ZOS will be modding the game engine to solve problems and increase playability? why not skip one year of chapter release and do modding with the game engine? I'm sure that if you improve the game engine for the game it will be good for the game.
manukartofanu wrote: »
colossalvoids wrote: »manukartofanu wrote: »
Should there be any? If most players suffered severely from those issues game won't be playable and won't be around anymore. Performance issues are mostly felt and make a difference for people playing competitive/endgame content which are obvious minority for various reasons so it's easier to pursue new players, feed new landmasses rather than risk everything with new architecture for the entire game that would solve those issues for some couple (ten) thousands people who are still around waiting for it. It's not a niche game where the core audience is prioritised, sadly. It probably would be one day as game is aging and starting to slow down a lot compared to what we saw previously, but certainly not in a short perspective.
manukartofanu wrote: »
SeaGtGruff wrote: »The forums? Look at how many people already complain about the fact that what used to be a zone DLC release in the 4th quarter has been done away with and replaced by bug fixes and QOL updates.
Well, if such a categorical statement is made, there should be at least some evidence to support it, right?colossalvoids wrote: »Should there be any?
In the past two months, many people have encountered problems in the game. During the same period, the online player count has been dropping. In Steam, ESO has fallen out of the top 100 and only climbs back for a few peak hours. Meanwhile, Skyrim's player count has increased. Coincidence?colossalvoids wrote: »If most players suffered severely from those issues game won't be playable and won't be around anymore.
So a new chapter was released, the player count temporarily increased for about two weeks, and now it's dropping again. Should an entire yearly development cycle be built around players who log in for just two weeks?colossalvoids wrote: »Performance issues are mostly felt and make a difference for people playing competitive/endgame content which are obvious minority for various reasons so it's easier to pursue new players, feed new landmasses rather than risk everything with new architecture for the entire game that would solve those issues for some couple (ten) thousands people who are still around waiting for it. It's not a niche game where the core audience is prioritised, sadly. It probably would be one day as game is aging and starting to slow down a lot compared to what we saw previously, but certainly not in a short perspective.
manukartofanu wrote: »
colossalvoids wrote: »manukartofanu wrote: »
Should there be any? If most players suffered severely from those issues game won't be playable and won't be around anymore. Performance issues are mostly felt and make a difference for people playing competitive/endgame content which are obvious minority for various reasons so it's easier to pursue new players, feed new landmasses rather than risk everything with new architecture for the entire game that would solve those issues for some couple (ten) thousands people who are still around waiting for it. It's not a niche game where the core audience is prioritised, sadly. It probably would be one day as game is aging and starting to slow down a lot compared to what we saw previously, but certainly not in a short perspective.
GuuMoonRyoung wrote: »colossalvoids wrote: »manukartofanu wrote: »
Should there be any? If most players suffered severely from those issues game won't be playable and won't be around anymore. Performance issues are mostly felt and make a difference for people playing competitive/endgame content which are obvious minority for various reasons so it's easier to pursue new players, feed new landmasses rather than risk everything with new architecture for the entire game that would solve those issues for some couple (ten) thousands people who are still around waiting for it. It's not a niche game where the core audience is prioritised, sadly. It probably would be one day as game is aging and starting to slow down a lot compared to what we saw previously, but certainly not in a short perspective.
If you are in a large guild, you would hear people talk about how many game breaking instances they experience every day. However, people just deal with and forget about it. They consume the newest content as fast as possible and then move on to other games. That is why the devs focus on new content rather than fixing bugs in engine.
manukartofanu wrote: »Well, if such a categorical statement is made, there should be at least some evidence to support it, right?colossalvoids wrote: »Should there be any?In the past two months, many people have encountered problems in the game. During the same period, the online player count has been dropping. In Steam, ESO has fallen out of the top 100 and only climbs back for a few peak hours. Meanwhile, Skyrim's player count has increased. Coincidence?colossalvoids wrote: »If most players suffered severely from those issues game won't be playable and won't be around anymore.So a new chapter was released, the player count temporarily increased for about two weeks, and now it's dropping again. Should an entire yearly development cycle be built around players who log in for just two weeks?colossalvoids wrote: »Performance issues are mostly felt and make a difference for people playing competitive/endgame content which are obvious minority for various reasons so it's easier to pursue new players, feed new landmasses rather than risk everything with new architecture for the entire game that would solve those issues for some couple (ten) thousands people who are still around waiting for it. It's not a niche game where the core audience is prioritised, sadly. It probably would be one day as game is aging and starting to slow down a lot compared to what we saw previously, but certainly not in a short perspective.
What's the point of having content that's painful to play because of bugs?
I like how you confidently assert what the majority of players do, explaining the strange statistics (which, by the way, haven't been seen in the last 5 years) as a coincidence, without interacting with players in guild discords, and not even playing the game. You are either already a great manager or could become one. Meanwhile, you claim that you would immediately stop playing and try again in a week. But what would you do if you couldn't log in a week later? And then another week later, there's still ping. What then?colossalvoids wrote: »Surely I myself logout when see my ping pummel without any reason and not coming back until have next dungeon run in a week or so, but most people just don't care about such things. They do quests where latency of 600-999 is completely fine and health regen takes care of it and you don't making your teammates sweat because your twitching almost costed them a vitality.
So what makes you think that PvE won't be killed by the same reason? PvP is initially for more hardcore players. Casuals play PvE. Why should casuals be more resilient than hardcores in tolerating constant problems?colossalvoids wrote: »Performance (lack of) overall isn't a new issue, it's already killed one game mode almost entirely. All their confirmed attempts to improve things failed and some were just swept under the rug to never talk of it again so most people just prefer getting new toys instead of making them work, as the majority doesn't care or don't see those issues and want a steady coming of fresh stuff instead.
manukartofanu wrote: »I like how you confidently assert what the majority of players do, explaining the strange statistics (which, by the way, haven't been seen in the last 5 years) as a coincidence, without interacting with players in guild discords, and not even playing the game. You are either already a great manager or could become one. Meanwhile, you claim that you would immediately stop playing and try again in a week. But what would you do if you couldn't log in a week later? And then another week later, there's still ping. What then?colossalvoids wrote: »Surely I myself logout when see my ping pummel without any reason and not coming back until have next dungeon run in a week or so, but most people just don't care about such things. They do quests where latency of 600-999 is completely fine and health regen takes care of it and you don't making your teammates sweat because your twitching almost costed them a vitality.So what makes you think that PvE won't be killed by the same reason? PvP is initially for more hardcore players. Casuals play PvE. Why should casuals be more resilient than hardcores in tolerating constant problems?colossalvoids wrote: »Performance (lack of) overall isn't a new issue, it's already killed one game mode almost entirely. All their confirmed attempts to improve things failed and some were just swept under the rug to never talk of it again so most people just prefer getting new toys instead of making them work, as the majority doesn't care or don't see those issues and want a steady coming of fresh stuff instead.
colossalvoids wrote: »What exact pve you're talking about? Endgame pve already in a hard decline for various reasons, performance being one of the last ones honestly. But still, we've been told numerous times that their target audience is a casual players knocking out quests and playing for a week or two new content comes out, those people don't care for game's issues and apparently loving the game's state being largely not affected by such issues. If they were largely affected the whole forum/twitter/whatever would be on fire as those are an absolute majority of players. So while most can play the new shiny other's surely not getting a year off to fix the game cause of that, that's not the company who's doing such things. Massive issues aren't there first time, won't be the last.