with the limited public testing players? There seemed to be no change to fix it. I haven't been in Cyrodiil since 6.0.2, so that could've changed in the back end from between then to now--however I've been spamming X to Doubt since I started seeing no change.
Samesies, I use to live in Cyro, I don't anymore
I go in for high end rewards and maybe transmutation stone geodes from RotW now and just swap gear to try and find something fun to do. I was never good at PvP, but I loved necromancing around when Elsweyr hit. What's sad is that I'd take the performance from before Harrowstorm was released over this. Feels so bad, man.
2 -
Miswar✭✭✭✭✭The game runs worse and worse on PS4 patch after patch. This has continued even though "focusing on performance".
Meaning that even if they are getting something working according to their plan it still far off lets say how bad the game was year ago.
How they manage to keep this up would require serious explanation since according to them its focused on improving. While fact is that pvp and pve runs abysmal on PS4. The skills dont function, random loading screens, trials have non functional mechanics, cyrodiil is just joke etc etc.
How has the game gone this far downhill?
They aint commenting because they do not care about this. Milking the game and doing minimal stuff if even that.1 -
robertthebard✭✭✭✭✭robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »And I have a hard time resisting to take jabs here and there myself; but I wouldn't beat up our communication team. This sort of thing smells of a management decision to not dedicate resources toward it, or at least minimal; so they can push through the chapter for sales. I'd bet Gina and Jessica, as well as some of the devs; are just as frustrated as we are.
If that were the case, which it could be, you'd think they'd be more vocal on here. Obviously they can't voice that frustration, but they could engage the community WAY more and with more conciliatory tone. That's not happening. I don't know if their silence is management-driven as well, but it reflects really poorly on them and ZOS as a whole.
Maybe they are tired of the vocal minority screaming at the sky nonstop. Instead of bringing out your pitchforks, lawsuit threats and threatening to quit everytime you have a lag spike maybe the negative over the top complainers could try starting discussions I don't know in a more civil tone?
Very few of the 20 or 30 major complainers are going to quit most will be buying the next chapter it's all show and guess what they have all that information at their finger tips.
There's plenty of constructive threads they could engage on. They don't.
They can't. If they engage in one thread, and not another, there'll be another bonfire with loads of pitchforks about how they're "playing favorites" or something. It's like dismissing a plan to deal with the situation because it wasn't dealt with 5 minutes after someone encountered it, while complaining about no communication. They can't win, no matter what they do, so the actual smartest thing to do is in fact nothing, in so far as responding to threads on the forums/social media goes.
I get it. Realistically they can't comment on every thread or every complaint. But what they could do is comment on some, show some back forth with people on here, and give the impression they're actually engaged in the community. It's safe to assume what the Z actually means on threads and it's not that. Like someone else mentioned, some people take their angst way too far over this stuff. I think most reasonable people are just asking for an update, especially when we've been here thousands of hours and spent thousands of dollars.
No, they can't do that, because thread starters that don't get responded to by a dev will be screaming about how they're playing favorites, as I pointed out above, I think...
My bad, didn't address that point. That's a poor excuse though, sorry. I'm not buying it.
People will always complain. It's part of the line of work. Imagine if waitresses stopped serving because 1 in 10 customers were rude. I'd rather have some forum interactions and some semblance of community management than none at all because they're afraid of rude players. They can easily moderate those convos the moment people step out of line. It's not a justification for not having more community engagement.
It doesn't matter if you're buying or not, I'm not selling. I've seen it happen, and there's an example in this very thread of why it doesn't matter if there's communication or not, in the form of "I don't believe them". People will always complain, true enough, why add more fuel to the fire by responding to one thing, and leaving others out? You're not buying that people will complain about it, and then go on to state that people will always complain... I get that you want some personal attention, but pick a side of the fence and come down on it, riding the middle is going to lead to even more disappointment.1 -
Thoragaal✭✭✭✭✭robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.Edited by Thoragaal on May 23, 2020 9:58AMThe road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"I've always wanted to kick a duck up the arse" -Karl Pilkington, on the question what he'd do if it was the last day on earth.3 -
robertthebard✭✭✭✭✭robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.
Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?0 -
Czekoludek✭✭✭✭✭
✭robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.
Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?
I don't believe them was an answer for response prepared couple months before biggest issues started and not acknowledging it at all. Just we are working on performance, this is our plan. We are in 3/5 of this plan and performance is the worst since beta.
It isn't the example od proper communication. Imagine you asking your friend when he will help you with your project and he answers 'here is our plan for this project, check it there". And according to that plan he should already done most of his work and project should be nearly finished, when in reality it is one big poop, he waste part of your resources and basically makes things even worse.
Again, not an example of good communication.5 -
robertthebard✭✭✭✭✭Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.
Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?
I don't believe them was an answer for response prepared couple months before biggest issues started and not acknowledging it at all. Just we are working on performance, this is our plan. We are in 3/5 of this plan and performance is the worst since beta.
It isn't the example od proper communication. Imagine you asking your friend when he will help you with your project and he answers 'here is our plan for this project, check it there". And according to that plan he should already done most of his work and project should be nearly finished, when in reality it is one big poop, he waste part of your resources and basically makes things even worse.
Again, not an example of good communication.
So the age of the response makes a difference despite listing all the things that they have actually tried between then and now. Right.
Edit: I am laughing my ass off right now...I don't care. As for Anthem, it was their decision, and since they decided to work more on it, they should see new people up their sleeve, so that Swtor would not lose it either. There are NO excuses here. So funny all of you defend them bcs of Anthem.
Somehow after 4.0 we got 5.0 a year later. If it won't be 7.0 this year, it should be 100% next year, because it's 10 years anniversary and they themselves said they are preparing something special. In other words, this year there should be at least some major prologue for this 7.0 like Ziost or Ossus. For now, the game is dead bcs still nothing.
~ Tsukito, Alliance Commander
This from a poster on the swtor forums, insisting on more communication. This is the response when someone posted a quote with communication... Yeah, I'm not trying to hear "but if they communicated it would be better"...
