Originally posted by HoLy_MoLy 3) Quest resource/boss competition The typical way - Queue to get into the server, and then queue to kill the quest boss... Group up with people to kill the quest boss, then disband immediately... Use instances, game gets criticised for too much instancing...
The ANet way - Get credit for the kill by partipating in any way. Sure, you'll get leechers, but it's much more preferable to queueing up to kill a boss (massive immersion killer) or having to worry about doing enough damage on a boss, (even though you were healing others like mad, or your team was simply not big enough to do 'sizeable damage').
That's slightly inaccurate. Their solution to competing for quest objectives is actually not to make everyone share credit. Players do share credit, but this isn't their solution to the quest problem. Their solution to the quest problem is to get rid of quests. The fact is quests are a blight on social gaming. Events (including public quests, rifts, and dynamic events) are what promote social gameplay. GW2, however, is the first game I know of to include events but not quests, an area where WAR and Rift went wrong. If you have both events and quests, they end up conflicting, which causes a lot of other problems.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
Account issues could still be a problem regardless of how they incorporate them. Remember early on Rift was plagued by a flaw in their account security which lead to numerous accounts being hacked due to no fault of the player whatsoever. That lead to a several day wait for some players while Trion recovered their accounts. Not saying that will happen to GW2, but it just goes to show you can't take anything for granted.
As far as server queues, I'm actually planning that to be an issue for GW2. I really don't see any way around it without doing some form of (temporary) instancing like RoM does. I know some people get turned off by the idea, but to me it's better than having overpopulated servers at launch followed by server mergers later on (Warhammer anyone?). They can always narrow it down to just 1 instance later on when populations normalize.
As far as server queues, I'm actually planning that to be an issue for GW2. I really don't see any way around it without doing some form of (temporary) instancing like RoM does. I know some people get turned off by the idea, but to me it's better than having overpopulated servers at launch followed by server mergers later on (Warhammer anyone?). They can always narrow it down to just 1 instance later on when populations normalize.
That depends on how many servers ArenaNet plans to make available. If there is a large amount of servers then severs queues won't be a problem because you could just switch your character to a different server.
Also the last point you made about polish is something that has yet to be seen, so it cannot be used as a point in Guild Wars 2's favour. Also no MMO will ever release that is 100% polished and bug free. Games like Rift & SW:TOR are about as good as you can get, when it comes to the state of a freshly launched MMO.
While true, IF the whole game launches with the same amount of polish as that seen in the convention demos then it will likely be the most polished MMO ever released.
However, I don't expect the whole game to have that amount of polish and there will likely be bugs a-plenty like in every newly released game (MMO or not).
As long as Anet has a relatively quick response time and communicates with it's playerbase then release bugs shouldn't be too much of a problem. How many of SWTOR's disgrunteled players would be appeased if Bioware actually said what problems they are tackling and how? Probably most.
Account issues could still be a problem regardless of how they incorporate them. Remember early on Rift was plagued by a flaw in their account security which lead to numerous accounts being hacked due to no fault of the player whatsoever. That lead to a several day wait for some players while Trion recovered their accounts. Not saying that will happen to GW2, but it just goes to show you can't take anything for granted.
As far as server queues, I'm actually planning that to be an issue for GW2. I really don't see any way around it without doing some form of (temporary) instancing like RoM does. I know some people get turned off by the idea, but to me it's better than having overpopulated servers at launch followed by server mergers later on (Warhammer anyone?). They can always narrow it down to just 1 instance later on when populations normalize.
First paragraph...definitely. Until we have the game in our hands, there's no way to know for sure about anything. I think ArenaNet has been great with updates and the extensive demo experience, but whether it's bugs or just some unforeseen problem which makes the game not so fun, we should all keep reasonable expectations and just hope they'll be exceeded.
Second paragraph... three things.
First, it's not a subscription game, so it's not like people are going to cancel their accounts in droves. Hopefully there's no glaring problem making people put it down, but even if they do, it'll be a lot easier to get people to give it another try since they won't have to start paying again.
Second, I would predict growth, actually. GW2 isn't so well known an IP that everybody is going to preorder it and it's got nowhere to go but down. The gameplay should get people to get their friends who initially were opposed (due to not liking GW1 or whatever) to try it. Because it's a B2P game, people could just buy a copy for their stubborn friend. Not that having multiple instances of a zone is even a bad idea, I just think they can put up a ton of servers and expect they might fill up instead of shut down over time.
