Vaulting Content

Heartrage · April 2022

I’m against removing content that people payed for. The only thing that i could tolerate would be to cycle in and out access to old content that has been free for at least a year and only if it considerably make performance better.

TwinLamps · April 2022

Maybe they could try deleting one of megaservers, that should help with lag

Lailaamell · April 2022

DestroyerPewnack wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

Except that's still an answer that explains why it wouldn't work. What good is a performance boost if it drives off a majority of your players because you're removing content they paid for? What good is improving performance of the game is going to tank because so few people are left playing?

Craglorn is old content but it's where I go to farm mats and do certain Endeavors, and a slew of people farm exp at Spell Scar and Skyreach. Remove these conveniences and myself and many others will play considerably less, which won't do ZOS any favors.

IC is old content, but some very popular sets drop from the dungeons and the sewers offer a decent reward in the Alchemy satchels. Some people also just really like the content. Remove that and many people will play considerably less.

Orsinium is old content, but it's probably one of the best zones in term of the main quest, plus you get a couple solid recipes for one of the side quest chains. It also looks really nice. Remove that and many people who enjoy doing things there or running alts through the quests will likely play considerably less.

Remove enough content that a lot of people enjoy and suddenly a lot of people aren't going to be playing nearly as much, if at all. Who cares about performance if the content that would have benefitted is gone, if the content they enjoyed is gone and thus the stuff they don't care about has a performance boost? I don't PvP so if a bunch of PvE content got removed and PvP therefore got a boost in performance why would that matter to me? And whose going to care about performance if there's the ever-lingering fear of "will the next thing that gets removed be something I like"?

So yes, the people saying they would quit or otherwise voicing their opinion that it's a bad idea are valid reasons as to why this wouldn't work. If no one is here to play then performance doesn't matter.

Those are some excellent points, and I'm sure whoever suggested that ZOS should vault Craglorn, IC and Orsinium would find them convincing. If I ever find them, I'll let them know.

I, however, merely wanted to know what effect vaulting content would have on the performance of the game, to satisfy my own curiosity.

I don't care what type of content gets vaulted, I'm not in favor of vaulting, and I don't care what the other consequences of vaulting are, or how many players will quit. I just wanted to know what effect it would have on the game's performance.

It's really that simple.

Vaulting in other games dont do it for performance its done for profit to make money and give a sense of hurry to buy performance would probly bot increase for its instanced ic and craglorn and orsinium isnt always loaded unless you are in those zones

Arunei · April 2022

DestroyerPewnack wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

Except that's still an answer that explains why it wouldn't work. What good is a performance boost if it drives off a majority of your players because you're removing content they paid for? What good is improving performance of the game is going to tank because so few people are left playing?

Craglorn is old content but it's where I go to farm mats and do certain Endeavors, and a slew of people farm exp at Spell Scar and Skyreach. Remove these conveniences and myself and many others will play considerably less, which won't do ZOS any favors.

IC is old content, but some very popular sets drop from the dungeons and the sewers offer a decent reward in the Alchemy satchels. Some people also just really like the content. Remove that and many people will play considerably less.

Orsinium is old content, but it's probably one of the best zones in term of the main quest, plus you get a couple solid recipes for one of the side quest chains. It also looks really nice. Remove that and many people who enjoy doing things there or running alts through the quests will likely play considerably less.

Remove enough content that a lot of people enjoy and suddenly a lot of people aren't going to be playing nearly as much, if at all. Who cares about performance if the content that would have benefitted is gone, if the content they enjoyed is gone and thus the stuff they don't care about has a performance boost? I don't PvP so if a bunch of PvE content got removed and PvP therefore got a boost in performance why would that matter to me? And whose going to care about performance if there's the ever-lingering fear of "will the next thing that gets removed be something I like"?

So yes, the people saying they would quit or otherwise voicing their opinion that it's a bad idea are valid reasons as to why this wouldn't work. If no one is here to play then performance doesn't matter.

Those are some excellent points, and I'm sure whoever suggested that ZOS should vault Craglorn, IC and Orsinium would find them convincing. If I ever find them, I'll let them know.

I, however, merely wanted to know what effect vaulting content would have on the performance of the game, to satisfy my own curiosity.

I don't care what type of content gets vaulted, I'm not in favor of vaulting, and I don't care what the other consequences of vaulting are, or how many players will quit. I just wanted to know what effect it would have on the game's performance.

It's really that simple.

It would have none, because the content of the game isn't what's causing the performance problems. It's issues with the game's coding and how old the engine it's running on is. It's that their hardware is having issues, too, like the port on one of the servers that went out for PC NA several weeks ago, and also how the game handles information being transferred.

Removing content wouldn't fix performance at all. What would is fixing their coding (which they're allegedly going to start doing this year) and work on making data communication more effective (aka doing more work with their database). Keeping their hardware updated more would help as well.

In fact, I'd say removing content would make performance worse, because then ZOS would have to find a way to make certain areas inaccessible without messing up the rest of the game and making areas that should be fine inaccessible as well. It would be more coding they would have to write, test, implement, and hope never borked over time.

zaria · April 2022

Lailaamell wrote: »

DestroyerPewnack wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

Except that's still an answer that explains why it wouldn't work. What good is a performance boost if it drives off a majority of your players because you're removing content they paid for? What good is improving performance of the game is going to tank because so few people are left playing?

