Maintenance for the week of December 23:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
Would you be willing to P2P for better performance in PvP?
phbell
✭✭✭✭
ZOS is a business and every business decision undergoes a cost/benefit analysis. Servers cost money and big servers cost more. If increased server power corrected the performance issues in Cryodill would you be willing to pay a subscription for access to improve that cost/benefit ratio? (In other words P2P in PvP)
Would you be willing to P2P for better performance in PvP? 56 votes
Yes
33%
19 votes
No
66%
37 votes
0
-
Joy_Division✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭NoPeople who have subs are paying to play and the game was already pay to play. ZOS did not use that money to invest in PvP performance.15 -
Faded✭✭✭✭✭NoI'd love to see their ham-handed presentation of THAT idea. "Just give us a little more money and we'll finally invest to make the product you paid for functional."3 -
BisDasBlutGefriert✭✭✭✭✭NoJoy_Division wrote: »People who have subs are paying to play and the game was already pay to play. ZOS did not use that money to invest in PvP performance.
You're right, they used it to create more crown store items.
I'm mostly a pve'r, rarely ever going into pvp. Still, the pvp crowd doesn't deserve the garbage they're getting thrown at them. They're players too, just as I am.
If they specifically stated, and promised, that more money I'd give them would go to pvp performance and giving them more content, then hell yes id toss a few more bucks their way. But right now, I can't trust where our money goes now. I'm sorry.~There’s a positive in every negative. Sometimes the positive is harder to find than other times, but there is ALWAYS one there~5 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Where is this idea that ZOS doesn't have enough money come from? If money were the sole sticking point and spending the money would make a big difference, someone would have overruled the penny-pinchers in accounting a long time ago.3 -
Tommy_The_Gun✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭YesWell, I already paid for the base game and every chapter & story dlc so far... so I am waiting for their (ZOS) move...1 -
CSose✭✭✭✭Joy_Division wrote: »People who have subs are paying to play and the game was already pay to play. ZOS did not use that money to invest in PvP performance.
Could not have said it better.
Those with ESO+ already do pay. They aren't getting what they are paying for. Plenty of people are, or at least were, paying to support the game monthly.3 -
CSose✭✭✭✭BisDasBlutGefriert wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »People who have subs are paying to play and the game was already pay to play. ZOS did not use that money to invest in PvP performance.
You're right, they used it to create more crown store items.
I'm mostly a pve'r, rarely ever going into pvp. Still, the pvp crowd doesn't deserve the garbage they're getting thrown at them. They're players too, just as I am.
If they specifically stated, and promised, that more money I'd give them would go to pvp performance and giving them more content, then hell yes id toss a few more bucks their way. But right now, I can't trust where our money goes now. I'm sorry.
I agree to a point. How about they fix performance first, then we give them more money for a PvP sub? Shouldn't they have to show they can fulfill their end of the agreement first?1 -
rbfrgsp✭✭✭✭✭YesYes, with a massive caveat.
If Cyrodiil ran flawlessly, and all skills worked, there was no desync and exploiter players were quickly removed from the game, then I would go back to eso+. I had to cancel my eso+ in January because I'm mostly only on PvP now and stability was in the bin. I would have no issue with Cyro being eso+ only content, if it worked.
This is me giving my opinion on my own circumstances. Obviously, paywalling cyrodiil would put it out of the reach of some of the most devoted players in that zone, and that is not necessarily a positive thing.4 -
relentless_turnip✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭NoI would pay to play new PvP content in a consistently functional game. I already pay a sub and have spent a considerable amount on expansions, cosmetics and convenience. We currently pay too much for an experience we remember rather than one that is on offer IMO. They need deliver a functional PvP experience we have already paid for and then I would be happy to pay for more PvP content.2 -
Araneae6537✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭NoI already have ESO+ since I started playing over a year-and-a-half ago and pay for chapters and all sorts of things from the Crown store (which I do because I like the items but part of the cost justification for me is supporting the game).0 -
lolo_01b16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭YesSure, I don't think subscription based games are a bad thing. So if they would go back to that model and improve performence I'd be happy.
But I honestly doubt they will go back to a full subscription based game as there are too many people who spend money on crown store stuff.0 -
Sanctum74✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭NoWe already bought the game, dlc’s, expansions, subs, and crown crates and they still haven’t invested it into performance fixes, what makes you think giving them more money will help?
1 -
Araneae6537✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭NoTommy_The_Gun wrote: »Well, I already paid for the base game and every chapter & story dlc so far... so I am waiting for their (ZOS) move...
That’s a good answer!0 -
olsborg✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I would be willing to pay for eso+ again and play regularily if they made lagg a thing of the past. Id also not hate a proccless campaign on a permanent basis...or just a flat out nerf to proccs and malacath.
PC EU
PvP only1 -
spotzhopz✭✭✭YesWell i already pay a monthly sub, so i voted yes because i already pay. Now if your asking if i would pay another subscription that would depend on how better the performance was and what other bonuses came with that sub0
-
phbell✭✭✭✭YesI appreciate all the opinions expressed so far; thank you for taking the time.
I have never had any objections to paying for services I receive and am an ESP+ member for this reason. It seems to me that all testing criteria to date has left us no closer to understanding the reason for the really poor performance in Cryodiil and we are approaching [what appears to me to be] the last possibility - inadequate server capacity. Which is why I asked the poll question.
I don't know myself if I would P2P in Cryodiil, but I wonder what a lag free Cryodiil would be like - where everyone's skills fired on execution, combat did not slow to a "slideshow", and random disconnects never occur - and I imagine I would pay for that.
Should we have to pay for a properly running game? Of course not. But ZOS has struck me as a company that is afraid to let excellence get in the way of good enough. If server resources are the reason for poor performance and the costs to correct this holding us back, then at least we have asked the question.
Thanks again for everyone's input.Edited by phbell on February 28, 2021 2:39AM0 -
Vevvev✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭NoAs someone who has played Warframe and Elite: Dangerous absolutely not! Peer to Peer is easily exploited by cheaters and if you get matched up with someone with a horrible connection everything starts teleporting around and it's miserable.PC NA - Ceyanna Ashton - Breton Vampire MagDK0