Third, because of the nonlinear nature of the zones, I think it can support more people than a typical MMO. In this post, Eric Flannum talks about having 200+ people in a company alpha test all enter a zone at the exact same time and it's no problem. That's 1000 people over all races, so it's possible they could just weather the initial surge.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Account issues could still be a problem regardless of how they incorporate them. Remember early on Rift was plagued by a flaw in their account security which lead to numerous accounts being hacked due to no fault of the player whatsoever. That lead to a several day wait for some players while Trion recovered their accounts. Not saying that will happen to GW2, but it just goes to show you can't take anything for granted.
As far as server queues, I'm actually planning that to be an issue for GW2. I really don't see any way around it without doing some form of (temporary) instancing like RoM does. I know some people get turned off by the idea, but to me it's better than having overpopulated servers at launch followed by server mergers later on (Warhammer anyone?). They can always narrow it down to just 1 instance later on when populations normalize.
Just because there was a security problem that could "Potentially" be used to hack accounts, doesn't mean it was happening to everyone. Numerous accounts? Show me some numbers.
Personally, I think RIFT was the smoothest launch I've ever seen. It just doesn't have the name behind it.
I swear....SWTOR is the new WoW in that you can't have a single thread without SWTOR being mentioned.
As far as server queues, I'm actually planning that to be an issue for GW2. I really don't see any way around it without doing some form of (temporary) instancing like RoM does. I know some people get turned off by the idea, but to me it's better than having overpopulated servers at launch followed by server mergers later on (Warhammer anyone?). They can always narrow it down to just 1 instance later on when populations normalize.
It's technically possible to divide the workload over multiple servers, and scale up - or down - the available servers as demand changes, and without resorting to instancing. It's not said that GW2 will indeed be able to do that, but there I see no reason why it couldn't.
One gamebreaking issue it won't have is ability delays, unresponsive combat, and unconsistentcy with combat overall.
It also won't fall prey to people saying "No day/night cycle why?" Aswell as day and night having a purpose as well as weather conditions.
It also won't fall prey to stale ass npcs and mobs that do nothing and not even talk when they look like they talking.
It's on par with assasin creed and skyrim far as VOs with npcs and enemies and their behavior.
These are facts aside from the on par with assasin creed and skyrim part that's an opinion.
I'm sure it'll have qeues and some issues with quest, mayve cases were people say it's unbalanced in WVWVW PVP, I'm sure there will be some lag issues.
1500 DE's at launch divided into layers, I'm sure there will be some issues.
I don't mind if people add on to the possible issues. Oh and possible VO issues, luckily they invested time in both gameplay and story/vos so it was very balanced in my experience at PAX.
It was an alpha as well.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Account issues could still be a problem regardless of how they incorporate them. Remember early on Rift was plagued by a flaw in their account security which lead to numerous accounts being hacked due to no fault of the player whatsoever. That lead to a several day wait for some players while Trion recovered their accounts. Not saying that will happen to GW2, but it just goes to show you can't take anything for granted.
As far as server queues, I'm actually planning that to be an issue for GW2. I really don't see any way around it without doing some form of (temporary) instancing like RoM does. I know some people get turned off by the idea, but to me it's better than having overpopulated servers at launch followed by server mergers later on (Warhammer anyone?). They can always narrow it down to just 1 instance later on when populations normalize.
First paragraph...definitely. Until we have the game in our hands, there's no way to know for sure about anything. I think ArenaNet has been great with updates and the extensive demo experience, but whether it's bugs or just some unforeseen problem which makes the game not so fun, we should all keep reasonable expectations and just hope they'll be exceeded.
Second paragraph... three things.
First, it's not a subscription game, so it's not like people are going to cancel their accounts in droves. Hopefully there's no glaring problem making people put it down, but even if they do, it'll be a lot easier to get people to give it another try since they won't have to start paying again.
Second, I would predict growth, actually. GW2 isn't so well known an IP that everybody is going to preorder it and it's got nowhere to go but down. The gameplay should get people to get their friends who initially were opposed (due to not liking GW1 or whatever) to try it. Because it's a B2P game, people could just buy a copy for their stubborn friend. Not that having multiple instances of a zone is even a bad idea, I just think they can put up a ton of servers and expect they might fill up instead of shut down over time.