SourceEdited by robertthebard on May 23, 2020 1:56PM0 -
Czekoludek✭✭✭✭✭
✭robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.
Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?
I don't believe them was an answer for response prepared couple months before biggest issues started and not acknowledging it at all. Just we are working on performance, this is our plan. We are in 3/5 of this plan and performance is the worst since beta.
It isn't the example od proper communication. Imagine you asking your friend when he will help you with your project and he answers 'here is our plan for this project, check it there". And according to that plan he should already done most of his work and project should be nearly finished, when in reality it is one big poop, he waste part of your resources and basically makes things even worse.
Again, not an example of good communication.
So the age of the response makes a difference despite listing all the things that they have actually tried between then and now. Right.
Edit: I am laughing my ass off right now...I don't care. As for Anthem, it was their decision, and since they decided to work more on it, they should see new people up their sleeve, so that Swtor would not lose it either. There are NO excuses here. So funny all of you defend them bcs of Anthem.
Somehow after 4.0 we got 5.0 a year later. If it won't be 7.0 this year, it should be 100% next year, because it's 10 years anniversary and they themselves said they are preparing something special. In other words, this year there should be at least some major prologue for this 7.0 like Ziost or Ossus. For now, the game is dead bcs still nothing.
~ Tsukito, Alliance Commander
This from a poster on the swtor forums, insisting on more communication. This is the response when someone posted a quote with communication... Yeah, I'm not trying to hear "but if they communicated it would be better"...
Source
No, age of response usually doesnt make a difference. But this plan was created before massive delay and lag appeared in PvE. So this response couldn't address the newest issues (like 7 of 10 trial instances are buggy as hell). Also I told you, they post a plan that is not working currently. In the light of even worse performance answering with plan that not only didn't work but since introduced, make things even worse is not a good way of communication.2 -
robertthebard✭✭✭✭✭Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.
Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?
I don't believe them was an answer for response prepared couple months before biggest issues started and not acknowledging it at all. Just we are working on performance, this is our plan. We are in 3/5 of this plan and performance is the worst since beta.
It isn't the example od proper communication. Imagine you asking your friend when he will help you with your project and he answers 'here is our plan for this project, check it there". And according to that plan he should already done most of his work and project should be nearly finished, when in reality it is one big poop, he waste part of your resources and basically makes things even worse.
Again, not an example of good communication.
So the age of the response makes a difference despite listing all the things that they have actually tried between then and now. Right.
Edit: I am laughing my ass off right now...I don't care. As for Anthem, it was their decision, and since they decided to work more on it, they should see new people up their sleeve, so that Swtor would not lose it either. There are NO excuses here. So funny all of you defend them bcs of Anthem.
Somehow after 4.0 we got 5.0 a year later. If it won't be 7.0 this year, it should be 100% next year, because it's 10 years anniversary and they themselves said they are preparing something special. In other words, this year there should be at least some major prologue for this 7.0 like Ziost or Ossus. For now, the game is dead bcs still nothing.
~ Tsukito, Alliance Commander
This from a poster on the swtor forums, insisting on more communication. This is the response when someone posted a quote with communication... Yeah, I'm not trying to hear "but if they communicated it would be better"...
Source
No, age of response usually doesnt make a difference. But this plan was created before massive delay and lag appeared in PvE. So this response couldn't address the newest issues (like 7 of 10 trial instances are buggy as hell). Also I told you, they post a plan that is not working currently. In the light of even worse performance answering with plan that not only didn't work but since introduced, make things even worse is not a good way of communication.
...and we know the plan is not working because they've been following it. So they haven't gotten to the end of it yet, how are the next phases going to work out? It seems you know, so do enlighten us? I mean, the next release isn't scheduled until the 26th, and it's the 23rd now. As to why it's not working, there's a rather comprehensive list of reasons in this very thread, ranging from a test environment that isn't robust enough for live, to the "over 9000" hardware configurations that are running the game every day.
As we can see, however, it wouldn't matter if they were communicating: "But it didn't work/made it worse"... What is it that you expect them to say beyond what they've already said about potential fixes? So "Well, that didn't work, maybe we'll get it next time"? Nothing they say will be well received, I've posted about it here, and from another game's forum. The best thing to do is hit that white board, and figure out the next steps, or to start working on what's already there for when this phase goes live. Taking time to post here won't accomplish anything but getting more dev hate on the forums.0 -
Czekoludek✭✭✭✭✭
✭robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.
Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?
I don't believe them was an answer for response prepared couple months before biggest issues started and not acknowledging it at all. Just we are working on performance, this is our plan. We are in 3/5 of this plan and performance is the worst since beta.
It isn't the example od proper communication. Imagine you asking your friend when he will help you with your project and he answers 'here is our plan for this project, check it there". And according to that plan he should already done most of his work and project should be nearly finished, when in reality it is one big poop, he waste part of your resources and basically makes things even worse.
Again, not an example of good communication.
So the age of the response makes a difference despite listing all the things that they have actually tried between then and now. Right.
Edit: I am laughing my ass off right now...I don't care. As for Anthem, it was their decision, and since they decided to work more on it, they should see new people up their sleeve, so that Swtor would not lose it either. There are NO excuses here. So funny all of you defend them bcs of Anthem.
Somehow after 4.0 we got 5.0 a year later. If it won't be 7.0 this year, it should be 100% next year, because it's 10 years anniversary and they themselves said they are preparing something special. In other words, this year there should be at least some major prologue for this 7.0 like Ziost or Ossus. For now, the game is dead bcs still nothing.
~ Tsukito, Alliance Commander
This from a poster on the swtor forums, insisting on more communication. This is the response when someone posted a quote with communication... Yeah, I'm not trying to hear "but if they communicated it would be better"...
Source
No, age of response usually doesnt make a difference. But this plan was created before massive delay and lag appeared in PvE. So this response couldn't address the newest issues (like 7 of 10 trial instances are buggy as hell). Also I told you, they post a plan that is not working currently. In the light of even worse performance answering with plan that not only didn't work but since introduced, make things even worse is not a good way of communication.
