
Originally Posted by
Billie21
I so hope you are right. But if it was being worked on, I really can't see any reason why they wouldn't adress it explicitly. Fear of driving away potential players who would take it as a "I'm a non JP player, I will get lag, no point in trying the game"?
Yeah, possible.
⬇︎ Click for more blabla 
Actually, that's something I came across quite a bit when I did a bit of community management back in the day (indie web-based games), and later on also as store manager in customer relationship and brand image (cloth retail).
In my personal experience, Producers and Higher-ups have a "brand approach": they would see PR/marketing as the primary sale factor, whereas the technical aspect of the product just needs to be "good enough". I translate that vision into: "sky's the only PR/marketing limit" (looking for the best, always, but there is no 'best') whereas "tech & quality must meet a threshold" (looking for that threshold, anything above is a waste of time/energy/money). See what I mean?
On the contrary, for Directors, Designers, Factory leaders, 'tech people' in general, it's the exact opposite, they have a "product approach": "sky's the only quality limit" whereas "PR/marketing must meet a threshold" (but anything above is useless if quality isn't there etc).
Image vs. substance, in a way.
It's a clear duality, granted a bit cliche and oversimplified as I present it here, but nonetheless quite true (again, in my personal experience) when it comes to hard budget and wording (or silence) decisions. Especially observable in how these leaders drive their teams, value their respective feedback, and report to their own hierarchy (CEO's, shareholders, people like that).
What this means is that these two profiles have different fears, different demons. Producers fear that the image suffers, notwithstanding the reality of the product; Directors worry that the product just isn't good enough, not necessarily in relation to the actual image it actually has. I don't know how Yoshi resolves this duality as both Producer AND Director. Puzzles me. He certainly doesn't seem fearless nor overconfident, so I suppose he's got this cool-yet-stressed typical Japanese feel (see how often he talks about "player stress" and his constant need to justify his decisions by seeking for "player enjoyment", that says a lot about his personality I think; it seems to me that he feels a bit stuck in-between two worlds).
I don't know how the Final Fantasy Council (don't remember the exact name, that special board SE recently appointed to deal with the IP) factors into all that.
Maybe it's the Japanese way, maybe not, but I see a lot of hesitation and carefulness in how SE communicates these days, not to say fear and doubt. Long gone is the Blizzard-like confidence (borderline arrogance).
I think it was a tremendously good decision to fuse Producer & Director to rebuild the game ASAP and coherently, but now I think this game needs to go back to a standard model, because these are two very different positions, profiles, jobs. There needs to be this dialogue, which can't happen in the mind of a single individual. I think it's too much for a single pair of shoulders, considering the magnitude of both a MMO and FF.
So yeah, fear. I sense a lot of fear. Which is not good in the long run because fear usually either makes you freeze, doubt, or reckless as a manager. Revamping the netcode or not? That's such a huge decision, consequences will be shattering no matter which way ARR goes.

Originally Posted by
Billie21
The only other reason I can see is that they don't know yet if they will be able to fix it. Even then, saying "working on it, not sure it's possible" would most definitely apease at least part of the players, and go a long way in restauring trust in those that have lost it/are losing it, and it wouldn't even bind them to a promise they might not keep.
I agree. Better temporarily part on good terms with some players who would nevertheless see the game's future in a positive light, than lose players out of frustration because they probably wouldn't ever think of looking back.

Originally Posted by
Bixby
It'd be nice to think the parts you've highlighted are some kind of secret wink at the subject, but even mashing the contexts together like this, I'm not seeing it.
In the first quote, he's talking about development branches and testing things. He mentions server code because, most likely, they only have a handful of test servers running various branches of testing code. If a particular feature or function is coded on the client, it's (comparatively) easy for a developer to change some things, compile a version of the client with just those changes, and see what happens, without having an effect on anything anyone else is working on. If a feature is something that needs to be changed on the server, that change needs to go through more steps, and it's less likely any given developer can just whip something up and try it on the fly.
The part about the need for server improvements was specifically talking about the enormous clustercuss that was open beta/launch, and the scrambling they had to do just to get to the point where everyone could even log in and stay connected. That took so much time and resources that it screwed up their schedule. He's not saying anything about the current state of the servers, just that they were badly broken, and that pushed back all their other plans. And "additional system updates" is so laughably vague, I wouldn't take it to mean anything at all, especially given the way SE publishes & translates changes to their games ("Such and such has been adjusted" - Gee, thanks for the helpful patch notes, guyz). In that sentence, "system" just means "not UI," since he mentioned UI changes specifically, but didn't want it to sound like 2.1 was all UI updates.
I'm sure he is aware of the netcode issues. And I hope he does say something on the subject during the live letter (if not before; you never know!). […] But I really don't think anything he's said in these posts has anything to do with it.
I don't know. You do make sense, that's objectively true. I guess I'm just fishing for clues, honestly.
When I first skimmed through the posts, I didn't read much into it; their proper meaning is evidently what you describe. Later on, as I was writing something, I remembered the allusions I quoted above; so I came up with this long-shot of an interpretation.
About patch notes: OMG THANK YOU. Think we should send them a note on what these actually look like? 

Originally Posted by
Bixby
And subordinate to that hope is the hope that anything he says isn't just more useless victim-blaming (research harder, WARs; zoom out).
HUH! No brainer, indeed.
After my plea you can imagine how that would just dishearten me—to put it mildly. Perhaps beyond return.