Third, because of the nonlinear nature of the zones, I think it can support more people than a typical MMO. In this post, Eric Flannum talks about having 200+ people in a company alpha test all enter a zone at the exact same time and it's no problem. That's 1000 people over all races, so it's possible they could just weather the initial surge.
Actually I'm not suggesting at all that the game will have people leaving in droves as I fully expect an increase over time, but that's different than the problem of simultaneous logins being very high during the first few days of launch and then tapering off as play times (and therefore server populations) normalize. So even if the overall playerbase is steadily increasing they could very well wind up with too many servers if they try to support the launch day logins.
Also, it's not so much how many players a zone can support, but rather how many people can even login to a server at the same time.
Actually I'm not suggesting at all that the game will have people leaving in droves as I fully expect an increase over time, but that's different than the problem of simultaneous logins being very high during the first few days of launch and then tapering off as play times (and therefore server populations) normalize. So even if the overall playerbase is steadily increasing they could very well wind up with too many servers if they try to support the launch day logins.
Also, it's not so much how many players a zone can support, but rather how many people can even login to a server at the same time.
I think I'm understanding you, you're saying there's going to be an initial rush, and then as people begin to play less over time, the server might end up essentially half populated. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The thing is, I don't know that server populations will diminish uniformly. Like when people first get the game, the average North American user might play from 6pm to 2am at first, because they're playing the game as much as they can. But it seems like to me that even though they'll start playing less, there's still going to be a peak. Like eventually the average player will tone it down until they only play for two hours per day, for example again, say on average between 7pm and 9pm. That peak won't be as high as the initial surge, but I think would still be pretty high.
I would think that a server would still be rated high population based on what their peak tends to be during the day, because they wouldn't want people running into a queue during prime playtime. In other words, if a server fills up to high during the initial surge, it seems to me like it would stay at least medium-high as long as people don't flee the game.
What do you think?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
One gamebreaking issue it won't have is ability delays, unresponsive combat, and unconsistentcy with combat overall.
We don't know that, in case of TOR the whole problem with unresponsive combat was introduced by some patch. Or that's what she said.
No it's not there at all I know the difference it's actually why I stopped playing SWTOR in Beta, realizing that an Alpha game got the responsiveness down pack. I actually knew WoW didn't have unresponsive combat either, rift didn't eith, EQ didn't either, played all of those.
GW 2 doesn't have it, you can't even find a sign of it in any video I put money on that.When you press stomp as a warrior there is no delay while doing combos at the same time it's instant.
Plus you can move on majority of the cast spells any way. For a fact, and while reading the forums of the issue in SWTOR some people even brought up GW 2 as an example. I'm not trying to make this a SWTOR vs GW2 or ty to act as if I'm a blind fanboy because I really am not nor am I yelling at you or fussing but it's for a fact not there. It was the first thing me and many others pointed out how smooth PVP and PVE combat was at PAX.
TOR had the issue since CB from what I heard, I do know they had it in OB. How it still remains I don't know, and I am glad the combat designer responsed to the issue atleast, though Warhammer had the same issue and I put money on the fact that they knew what the issue was. The issues might be well deep into their core.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
We don't know that, in case of TOR the whole problem with unresponsive combat was introduced by some patch. Or that's what she said.
No it's not there at all I know the difference it's actually why I stopped playing SWTOR in Beta, realizing that an Alpha game got the responsiveness down pack. I actually knew WoW didn't have unresponsive combat either, rift didn't eith, EQ didn't either, played all of those.
GW 2 doesn't have it, you can't even find a sign of it in any video I put money on that.When you press stomp as a warrior there is no delay while doing combos at the same time it's instant.
Plus you can move on majority of the cast spells any way. For a fact, and while reading the forums of the issue in SWTOR some people even brought up GW 2 as an example. I'm not trying to make this a SWTOR vs GW2 or ty to act as if I'm a blind fanboy because I really am not nor am I yelling at you or fussing but it's for a fact not there. It was the first thing me and many others pointed out how smooth PVP and PVE combat was at PAX.
TOR had the issue since CB from what I heard, I do know they had it in OB. How it still remains I don't know, and I am glad the combat designer responsed to the issue atleast, though Warhammer had the same issue and I put money on the fact that they knew what the issue was. The issues might be well deep into their core.
The responsiveness issue people are complaining about was not in any Beta build I tested. When I first read the post-launch complaints, I had no idea what people were talking about, after starting to play the launch build a few days ago, I know exactly what they're talking about.