...and we know the plan is not working because they've been following it. So they haven't gotten to the end of it yet, how are the next phases going to work out? It seems you know, so do enlighten us? I mean, the next release isn't scheduled until the 26th, and it's the 23rd now. As to why it's not working, there's a rather comprehensive list of reasons in this very thread, ranging from a test environment that isn't robust enough for live, to the "over 9000" hardware configurations that are running the game every day.
As we can see, however, it wouldn't matter if they were communicating: "But it didn't work/made it worse"... What is it that you expect them to say beyond what they've already said about potential fixes? So "Well, that didn't work, maybe we'll get it next time"? Nothing they say will be well received, I've posted about it here, and from another game's forum. The best thing to do is hit that white board, and figure out the next steps, or to start working on what's already there for when this phase goes live. Taking time to post here won't accomplish anything but getting more dev hate on the forums.
When you develop changes in code that should fix performance you can see improvements, smaller or bigger. Text "it needs to be worse before it gets better" can be used when you clean up your wardrobe, not in game dev. If changes makes performance worse, the same changes won't magicaly increase performance of your game later. I don't know if you try the PTS but whatever they did there to help, it didn't work. With lower population on PTS server lags and delays still exist in almost the same frequency as on live.
I expect for them to behave like professionals and revert changes that didn't work till they make them work. For example they introduce changes to block that shouldn't change how mechanic works for players (they said that). This change made block less reaponsive, more buggy and introduce delay to it. They hot the feedback that block changes were bad and should be reverted (many different posts and tickets) but they decided that it will stay.
They stay silent about that as it is their standard behavior. If they want to be stubborn and say 'this change will stay", why they are so afraid to talk about it with players? Healthy dialogue, we gave them reasons why changes were bad, they should:
a) take feedback into consideration and change something
b) show us why this decision is better from their point of view
This is what good communication means.
Zos staying silent and forcing changes that aren't working only makes players more hostile against the dev team. It is completely natural reaction, you can see it everywhere. If boss is not communicating properly with his/her team, it will be a source of problems in team. If goverment is not communicating with ppl, it will lose their support.
I don't know what is so hard to understand in that. Effects of good and bad communication is a pretty simple concept.7 -
robertthebard✭✭✭✭✭Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.
Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?
I don't believe them was an answer for response prepared couple months before biggest issues started and not acknowledging it at all. Just we are working on performance, this is our plan. We are in 3/5 of this plan and performance is the worst since beta.
It isn't the example od proper communication. Imagine you asking your friend when he will help you with your project and he answers 'here is our plan for this project, check it there". And according to that plan he should already done most of his work and project should be nearly finished, when in reality it is one big poop, he waste part of your resources and basically makes things even worse.
Again, not an example of good communication.
So the age of the response makes a difference despite listing all the things that they have actually tried between then and now. Right.
Edit: I am laughing my ass off right now...I don't care. As for Anthem, it was their decision, and since they decided to work more on it, they should see new people up their sleeve, so that Swtor would not lose it either. There are NO excuses here. So funny all of you defend them bcs of Anthem.
Somehow after 4.0 we got 5.0 a year later. If it won't be 7.0 this year, it should be 100% next year, because it's 10 years anniversary and they themselves said they are preparing something special. In other words, this year there should be at least some major prologue for this 7.0 like Ziost or Ossus. For now, the game is dead bcs still nothing.
~ Tsukito, Alliance Commander
This from a poster on the swtor forums, insisting on more communication. This is the response when someone posted a quote with communication... Yeah, I'm not trying to hear "but if they communicated it would be better"...
Source
No, age of response usually doesnt make a difference. But this plan was created before massive delay and lag appeared in PvE. So this response couldn't address the newest issues (like 7 of 10 trial instances are buggy as hell). Also I told you, they post a plan that is not working currently. In the light of even worse performance answering with plan that not only didn't work but since introduced, make things even worse is not a good way of communication.
...and we know the plan is not working because they've been following it. So they haven't gotten to the end of it yet, how are the next phases going to work out? It seems you know, so do enlighten us? I mean, the next release isn't scheduled until the 26th, and it's the 23rd now. As to why it's not working, there's a rather comprehensive list of reasons in this very thread, ranging from a test environment that isn't robust enough for live, to the "over 9000" hardware configurations that are running the game every day.
As we can see, however, it wouldn't matter if they were communicating: "But it didn't work/made it worse"... What is it that you expect them to say beyond what they've already said about potential fixes? So "Well, that didn't work, maybe we'll get it next time"? Nothing they say will be well received, I've posted about it here, and from another game's forum. The best thing to do is hit that white board, and figure out the next steps, or to start working on what's already there for when this phase goes live. Taking time to post here won't accomplish anything but getting more dev hate on the forums.
When you develop changes in code that should fix performance you can see improvements, smaller or bigger. Text "it needs to be worse before it gets better" can be used when you clean up your wardrobe, not in game dev. If changes makes performance worse, the same changes won't magicaly increase performance of your game later. I don't know if you try the PTS but whatever they did there to help, it didn't work. With lower population on PTS server lags and delays still exist in almost the same frequency as on live.
I expect for them to behave like professionals and revert changes that didn't work till they make them work. For example they introduce changes to block that shouldn't change how mechanic works for players (they said that). This change made block less reaponsive, more buggy and introduce delay to it. They hot the feedback that block changes were bad and should be reverted (many different posts and tickets) but they decided that it will stay.
They stay silent about that as it is their standard behavior. If they want to be stubborn and say 'this change will stay", why they are so afraid to talk about it with players? Healthy dialogue, we gave them reasons why changes were bad, they should:
a) take feedback into consideration and change something
b) show us why this decision is better from their point of view
This is what good communication means.
Zos staying silent and forcing changes that aren't working only makes players more hostile against the dev team. It is completely natural reaction, you can see it everywhere. If boss is not communicating properly with his/her team, it will be a source of problems in team. If goverment is not communicating with ppl, it will lose their support.
I don't know what is so hard to understand in that. Effects of good and bad communication is a pretty simple concept.