Craglorn is old content but it's where I go to farm mats and do certain Endeavors, and a slew of people farm exp at Spell Scar and Skyreach. Remove these conveniences and myself and many others will play considerably less, which won't do ZOS any favors.

IC is old content, but some very popular sets drop from the dungeons and the sewers offer a decent reward in the Alchemy satchels. Some people also just really like the content. Remove that and many people will play considerably less.

Orsinium is old content, but it's probably one of the best zones in term of the main quest, plus you get a couple solid recipes for one of the side quest chains. It also looks really nice. Remove that and many people who enjoy doing things there or running alts through the quests will likely play considerably less.

Remove enough content that a lot of people enjoy and suddenly a lot of people aren't going to be playing nearly as much, if at all. Who cares about performance if the content that would have benefitted is gone, if the content they enjoyed is gone and thus the stuff they don't care about has a performance boost? I don't PvP so if a bunch of PvE content got removed and PvP therefore got a boost in performance why would that matter to me? And whose going to care about performance if there's the ever-lingering fear of "will the next thing that gets removed be something I like"?

So yes, the people saying they would quit or otherwise voicing their opinion that it's a bad idea are valid reasons as to why this wouldn't work. If no one is here to play then performance doesn't matter.

Those are some excellent points, and I'm sure whoever suggested that ZOS should vault Craglorn, IC and Orsinium would find them convincing. If I ever find them, I'll let them know.

I, however, merely wanted to know what effect vaulting content would have on the performance of the game, to satisfy my own curiosity.

I don't care what type of content gets vaulted, I'm not in favor of vaulting, and I don't care what the other consequences of vaulting are, or how many players will quit. I just wanted to know what effect it would have on the game's performance.

It's really that simple.

Vaulting in other games dont do it for performance its done for profit to make money and give a sense of hurry to buy performance would probly bot increase for its instanced ic and craglorn and orsinium isnt always loaded unless you are in those zones

Agree, Craglorn and Orsinium is on separate shards running on server. Reducing the number of locations will not have much impact on performance as the players will just be other places who then need more shards.

And agree this is just to profit like limited time offers in the crown store.

But its an obvious elephant in the room, its client performance and the ever increasing number of motifs, styles and costumes, pets and mounts who need to be loaded.

Mythgard1967 · April 2022

DestroyerPewnack wrote: »

I'm sorry to say this, but the only people who had helpful things to say were @VaranisArano and @K9002.

This was meant to be a hypothetical, abstract conversation. I didn't need anyone to convince me that vaulting is a bad, less-than-ideal solution. I already know that.

I just wanted to know, if everything else fails, would this be a final option to fix the game (which, by the way, I also paid to be able to play)? And it seems like the answer to that is no.

As soon as you make a suggestion like this in a public place; you are not inviting just an abstract discussion on whether it is possible. If the thread only contained that kind of abstract conversation with zero nahsaying...you get a Dev reading it and thinking...oh look...great conversation guys and the populace seems open to it since no one said "this is a bad idea"......

so anyone who thinks this is a deal breaker for them SHOULD say so to make it clear.....this is the break point.

FYI....for me??? this is the break point. There are too many other enjoyable games to play. I play this one because it is the most enjoyable for my play style.

DestroyerPewnack · April 2022

Mythgard1967 wrote: »

DestroyerPewnack wrote: »

I'm sorry to say this, but the only people who had helpful things to say were @VaranisArano and @K9002.

This was meant to be a hypothetical, abstract conversation. I didn't need anyone to convince me that vaulting is a bad, less-than-ideal solution. I already know that.

I just wanted to know, if everything else fails, would this be a final option to fix the game (which, by the way, I also paid to be able to play)? And it seems like the answer to that is no.

As soon as you make a suggestion like this in a public place; you are not inviting just an abstract discussion on whether it is possible. If the thread only contained that kind of abstract conversation with zero nahsaying...you get a Dev reading it and thinking...oh look...great conversation guys and the populace seems open to it since no one said "this is a bad idea"......

so anyone who thinks this is a deal breaker for them SHOULD say so to make it clear.....this is the break point.

FYI....for me??? this is the break point. There are too many other enjoyable games to play. I play this one because it is the most enjoyable for my play style.

But I wasn't suggesting it. I literally say that in my OP.

Anyway, if you guys think it's necessary to put on this show of displeasure, to save the game from the evil clutches of ZOS, then by all means, go right ahead.

I'm happy with the few replies I got that actually answered my question, and I've got a lot of topics to read about already.

ArchMikem · April 2022

DestroyerPewnack wrote: »

redesign the way the game is coded, etc.

At this point it'd be easier for them to just develop ESO 2.

...but damn do I wish we could have an Unreal Engine 5 ESO.

DestroyerPewnack · April 2022

ArchMikem wrote: »

DestroyerPewnack wrote: »

redesign the way the game is coded, etc.

At this point it'd be easier for them to just develop ESO 2.

...but damn do I wish we could have an Unreal Engine 5 ESO.

I would love an ESO 2... @_@

But only because I've just started over on PC. So, starting over a third time now wouldn't be a big deal for me. 😂