It occurs in BG PVP. (that's the only time I've seen it thus far). It's happened every match for me, it feels like server lag/desync, it takes most attacks/heals a few seconds at times to fire. Others seem to misfire. IF I recall correctly WAR had a similar issue early on.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Sephros Originally posted by Alot
Originally posted by Sephros Gw2 will have all the same problems as other releases.
No. Please, read the comments. Yes. And I did. Then you clearly do not understand Guild Wars 2 or ArenaNet. It might have some problems, but there obviously will not be as many (see Guild Wars 1), and will not be the same problems other MMOs have regardless.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Gw2 will have all the same problems as other releases.
No. Please, read the comments.
Yes. And I did.
Then you clearly do not understand Guild Wars 2 or ArenaNet. It might have some problems, but there obviously will not be as many (see Guild Wars 1), and will not be the same problems other MMOs have regardless.
Though I have a feeling that GW 2 will still have qeue issues and questing issues like a lot of mmos, there is a slight chance of that IMO.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Originally posted by Sephros Originally posted by Alot
Originally posted by Sephros Gw2 will have all the same problems as other releases.
No. Please, read the comments. Yes. And I did. Then you clearly do not understand Guild Wars 2 or ArenaNet. It might have some problems, but there obviously will not be as many (see Guild Wars 1), and will not be the same problems other MMOs have regardless.
Or I do but I'm not so blinded by hype that I refuse to think that while it maybe unlikely, it is still possible.
Error: No Keyboard Detected! Press F1 to continue......
Originally posted by Sephros Gw2 will have all the same problems as other releases.
No. Please, read the comments.
Yes. And I did.
Then you clearly do not understand Guild Wars 2 or ArenaNet. It might have some problems, but there obviously will not be as many (see Guild Wars 1), and will not be the same problems other MMOs have regardless.
Or I do but I'm not so blinded by hype that I refuse to think that while it maybe unlikely, it is still possible.
Except that isn't what you said at all.
There might be some problems, but they won't be the same. They know a great deal about server architecture, and they are very unlikely to have those common sorts of problems. I have never had a problem getting into my account, and I have never had a customer service problem. I have never heard of such problems from a credible source.
Any problems Guild Wars 2 has will be related to their own architecture, and almost certainly balancing issues, however much they test.
But they will not that "all the same problems as other releases." I assure you.
Edit: RizelStar, I thank you kindly. I have Cali59 to thank for the idea.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Actually I'm not suggesting at all that the game will have people leaving in droves as I fully expect an increase over time, but that's different than the problem of simultaneous logins being very high during the first few days of launch and then tapering off as play times (and therefore server populations) normalize. So even if the overall playerbase is steadily increasing they could very well wind up with too many servers if they try to support the launch day logins.
Also, it's not so much how many players a zone can support, but rather how many people can even login to a server at the same time.
I think I'm understanding you, you're saying there's going to be an initial rush, and then as people begin to play less over time, the server might end up essentially half populated. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The thing is, I don't know that server populations will diminish uniformly. Like when people first get the game, the average North American user might play from 6pm to 2am at first, because they're playing the game as much as they can. But it seems like to me that even though they'll start playing less, there's still going to be a peak. Like eventually the average player will tone it down until they only play for two hours per day, for example again, say on average between 7pm and 9pm. That peak won't be as high as the initial surge, but I think would still be pretty high.
I would think that a server would still be rated high population based on what their peak tends to be during the day, because they wouldn't want people running into a queue during prime playtime. In other words, if a server fills up to high during the initial surge, it seems to me like it would stay at least medium-high as long as people don't flee the game.
What do you think?
Yes, we're on the same page. I think your assessment would be correct if popluations were fairly well distributed across all servers. The problem is regardless of how many servers ANET starts with, on launch day some servers will be overcrowded (usually the ones that major guilds advertise they are going to) while others will have medium-to-low populations. The result is they'll probably have queues on the former and have to do eventual mergers on the latter.
Comments
That's slightly inaccurate. Their solution to competing for quest objectives is actually not to make everyone share credit. Players do share credit, but this isn't their solution to the quest problem. Their solution to the quest problem is to get rid of quests. The fact is quests are a blight on social gaming. Events (including public quests, rifts, and dynamic events) are what promote social gameplay. GW2, however, is the first game I know of to include events but not quests, an area where WAR and Rift went wrong. If you have both events and quests, they end up conflicting, which causes a lot of other problems.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
Account issues could still be a problem regardless of how they incorporate them. Remember early on Rift was plagued by a flaw in their account security which lead to numerous accounts being hacked due to no fault of the player whatsoever. That lead to a several day wait for some players while Trion recovered their accounts. Not saying that will happen to GW2, but it just goes to show you can't take anything for granted.