So I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never worked with game code before? I have, although not to this extent. A patch to address some VFX issues, that's Visual Effects, broke all my door scripts in NWN. The effect that was fixed wasn't attached to anything in my module. For me, that meant about 6 scripts to recompile on around 2000 doors, for other creators the impact was much greater, and took longer to fix. If I hadn't read about it happening on their forums, however, I may still be trying to figure it out, and that was about a decade ago, and some change.
How much is your government telling you about what they're doing? Are they sending you an email every day? Do they update you every time they do something different from what they told you the day before? Does your boss tell you when they're fixing to fire an employee in another division? Does your job even have divisions? Do you even have a job?
My government doesn't share a lot of anything that they're doing, and I'm willing to bet that it's the same everywhere. There's a lot of stuff going on "behind the scenes" that Joe Civilian shouldn't know about, such as what the Military is up to, or who's being investigated on the Federal level. My local government isn't contacting me every time they make decisions either. Starting to see the problem here? I get it, "but they're ignoring me". That's the way the world works, get used to it. You're not going to get everything you want, and even when you do get the things you want, it may not be on your schedule.0 -
Czekoludek✭✭✭✭✭
✭robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.
Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?
I don't believe them was an answer for response prepared couple months before biggest issues started and not acknowledging it at all. Just we are working on performance, this is our plan. We are in 3/5 of this plan and performance is the worst since beta.
It isn't the example od proper communication. Imagine you asking your friend when he will help you with your project and he answers 'here is our plan for this project, check it there". And according to that plan he should already done most of his work and project should be nearly finished, when in reality it is one big poop, he waste part of your resources and basically makes things even worse.
Again, not an example of good communication.
So the age of the response makes a difference despite listing all the things that they have actually tried between then and now. Right.
Edit: I am laughing my ass off right now...I don't care. As for Anthem, it was their decision, and since they decided to work more on it, they should see new people up their sleeve, so that Swtor would not lose it either. There are NO excuses here. So funny all of you defend them bcs of Anthem.
Somehow after 4.0 we got 5.0 a year later. If it won't be 7.0 this year, it should be 100% next year, because it's 10 years anniversary and they themselves said they are preparing something special. In other words, this year there should be at least some major prologue for this 7.0 like Ziost or Ossus. For now, the game is dead bcs still nothing.
~ Tsukito, Alliance Commander
This from a poster on the swtor forums, insisting on more communication. This is the response when someone posted a quote with communication... Yeah, I'm not trying to hear "but if they communicated it would be better"...
Source
No, age of response usually doesnt make a difference. But this plan was created before massive delay and lag appeared in PvE. So this response couldn't address the newest issues (like 7 of 10 trial instances are buggy as hell). Also I told you, they post a plan that is not working currently. In the light of even worse performance answering with plan that not only didn't work but since introduced, make things even worse is not a good way of communication.
...and we know the plan is not working because they've been following it. So they haven't gotten to the end of it yet, how are the next phases going to work out? It seems you know, so do enlighten us? I mean, the next release isn't scheduled until the 26th, and it's the 23rd now. As to why it's not working, there's a rather comprehensive list of reasons in this very thread, ranging from a test environment that isn't robust enough for live, to the "over 9000" hardware configurations that are running the game every day.
As we can see, however, it wouldn't matter if they were communicating: "But it didn't work/made it worse"... What is it that you expect them to say beyond what they've already said about potential fixes? So "Well, that didn't work, maybe we'll get it next time"? Nothing they say will be well received, I've posted about it here, and from another game's forum. The best thing to do is hit that white board, and figure out the next steps, or to start working on what's already there for when this phase goes live. Taking time to post here won't accomplish anything but getting more dev hate on the forums.
When you develop changes in code that should fix performance you can see improvements, smaller or bigger. Text "it needs to be worse before it gets better" can be used when you clean up your wardrobe, not in game dev. If changes makes performance worse, the same changes won't magicaly increase performance of your game later. I don't know if you try the PTS but whatever they did there to help, it didn't work. With lower population on PTS server lags and delays still exist in almost the same frequency as on live.
I expect for them to behave like professionals and revert changes that didn't work till they make them work. For example they introduce changes to block that shouldn't change how mechanic works for players (they said that). This change made block less reaponsive, more buggy and introduce delay to it. They hot the feedback that block changes were bad and should be reverted (many different posts and tickets) but they decided that it will stay.
They stay silent about that as it is their standard behavior. If they want to be stubborn and say 'this change will stay", why they are so afraid to talk about it with players? Healthy dialogue, we gave them reasons why changes were bad, they should:
a) take feedback into consideration and change something
b) show us why this decision is better from their point of view
This is what good communication means.
Zos staying silent and forcing changes that aren't working only makes players more hostile against the dev team. It is completely natural reaction, you can see it everywhere. If boss is not communicating properly with his/her team, it will be a source of problems in team. If goverment is not communicating with ppl, it will lose their support.
I don't know what is so hard to understand in that. Effects of good and bad communication is a pretty simple concept.
So I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never worked with game code before? I have, although not to this extent. A patch to address some VFX issues, that's Visual Effects, broke all my door scripts in NWN. The effect that was fixed wasn't attached to anything in my module. For me, that meant about 6 scripts to recompile on around 2000 doors, for other creators the impact was much greater, and took longer to fix. If I hadn't read about it happening on their forums, however, I may still be trying to figure it out, and that was about a decade ago, and some change.
How much is your government telling you about what they're doing? Are they sending you an email every day? Do they update you every time they do something different from what they told you the day before? Does your boss tell you when they're fixing to fire an employee in another division? Does your job even have divisions? Do you even have a job?
My government doesn't share a lot of anything that they're doing, and I'm willing to bet that it's the same everywhere. There's a lot of stuff going on "behind the scenes" that Joe Civilian shouldn't know about, such as what the Military is up to, or who's being investigated on the Federal level. My local government isn't contacting me every time they make decisions either. Starting to see the problem here? I get it, "but they're ignoring me". That's the way the world works, get used to it. You're not going to get everything you want, and even when you do get the things you want, it may not be on your schedule.
