Providing more information about system specs wouldn't hurt anything. But from the evidence I've seen, most if not all of these performance issues are directly tied to network/netcode/server issues.
The game's netcode (client and server side) does not handle network interruptions well. Furthermore, I've seen evidence that the game's render loop is bound to the netcode, blocking until all requests/responses are resolved before rendering frames. I've black box tested this (and other possible causes of these issues) using the game's resource meter, Wireshark, Window's Resource Monitor and various cpu/gpu monitoring tools.
Using the game's resource meter, you can observe the game's framerate is directly tied to the network latency between the client and server. When the latency rises, the framerate drops in lock.
Using Wireshark, you can observe all of the network traffic going to/from the server gateway. Nearly all client-side actions, including those that do not change the game state such as picking up a card and dragging it around the screen without playing it, fire a constant stream of packets to the server. These network requests directly relate to observable spikes in latency, which in turn directly reduces the frame rate.
From these observations you can deduce that the game's main loop is waiting to render frames until network requests/responses are resolved.
Network/netcode/server issues would explain the variance in the reported issues. Two people have the same cpu, gpu and ram. Both are using the same version of Windows. One has problems, the other doesn't. Factor out the commons (hardware, software) and that leaves the network.
Or one person has a monster gaming rig and another is playing on an 8 year old laptop using the onboard gpu. The monster rig's gpu, cpu and ram aren't anywhere close to full load, the laptop is running at 90% cpu and gpu usage. The monster rig has performance issues, the laptop doesn't. Factor out the obvious disparities and that leaves the network.
When most people talk about "internet speed" they're thinking of bandwidth. Bandwidth is a measure of how much concurrent data you can transmit at one time, the width of your pipe, which isn't really a measure of speed at all. You can run one of those online "speed tests" that will tell you your bandwidth and your ping, or the latency between you and whatever internet speed test server you're testing against. This ping value is closer to a measure of internet speed, but all it tells you is the latency between you and that one specific server.
The only measure of latency that really matters in this case is the latency between the game client and server. All your other network connections could be running at 1ms latency, but if the latency between the game client and server is higher then the "internet speed" of all that other stuff doesn't matter.
To make things more complicated, this client/server latency could vary for many different reasons. Playing over wifi vs a hardwired connection will introduce variance. Busy network legs between your home and the server gateway will introduce variance. The servers themselves, if they're under heavy load and are responding slowly, will introduce variance.
The solution to this kind of problem would mean a refactor of the game's core code, including decoupling the render code from the network code so it's not waiting for requests/responses to resolve before rendering frames. The netcode needs to be more resilient to handle network variance without disconnecting.
There is also likely an issue with the server architecture. There may not be enough servers or resources to scale under peak load, or the messaging architecture needs to be rethought, or any number of issues with optimization. What I do know from reading WoTC's tech job postings, the server code is written in C#/.Net and the servers are running in a Microsoft cloud environment instead of using an industry proven, time tested stack and cloud environment.
I'm sure the developers at WoTC are well aware of all of this.
I'm an old software engineer (architect) with over 20 years of experience. These kinds of changes, especially when they touch the very core of both your client and server architecture, are not easy, fast or cheap. It's like keeping your Honda Civic from the 1990s vs buying a new Tesla. The civic is ugly and has 90 horsepower. But it's paid for, gets you where you need to go and costs less to maintain than buying a newer, more efficient car. This is exactly how the people with the checkbooks at Hasbro/WoTC look at the issue. They may eventually replace the Civic, but they're in no big hurry to do it because it still carries the groceries.
devtrackers.gg