As far as server queues, I'm actually planning that to be an issue for GW2. I really don't see any way around it without doing some form of (temporary) instancing like RoM does. I know some people get turned off by the idea, but to me it's better than having overpopulated servers at launch followed by server mergers later on (Warhammer anyone?). They can always narrow it down to just 1 instance later on when populations normalize.
That depends on how many servers ArenaNet plans to make available. If there is a large amount of servers then severs queues won't be a problem because you could just switch your character to a different server.
Error: No Keyboard Detected!
Press F1 to continue......
No. Please, read the comments.
Both server queues and account problems remain possible. No idea what we'll be getting, nor when we'll be getting launch unfortunately.
While true, IF the whole game launches with the same amount of polish as that seen in the convention demos then it will likely be the most polished MMO ever released.
However, I don't expect the whole game to have that amount of polish and there will likely be bugs a-plenty like in every newly released game (MMO or not).
As long as Anet has a relatively quick response time and communicates with it's playerbase then release bugs shouldn't be too much of a problem. How many of SWTOR's disgrunteled players would be appeased if Bioware actually said what problems they are tackling and how? Probably most.
HAHA as if were the only ones.
First paragraph...definitely. Until we have the game in our hands, there's no way to know for sure about anything. I think ArenaNet has been great with updates and the extensive demo experience, but whether it's bugs or just some unforeseen problem which makes the game not so fun, we should all keep reasonable expectations and just hope they'll be exceeded.
Second paragraph... three things.
First, it's not a subscription game, so it's not like people are going to cancel their accounts in droves. Hopefully there's no glaring problem making people put it down, but even if they do, it'll be a lot easier to get people to give it another try since they won't have to start paying again.
Second, I would predict growth, actually. GW2 isn't so well known an IP that everybody is going to preorder it and it's got nowhere to go but down. The gameplay should get people to get their friends who initially were opposed (due to not liking GW1 or whatever) to try it. Because it's a B2P game, people could just buy a copy for their stubborn friend. Not that having multiple instances of a zone is even a bad idea, I just think they can put up a ton of servers and expect they might fill up instead of shut down over time.
Third, because of the nonlinear nature of the zones, I think it can support more people than a typical MMO. In this post, Eric Flannum talks about having 200+ people in a company alpha test all enter a zone at the exact same time and it's no problem. That's 1000 people over all races, so it's possible they could just weather the initial surge.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Just because there was a security problem that could "Potentially" be used to hack accounts, doesn't mean it was happening to everyone. Numerous accounts? Show me some numbers.
Personally, I think RIFT was the smoothest launch I've ever seen. It just doesn't have the name behind it.
I swear....SWTOR is the new WoW in that you can't have a single thread without SWTOR being mentioned.
It's technically possible to divide the workload over multiple servers, and scale up - or down - the available servers as demand changes, and without resorting to instancing. It's not said that GW2 will indeed be able to do that, but there I see no reason why it couldn't.
Soon as I find myself a Crystal Ball
One gamebreaking issue it won't have is ability delays, unresponsive combat, and unconsistentcy with combat overall.
It also won't fall prey to people saying "No day/night cycle why?" Aswell as day and night having a purpose as well as weather conditions.
It also won't fall prey to stale ass npcs and mobs that do nothing and not even talk when they look like they talking.
It's on par with assasin creed and skyrim far as VOs with npcs and enemies and their behavior.
These are facts aside from the on par with assasin creed and skyrim part that's an opinion.
I'm sure it'll have qeues and some issues with quest, mayve cases were people say it's unbalanced in WVWVW PVP, I'm sure there will be some lag issues.
1500 DE's at launch divided into layers, I'm sure there will be some issues.
I don't mind if people add on to the possible issues. Oh and possible VO issues, luckily they invested time in both gameplay and story/vos so it was very balanced in my experience at PAX.
It was an alpha as well.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Actually I'm not suggesting at all that the game will have people leaving in droves as I fully expect an increase over time, but that's different than the problem of simultaneous logins being very high during the first few days of launch and then tapering off as play times (and therefore server populations) normalize. So even if the overall playerbase is steadily increasing they could very well wind up with too many servers if they try to support the launch day logins.