I'm not asking ZOS for their financial reports as i don't ask my goverment about secret militarny stuff. I'm not asking my boss about problems in different division as I don't ask ZOS about their problems with developing the second title. If I have a company, I can expected to have access to actualy proceed new laws. Today almost every goverment give on their sites access to currently proceed changes in law. If you are interested in any particular ław that might be introduced, visit their sites and download the document. Choosing stupid examples makes you looking like an idiot, not me.
And for changes in code that break stuff, that's why companies have QA. If your changes were proceed without testing, it is your and your company faults for fuckups like that. And changes like that should be revert from environment that user have access to till problems will be fixed. I work as dev, I know the reality. If your changes creates issues like that, you don't deploy it to main branch. You work on fixes do customer can get product that was better then before. If you deploy code without qa test, don't expect this mess to be working as it shouldEdited by Czekoludek on May 23, 2020 7:58PM2 -
Moose_Scout✭✭✭The Devs have been just silly quiet this whole PTS cycle.
"What a Grand and Intoxicating Innocence"3 -
Orchish✭✭✭✭✭
✭Performance in Cyrodiil is absolutely ***! It is beyond a joke now. How on earth has it gotten worse over the years and not better? Utterly unplayable at prime time and even when Grey Host is not full the lag is still there. Ability delay is the worst it has been since release and the so called performance improvements have done nothing to fix this issue.2 -
Casterial✭✭✭✭✭
✭Moose_Scout wrote: »The Devs have been just silly quiet this whole PTS cycle.
They usually are the entire PTS cycle despite feedback, they usually push it anyways. However, they did listen about the LA/HA Change.Daggerfall Covenant:Casterial Stamplar || Casterial DK || Availed NB || Castyrial Sorc || Spooky Casterial Necro
Member since: August 2013
Kill Counter Developer
For the Daggerfall Covenant
The Last Chillrend Empress
Animation Cancelling0 -
Casterial✭✭✭✭✭
✭Performance in Cyrodiil is absolutely ***! It is beyond a joke now. How on earth has it gotten worse over the years and not better? Utterly unplayable at prime time and even when Grey Host is not full the lag is still there. Ability delay is the worst it has been since release and the so called performance improvements have done nothing to fix this issue.
I have videos from 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019 and it's funny how it goes
Fps issues, Fps issues, skill delay, major lag, unplayableDaggerfall Covenant:Casterial Stamplar || Casterial DK || Availed NB || Castyrial Sorc || Spooky Casterial Necro
Member since: August 2013
Kill Counter Developer
For the Daggerfall Covenant
The Last Chillrend Empress
Animation Cancelling0 -
Ahtu✭✭✭✭WHAT THE *** ZOS your game now lags during the day too get your heads out of your asses and revert the block changes! Performance improvements my ass each patch you manage to *** things up worse how is that possible? No *** given while your players are suffering?
You can ban me for all I care I've had enough of your *** fix your god damn game jesus christ wake the *** up and do SOMETHING!!! This is the worst performing game I've ever seen how the *** did they let it get this bad? I hope another game comes out so everyone quits this one this is UNACCEPTABLE.Edited by Ahtu on May 23, 2020 9:11PM7 -
eovogtb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭They say the servers are performing fine and a testament to their hard work. For the next Livestream can you guys please stream cyrodiil and then after doing that for 45 mins go swap and do an instance of vss or vCR please. Do it to show off how perfect the servers are working please.8
-
technohic✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭They said that the below and as with their attempted fixes 1-3 weeks into update 25 being indicative of how communication would stop until it has passed and they had something else lined up; I wouldn't expect to hear anything until after this failing. Not sure what good the uproar just this last week will do.We have made several fixes for the input lag issue that appears to address the problem on our internal development environments. However, it is impossible for us to simulate “real” server load internally, so we are going to include these fixes in Update 26 (they are not yet on the PTS but will be soon). Note that until we move these fixes live, we can’t 100% be sure that this resolves the problem. Additional work may be required.0 -
SweepsAllClowns✭✭✭✭I just went to Gray Host campaign on Xbox NA (main account Xbox EU completely stuck since Wrathstone and not fixed, only over 14 months so far) and checked Roebeck out while it was flagged, the lag was so disgusting that I'm starting to enjoy just seeing the evolution of this zenilag and how it evolves from this. It's year 2020 so I can't really say I was too surprised about this lagtastic experience, it's also kind of my own fault when I go search the premium lag on these times on NA server, I guess I got what I ordered (nonconstructive sarcasm). The servers are holding up well or how was it again...3
-
TineaCruris✭✭✭✭✭The reason the problems are so much more severe in populated zones is almost certainly due to server load. A few people running around in overland PvE doesn't cause any load. Once 12 people are in a trial on a boss or, heaven forbid, 100 people in a keep fighting, the servers essentially crash under the load. This is generally the result of the hardware not being sufficient to support the software. (software runs fine when it's just one guy alone in a zone)
So it looks a lot more like Zenimax is simply not providing the server support this game requires to run properly. There is nothing the devs can do if the accounting department is making them work with a TRS-80 for a server.3 -
robertthebard✭✭✭✭✭Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »Czekoludek wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.
Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?
I don't believe them was an answer for response prepared couple months before biggest issues started and not acknowledging it at all. Just we are working on performance, this is our plan. We are in 3/5 of this plan and performance is the worst since beta.
It isn't the example od proper communication. Imagine you asking your friend when he will help you with your project and he answers 'here is our plan for this project, check it there". And according to that plan he should already done most of his work and project should be nearly finished, when in reality it is one big poop, he waste part of your resources and basically makes things even worse.
Again, not an example of good communication.
So the age of the response makes a difference despite listing all the things that they have actually tried between then and now. Right.
Edit: I am laughing my ass off right now...I don't care. As for Anthem, it was their decision, and since they decided to work more on it, they should see new people up their sleeve, so that Swtor would not lose it either. There are NO excuses here. So funny all of you defend them bcs of Anthem.
