It's too soon brother. There are resource, process and even reputational considerations. They likely cant turn this ship that fast, and even if they could they probably wouldnt. I wouldn't. Maybe a cosmetic changes here or there, but nothing serious. It wouldn't look good.

They are still puffing these bgs as a huge success. They've invested a lot of time and money into them. Changing them too soon would fly in the face of that marketing effort and they'd have a lot of 'splainin' to do to the people at the top of the house if they had to explain why they're allocating budget/dollars to change them now.

I am not suggesting they will or won't actually make any meaningful changes to bgs, but, if they do, it likely won't be for a while. A very very long while.

Tinkerhorn wrote: »

I would have hoped for some changes to the requiring 8 players each team to start and for the timers for starting. No idea why they couldn't have done that.

I am not trying to engage in zos apologetics, and I don't know their dev shop, but I know from experience that even small changes, if coded and tested properly, can take a lot of time, and the work pulls resources from other active priorities. Which they may not be able to do right now.

Just sayin'. But I hope for this as well.

plasmab3ard wrote: »

reducing the "waiting for players" timer which starts when we are ... no longer waiting for players to 1 second and the "waiting for match to start" timer to 5 seconds cannot possibly be more than a 2-line code change

I dont know know that and neither do you. Also, if this was the case, any shop worth their salt would put those two lines of code, or even a configuration change, through battery of regression and validation tests in their dev environment before it got to pts... resources, priorities, politics.

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

It's too soon brother. There are resource, process and even reputational considerations. They likely cant turn this ship that fast, and even if they could they probably wouldnt. I wouldn't. Maybe a cosmetic changes here or there, but nothing serious. It wouldn't look good.

They are still puffing these bgs as a huge success. They've invested a lot of time and money into them. Changing them too soon would fly in the face of that marketing effort and they'd have a lot of 'splainin' to do to the people at the top of the house if they had to explain why they're allocating budget/dollars to change them now.

I am not suggesting they will or won't actually make any meaningful changes to bgs, but, if they do, it likely won't be for a while. A very very long while.

For big changes? I agree with you, but what I'm talking about is the very function of BGs.

The queuing logic is flawed and the group queue logic is outright broken.

ZOS was informed of this week 1 of live. The dungeon queue logic is already a system that exists in the game. They already know how to do it. None of us should be waiting in a lobby to have it fill, let alone having that process be 5min. There should be no lobbies getting cancelled because 1 player of 16 missed the 60sec ready up because they had to pee.

Abstaining from any meaningful changes to this newly introduced system only proves that ZOS is not devoting the resources necessary to maintaining their various game systems. It, coupled with the silence we're receiving on this, really only plays into the idea that ZOS is no longer invested in this game.

I just can't believe that they'd devote this many resources to revamping something, deliver it broken, and then not fix it for 6 months.

What was the point?