Also, it's not so much how many players a zone can support, but rather how many people can even login to a server at the same time.
I think I'm understanding you, you're saying there's going to be an initial rush, and then as people begin to play less over time, the server might end up essentially half populated. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The thing is, I don't know that server populations will diminish uniformly. Like when people first get the game, the average North American user might play from 6pm to 2am at first, because they're playing the game as much as they can. But it seems like to me that even though they'll start playing less, there's still going to be a peak. Like eventually the average player will tone it down until they only play for two hours per day, for example again, say on average between 7pm and 9pm. That peak won't be as high as the initial surge, but I think would still be pretty high.
I would think that a server would still be rated high population based on what their peak tends to be during the day, because they wouldn't want people running into a queue during prime playtime. In other words, if a server fills up to high during the initial surge, it seems to me like it would stay at least medium-high as long as people don't flee the game.
What do you think?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
We don't know that, in case of TOR the whole problem with unresponsive combat was introduced by some patch. Or that's what she said.
No it's not there at all I know the difference it's actually why I stopped playing SWTOR in Beta, realizing that an Alpha game got the responsiveness down pack. I actually knew WoW didn't have unresponsive combat either, rift didn't eith, EQ didn't either, played all of those.
GW 2 doesn't have it, you can't even find a sign of it in any video I put money on that.When you press stomp as a warrior there is no delay while doing combos at the same time it's instant.
Plus you can move on majority of the cast spells any way. For a fact, and while reading the forums of the issue in SWTOR some people even brought up GW 2 as an example. I'm not trying to make this a SWTOR vs GW2 or ty to act as if I'm a blind fanboy because I really am not nor am I yelling at you or fussing but it's for a fact not there. It was the first thing me and many others pointed out how smooth PVP and PVE combat was at PAX.
TOR had the issue since CB from what I heard, I do know they had it in OB. How it still remains I don't know, and I am glad the combat designer responsed to the issue atleast, though Warhammer had the same issue and I put money on the fact that they knew what the issue was. The issues might be well deep into their core.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Yes. And I did.
Error: No Keyboard Detected!
Press F1 to continue......
The responsiveness issue people are complaining about was not in any Beta build I tested. When I first read the post-launch complaints, I had no idea what people were talking about, after starting to play the launch build a few days ago, I know exactly what they're talking about.
It occurs in BG PVP. (that's the only time I've seen it thus far). It's happened every match for me, it feels like server lag/desync, it takes most attacks/heals a few seconds at times to fire. Others seem to misfire. IF I recall correctly WAR had a similar issue early on.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yes. And I did.
Then you clearly do not understand Guild Wars 2 or ArenaNet. It might have some problems, but there obviously will not be as many (see Guild Wars 1), and will not be the same problems other MMOs have regardless.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Well, there won't be people complaining that the space portions of the game are a minigame.
... hey, if I stick to the facts, I can't go wrong! <.<
Dubhalaith I digg your signature I actually am going to make http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns-IIn-DG-c my sig.
Though I have a feeling that GW 2 will still have qeue issues and questing issues like a lot of mmos, there is a slight chance of that IMO.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Yes. And I did.
Then you clearly do not understand Guild Wars 2 or ArenaNet. It might have some problems, but there obviously will not be as many (see Guild Wars 1), and will not be the same problems other MMOs have regardless.
Or I do but I'm not so blinded by hype that I refuse to think that while it maybe unlikely, it is still possible.Error: No Keyboard Detected!
Press F1 to continue......
Except that isn't what you said at all.
There might be some problems, but they won't be the same. They know a great deal about server architecture, and they are very unlikely to have those common sorts of problems. I have never had a problem getting into my account, and I have never had a customer service problem. I have never heard of such problems from a credible source.
Any problems Guild Wars 2 has will be related to their own architecture, and almost certainly balancing issues, however much they test.
But they will not that "all the same problems as other releases." I assure you.
Edit: RizelStar, I thank you kindly. I have Cali59 to thank for the idea.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Yes, we're on the same page. I think your assessment would be correct if popluations were fairly well distributed across all servers. The problem is regardless of how many servers ANET starts with, on launch day some servers will be overcrowded (usually the ones that major guilds advertise they are going to) while others will have medium-to-low populations. The result is they'll probably have queues on the former and have to do eventual mergers on the latter.
Why would there be queues?
You're still thinking in terms of 'one mmo-server' == 'one machine'