Somehow after 4.0 we got 5.0 a year later. If it won't be 7.0 this year, it should be 100% next year, because it's 10 years anniversary and they themselves said they are preparing something special. In other words, this year there should be at least some major prologue for this 7.0 like Ziost or Ossus. For now, the game is dead bcs still nothing.
~ Tsukito, Alliance Commander
This from a poster on the swtor forums, insisting on more communication. This is the response when someone posted a quote with communication... Yeah, I'm not trying to hear "but if they communicated it would be better"...
Source
No, age of response usually doesnt make a difference. But this plan was created before massive delay and lag appeared in PvE. So this response couldn't address the newest issues (like 7 of 10 trial instances are buggy as hell). Also I told you, they post a plan that is not working currently. In the light of even worse performance answering with plan that not only didn't work but since introduced, make things even worse is not a good way of communication.
...and we know the plan is not working because they've been following it. So they haven't gotten to the end of it yet, how are the next phases going to work out? It seems you know, so do enlighten us? I mean, the next release isn't scheduled until the 26th, and it's the 23rd now. As to why it's not working, there's a rather comprehensive list of reasons in this very thread, ranging from a test environment that isn't robust enough for live, to the "over 9000" hardware configurations that are running the game every day.
As we can see, however, it wouldn't matter if they were communicating: "But it didn't work/made it worse"... What is it that you expect them to say beyond what they've already said about potential fixes? So "Well, that didn't work, maybe we'll get it next time"? Nothing they say will be well received, I've posted about it here, and from another game's forum. The best thing to do is hit that white board, and figure out the next steps, or to start working on what's already there for when this phase goes live. Taking time to post here won't accomplish anything but getting more dev hate on the forums.
When you develop changes in code that should fix performance you can see improvements, smaller or bigger. Text "it needs to be worse before it gets better" can be used when you clean up your wardrobe, not in game dev. If changes makes performance worse, the same changes won't magicaly increase performance of your game later. I don't know if you try the PTS but whatever they did there to help, it didn't work. With lower population on PTS server lags and delays still exist in almost the same frequency as on live.
I expect for them to behave like professionals and revert changes that didn't work till they make them work. For example they introduce changes to block that shouldn't change how mechanic works for players (they said that). This change made block less reaponsive, more buggy and introduce delay to it. They hot the feedback that block changes were bad and should be reverted (many different posts and tickets) but they decided that it will stay.
They stay silent about that as it is their standard behavior. If they want to be stubborn and say 'this change will stay", why they are so afraid to talk about it with players? Healthy dialogue, we gave them reasons why changes were bad, they should:
a) take feedback into consideration and change something
b) show us why this decision is better from their point of view
This is what good communication means.
Zos staying silent and forcing changes that aren't working only makes players more hostile against the dev team. It is completely natural reaction, you can see it everywhere. If boss is not communicating properly with his/her team, it will be a source of problems in team. If goverment is not communicating with ppl, it will lose their support.
I don't know what is so hard to understand in that. Effects of good and bad communication is a pretty simple concept.
So I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never worked with game code before? I have, although not to this extent. A patch to address some VFX issues, that's Visual Effects, broke all my door scripts in NWN. The effect that was fixed wasn't attached to anything in my module. For me, that meant about 6 scripts to recompile on around 2000 doors, for other creators the impact was much greater, and took longer to fix. If I hadn't read about it happening on their forums, however, I may still be trying to figure it out, and that was about a decade ago, and some change.
How much is your government telling you about what they're doing? Are they sending you an email every day? Do they update you every time they do something different from what they told you the day before? Does your boss tell you when they're fixing to fire an employee in another division? Does your job even have divisions? Do you even have a job?
My government doesn't share a lot of anything that they're doing, and I'm willing to bet that it's the same everywhere. There's a lot of stuff going on "behind the scenes" that Joe Civilian shouldn't know about, such as what the Military is up to, or who's being investigated on the Federal level. My local government isn't contacting me every time they make decisions either. Starting to see the problem here? I get it, "but they're ignoring me". That's the way the world works, get used to it. You're not going to get everything you want, and even when you do get the things you want, it may not be on your schedule.
I'm not asking ZOS for their financial reports as i don't ask my goverment about secret militarny stuff. I'm not asking my boss about problems in different division as I don't ask ZOS about their problems with developing the second title. If I have a company, I can expected to have access to actualy proceed new laws. Today almost every goverment give on their sites access to currently proceed changes in law. If you are interested in any particular ław that might be introduced, visit their sites and download the document. Choosing stupid examples makes you looking like an idiot, not me.
And for changes in code that break stuff, that's why companies have QA. If your changes were proceed without testing, it is your and your company faults for fuckups like that. And changes like that should be revert from environment that user have access to till problems will be fixed. I work as dev, I know the reality. If your changes creates issues like that, you don't deploy it to main branch. You work on fixes do customer can get product that was better then before. If you deploy code without qa test, don't expect this mess to be working as it should
Citing a lack of communication from a government making people lose trust was my quote? Wait, no, it wasn't. Responding with a list of things the government does on a day to day basis was done precisely to indicate how far out in left field your example was, and still is. Now it's "putting stuff out w/out QA"? I get it, someone's stepping on your "but I'm special". But hey, at least you know, from my previous post, that you're not alone. Out there in the vast reaches of cyberspace, there's another special person that ignores communication, and ignores things being done from the communication. Feel free to not believe them, also feel free to come up with utterly ridiculous claims, such as "no QA", or "people won't trust the government if they're not telling them what they're doing"...0 -
Kadoin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I blame the vMA weapon decision. You'd be surprised at how many people are cheesed off.
That, and nerfing non-meta sets to "balance" the game gives the message that no set or build is safe from the never-ending nerfs.
That means you can't be content with anything in the game, because it can change at any moment for whatever reason, with little to no logical explanation.
My brother and I both joke that when Hundings/Julianos gets nerfed, that's the final straw.
EDIT: meant this in response to the post about low twitch views and apparent loss of playersEdited by Kadoin on May 24, 2020 12:44AM4 -
Thoragaal✭✭✭✭✭robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.
Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?
The link provided was about their performance improvement plan. Something they've been working on for years and started releasing last year. It has nothing to do with the current desync/lag/delay that became prominent just a few months ago.
And I don't believe the entire community think ZOS enjoys the rage. Communication isn't fail safe, there will always be a percentage of a population that misconstrue what's being said. But the goal with communication is to lessen that group's influence. Being silent on the current performance issues does the exact opposite.
1) There's no need for hyperbolic examples. People that think ZOS is straight out lying is a tiny minority. Which is why the majority of posts in this thread, and other threads, don't claim to believe that being the case. However, I think most people saying "I don't believe them" many times simply mean that they don't believe the "fix" will make things good again. Maybe slightly better, but not to the state the game was in previously.
2) I don't believe that "communicating these regularly would change that", because it's not a binary thing. But the desync/lag/delay that was introduced in update 25 was and still is a major issue for the fundamentals of gameplay. When anything major like this happens, that straight out prevents big parts of a community from acting in accordance with the goals of said community, then there needs to be and official statement adressing the issues. This isn't some minor thing. This is preventing large groups of people from actually playing the game (dungeons/trials/cyrodiil/BGs). And ZOS has said nothing on the issues other than "we're aware of it and we're working on it".
Like I said before "Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone", it creates distrust because there's no evidence for it, because in practicality nothing's changed from the PoV of the player. It's the same generic response we see to the tiniest of issues like (for example) "This set doesn't have a proc chance of 30%, it's more like 20%" and it makes it seem like the issues are on par with eachother. When they're not.
An official reply shouldn't be needed in such a thread, but if a dev replied to one of those threads I would expect an explanation on the mindset and reasoning behind why it's so easy and not simply "that is working as intended".
However this isn't a case of "working as intended" and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I'm quoting myself "What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync)."
So far ZOS hasn't done that. The link provided is for a plan created way before the current issues even started.
If the part "*New* Animation Set Caching" is added to somehow fix the desync/delay since Update 25, then I at least need an explanation for how it's related with the current influx of said issues.
I'm not particularly well traveled in this type of language and I have no idea if what I'm experiencing is even being adressed. So to me, a gamer for 30 years and an online gamer for 25, this isn't a relatable response.The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"I've always wanted to kick a duck up the arse" -Karl Pilkington, on the question what he'd do if it was the last day on earth.3 -
Dark_Lord_Kuro✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Well there is performance improuvement schedued with greymoor but their effeciency remain to be seen
Also the performance upgrade seem to vary from a player to another like for me the change that came with harrowstorm were awesome for me (ps4NA) and did reduce crashes from 3-5 a day to 1-2 a week
But for some it seem to only get worse
0 -
robertthebard✭✭✭✭✭robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
That's hilarious.
"They need to communicate with us".
Gets link to communication.
"I don't believe anything they say"...
Gee, I wonder why they're not hitting every thread with responses, eh?
What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync).
Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone.
It's like the story with the girl who cries wolf; eventually people stop believing it.
Having an unscripted video response, maybe over Twitch along with questions from chat, has a lower risk of being misinterpreted, and if there are any questions or misinterpretations those can be sorted out immediately.
I actually see this the same way, only I don't think you're going to like it. You see, I've seen what happens when a developer replies to something in a thread with something along the lines of "that's a good idea". This is what then happens:
1. "Confirmed: x that dev replied to".
2. When it doesn't happen, we're in a thread complaining that they made false promises, when no promise was ever made, but it got an official response.
I've also seen the aftermath, where a dev working for BioWare was forced off of Social Media due to death threats because poster's didn't like what she had to say. It had something to do with a pure Story Mode, with no combat, that she'd like as an option to play. Note that there was no indication that this was going to be a thing, but see above. So no, they can't reply to this, but not that, and there's no way they can reply to everything. If they say something on a stream, and for whatever reason, it's not implemented, or not happening fast enough, then see 2.
Then there's the outright dismissal of "I don't believe them" when they try to provide something. I snipped out an entire list of things in the other post in this quote chain. The primary thing I take away from that list, despite it being the poster's apparent intent to justify "I don't believe them" is that they are indeed trying things, but those things aren't working, or worse, making them worse.
Yes, I think we all know there is a risk of people misinterpreting things and people pulling things out of proportion.
That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
If we had official responses adressing said issues then the player base would also help out other players by directing them towards the official statements.
I've been playing online since 1995 and I've never seen a community this fragmented on simple information regarding the fundamentals of gameplay. In other games people help eachother out by pointing out if players are wrong and they are able to do so by backing it up with official statements.
I understand if people see a risk in making official statements, and they should, because it is a risk. But it's still the right thing to do. Which is why you see official statements being made in literally any other field of society.
It's by withholding information that they create a ground for conspiracy theories and disbelief. It's not healthy for the longevity of any community, because it fragments the community even further.
Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?
The link provided was about their performance improvement plan. Something they've been working on for years and started releasing last year. It has nothing to do with the current desync/lag/delay that became prominent just a few months ago.
And I don't believe the entire community think ZOS enjoys the rage. Communication isn't fail safe, there will always be a percentage of a population that misconstrue what's being said. But the goal with communication is to lessen that group's influence. Being silent on the current performance issues does the exact opposite.
1) There's no need for hyperbolic examples. People that think ZOS is straight out lying is a tiny minority. Which is why the majority of posts in this thread, and other threads, don't claim to believe that being the case. However, I think most people saying "I don't believe them" many times simply mean that they don't believe the "fix" will make things good again. Maybe slightly better, but not to the state the game was in previously.
2) I don't believe that "communicating these regularly would change that", because it's not a binary thing. But the desync/lag/delay that was introduced in update 25 was and still is a major issue for the fundamentals of gameplay. When anything major like this happens, that straight out prevents big parts of a community from acting in accordance with the goals of said community, then there needs to be and official statement adressing the issues. This isn't some minor thing. This is preventing large groups of people from actually playing the game (dungeons/trials/cyrodiil/BGs). And ZOS has said nothing on the issues other than "we're aware of it and we're working on it".
Like I said before "Only saying things like "we're working on it", when the playerbase doesn't experience it themselves, isn't a useful reponse to anyone", it creates distrust because there's no evidence for it, because in practicality nothing's changed from the PoV of the player. It's the same generic response we see to the tiniest of issues like (for example) "This set doesn't have a proc chance of 30%, it's more like 20%" and it makes it seem like the issues are on par with eachother. When they're not.
An official reply shouldn't be needed in such a thread, but if a dev replied to one of those threads I would expect an explanation on the mindset and reasoning behind why it's so easy and not simply "that is working as intended".
However this isn't a case of "working as intended" and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I'm quoting myself "What people wanna see is a relatable response.
Something that acknowledge the issues and something that ensures them they are working to solve said issues.
The respone needs to be in relation to why we have DLCs/Crown Store items, and client side performance improvements, seemingly taking priority over server side related issues (lag/desync)."
So far ZOS hasn't done that. The link provided is for a plan created way before the current issues even started.
If the part "*New* Animation Set Caching" is added to somehow fix the desync/delay since Update 25, then I at least need an explanation for how it's related with the current influx of said issues.
I'm not particularly well traveled in this type of language and I have no idea if what I'm experiencing is even being adressed. So to me, a gamer for 30 years and an online gamer for 25, this isn't a relatable response.
You lost me at "hyperbolic" and "small percentage". Hypothetical, and hyperbolic are not the same thing. Perhaps it's easier to argue against "hyperbolic"? I wonder, as well, how many "they're not doing anything to fix it" posts, or threads, we can find? There's at least one "do they even realize there's a problem" thread per week, so far. I'm getting more of a "They're not telling me what I want to hear" vibe.
In regard to the italicized part: It has everything to do with the "topic at hand". The topic at hand is communication. Attempting to limit the scope because you don't like the hypothetical posed by "working as intended" doesn't do a lot for your case. "They should respond to things I want to read about, but only those things need official responses" is exactly what that paragraph says to me, along with "then they have to go to ridiculous lengths to justify it"?
Even the "well, that's an old post" implies that they don't know what's going on in the game, right? "But they didn't drop everything they're doing to communicate that they know what's going on" falls way flat, especially when paired with "I don't believe them" or, even more hilarious, the "I don't care" post I found over on swtor while reading over there. How many "they don't play" or "they don't listen" posts does it take to break free from "a small minority think they're lying"? It's more accurate to say that a vast majority of posters have no idea how complex trying to sort this kind of stuff is, but they do believe there's some kind of switch that can be flipped that will cure all their ails.0 -
Grandma✭✭✭✭✭I like that the end game community has to literally farm good instances out of raids- because otherwise they lag and desycn to hell and it's impossible to get trinity achievements- to the point where people are spending more time farming good instances than actually progging the content. it's an abomination. This, along with having to break my X key pressing it an average of 10 times per synergy activation, is why i'm taking a break from the game. Hopefully it'll be fixed by fall, but I have little confidence in their abilities given how they pat themselves on the back for making lag worse lately. maybe i'm biased.GH / 3/04/2021 / Elemental Catalyst Necromancer3 -
Celephantsylvius_Bornasfinmo✭✭✭✭✭
✭Only statement I ever heard was 'no comment'.
PVP is in a shocking state...everyday it seems worse...crashing, timeouts, desynchs and horrible horrible unplayable lag.
It truly has become turn by turn combat.2 -
robpr✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yup, PvE is not any better. It's vid from a month ago, but its like that every week we try to do anything. Only exception seem to be vMoL, it's instance gets worse far later in the fight than CR and SS does.
0:00 - 7:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=660W2osNmDE
1 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭robertthebard wrote: »Earlier in this very thread, someone provided a link to official statements regarding the lag. The response was "I don't believe them". This is an example of what happens. It's not "what might happen", or "what could happen". The community is absolutely convinced that this is unique to here. They are convinced that ZoS enjoys all the rage that gets posted here, and in other places, and you can bet they're aware of it in those places too. If that's pointed out it's "but they didn't reply to (insert issue here)".
So, hypothetical: A dev comments on the issues with the lag, citing the steps they have been taking, and what they are planning to do and what's on the "white board". What do you suppose will happen? I actually opened up this response with what will happen: "I don't believe them". How do I know? Because it's already happened, right here in this thread. Despite the "but they're not doing anything to fix it" claims on the forums, the same poster then posted a list of things that they have tried, that simply didn't work, or made it worse. Yet, you believe that communicating these regularly would change that? I submit that it would have the opposite effect. Not only would it make things worse for them, there would be players finding themselves on vacation for raging about how incompetent the devs are.
Worse, what happens when something that players are complaining about is working as intended ? So a dev pops in and states "that is working as intended", and BOOM, the forums will explode. I've seen that happen too. Take a scan through some of the "the game's too easy" threads, and check out how many posts were edited by moderators with no official responses. Since the game is working as intended, what do you suppose it would look like with a dev response indicating that?
I am not convinced that communication decisions should be based on the lowest common denominator. Someone is always going to think the studio is lying, psychopaths, or evil. Lots of people in here have a favorite conspiracy theory about why ZOS does what they do. Honestly, I doubt that a lot of those people actually believe what they say, and they just say it for whatever other reasons they have.
Gamers are going to PVP in the forum. Sparring with other players and the studio is unavoidable.
There is no way around that, and that is why we have to have moderators.
The flip side to all of this is that when ZOS comes out and says that something is intended, or explains how something works, or why they did one thing instead of another, there are other people in the forum that will pass that information along. Not everyone is going to feel the need to fight about it with the studio. For those who did not get the information, It has to be repeated, and some of the people who complain about communication will be the people that do that. Yes, they are mistakenly called "white knights" for providing this information in disagreement with a person making a negative comment, but that is also to be expected.
XBox EU/NA:@ElsonsoJannus
PC NA/EU: @Elsonso
PSN NA/EU: @ElsonsoJannus
Total in-game hours: 11321
X/Twitter: ElsonsoJannus3