Oh, ok. It is very similar to instancing though. Instead of zone instances, it's entire server instances. Which is to say it is similar to a typical shard setup, except you can travel between them easily. Here is an article for anyone else that is interested:
I thought the zones were all instanced. Like, there was a Kingsmouth 1 - 9 or something when I was playing.
It is. And on top of that each zone has a small cap on how many people can be in it before it splits into a new instance, just like AoC. Its layers upon layers of instances.
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by godpuppet
I played DAoC at launch too, you couldnt get to level 50 in 18 days. It took me months! And even then, the persistent world RVR had substantial game changing content which felt worthwhile (esp when your guild took castles/forts/whatever for itself). TSW PVP is like some guy explained earlier, Watching fish go around a goldfish bowl, a zergathon, and thats all there is to do besides raiding a world boss when all your mates are online, and waiting 16 hours to do a nightmare.
There was an archer on my server (Guinevere, Albion) named Risk--Can't believe I still remember his name lol--who did it in just about that. Keep claiming/upgrading by guilds wasn't in the game for several months after launch and my not-through-rose-colored-glasses recollection is that most of the RvR happened in Emain Macha at the wall Only in the early days--not in keeps. Keep taking and Relic raids were relatively rare events compared to the 24/7 zerg vs. zerg.
DAoC was also pretty basic compared to todays MMOs absolutely false. It offered RvR a massive, dynamic, and deep system all unto its own, a handful of quests that's a good thing, because the quests it had were quality, not filler garbage and mind numbing grinding of walking trees from level 45-50. If that's what you chose to do, sure. Or you could have done crafting, done any of the massive and fairly complicated raids, kill tasks, bounties, or just explored. Classes had three trees classes did not have trees, full stop. with abilities that were mostly upgrades with slightly more damage, longer roots and stuns etc There were new styles about every 3-4 levels, and the points you put into each skill drastically changed what kind of character you played as. There's a reason there were entire websites devoted to creating different builds, because it was a deep system, and they could be further augmented by the crafting system.
And speaking of CC, they didn't call one of the factions "Stungard" for nothing. Huge duration of CC, no limit to the number of players AOE CC could affect, lack of appropriate diminishing returns wrong, after you were CCd, each subsequent one lasted a shorter time and you had a better chance of resisting... and three unique and thouroughly unbalanced sides No game has good PvP balance, as a rule. That's why they get constantly patched. The game was nothing but a constant cycle of nerfs and buffs for as long as I played.
By today's standards DAoC was a bloody mess...it was actually one of the only MMOs that perfectly balanced the PvE, PvP, and crafting playstyles and made them all viable, without instancing. and yet we loved it and played it on average 10 times longer than we play new MMOs. But we were different then and racing to the end then posting about it in forums to both bitch and brag wasn't the e-sport it is today.
I fixed a things things. Though I will say it sounds like you played only a few months at launch and never experienced any of the expansion content. (which is bad, and good).
I played for 18 months... my Air Theurgist could stun-lock you until you were dead. My friend's Ice Theurgist could root 50+ people (if they were zerging in a tight group like they usually were) for about 70 seconds... it sounds like you are misremembering... Keep and Relic raids were rare. Open zerging was the norm...anything else you say about that is just a rosy lie.
Besides, TSW has been out what? Not quite 3 weeks? lol. Yeah let's compare it as it is now to DAoC after Atlantis
DAoC was made on a shoestring budget by 30 people without a publisher on old tech.
If Funcom, funded by publishers, with a budget in the hundred millions cannot do better than DAoC, that's sad.
And no, I'm not comparing it to ToA. I'm comparing it to about 4 months after launch (when I started playing) to about up to the SI expansion. (which was the first).
And it's pretty clear that there's a LOT of things you don't remember about the game, or else I wouldn't have had to make the corrections I did.
Oh, ok. It is very similar to instancing though. Instead of zone instances, it's entire server instances. Which is to say it is similar to a typical shard setup, except you can travel between them easily. Here is an article for anyone else that is interested:
No, the fact that the singleplayer main story is the main part of the game, and almost all of the content falls into it, and the fact that the entire world is instanced, makes it a singleplayer coop game.
I don't think you could have made a less accurate summary of TSW if you tried
The main story is a continuing thread through multiple zones, but it is far from being the MAIN content in each zone. It is only a small fraction of the quest content in each zone. Saying that "almost all of the content falls into it" is a gross exaggeration.
Your statement about an "instanced world, makes it a single-player game" is complete nonsense. Each zone is separated from other zones, but within that zone you play with a whole bunch of other players. If the zone fills up too much, a new instance of the zone is created. MMO's have used that mechanism for many years. Casual grouping is common in TSW, more so than I've seen in any other MMO of the last few years.
Certain of the main quests in each zone (nothing to do with the main story quest) do have steps that take place in single-player instances, but those are typically the last step in the quest, with the other 3 or 4 steps being completed in the open world amongst all the other players. TSW is nothing like SW:TOR where an entire quest can take place in a single-player instance.
Oh, ok. It is very similar to instancing though. Instead of zone instances, it's entire server instances. Which is to say it is similar to a typical shard setup, except you can travel between them easily. Here is an article for anyone else that is interested:
Yeah i just think of them as seperate servers that you can move your character to on a temp basis if you need to group up
The persistant PVP zone is per server only no cross server with that.
Yet the zones never allow a massive number of people to be together and there isn't a persistent world... kind of two big requirements for an MMO.
Each server can handle quite a lot of people in the same place.. just as much as i have seen on any other recent aaa title. Hell at launch on my server the starting ponit for templars was just covered with people..
The world is just as persistant as any other themepark as its always there.. sure you dont change anything in that world but thats themepark games for you.. There is no open world pvp and that is limited to the battle zones or the 1 persistant PVP warzone similar to GW2s wvwvw zone..
on the "too short" part... it really depends. For most players it is not, for those that simply powerlevel thru games, no themepark will last enough, and sandboxes will... simply cause they don't really have ciontent to "finish".
I have 5 and a half "played" days and i'm just starting Egypt. Most people in my Cabal (150+) is not even there.
Most of the players that usually post on forums are among the "hardcore" ones, too.
So for a large amount of people it's a rather good game, that's still ways away from being "finished" in it's launch condition, the first content addition, and for the looks of it the second, and perhaps third (considering the first third of the game is gonna be done for them just sligthly before the first addition) will be deployed before the finish the original content. Without taking real time into PvP nor farming dungeons.
Oh, ok. It is very similar to instancing though. Instead of zone instances, it's entire server instances. Which is to say it is similar to a typical shard setup, except you can travel between them easily. Here is an article for anyone else that is interested:
Yeah i just think of them as seperate servers that you can move your character to on a temp basis if you need to group up
The persistant PVP zone is per server only no cross server with that.
Yet the zones never allow a massive number of people to be together and there isn't a persistent world... kind of two big requirements for an MMO.
Each server can handle quite a lot of people in the same place.. just as much as i have seen on any other recent aaa title.
So... almost none, then? Recent AAA games aren't really something you want to compare to for quality. If games from the 90s could handle hundreds of people in a zone, why can't TSW?
Every MMO doesn't have enough content for some people. That's just how it is. I will say that the VAST majority of players disagree with you. Just look at the achievements and see how many quests and such you've accomplished to start with.
Taking into acocunt that visual demand now much higher proportional power than they did in the 90's it's not a fair comparison. However, considering that 225 people can duke it out in Fusang... TSW can handle that.
Having hundreds of people in a single area, however, it's not just a problem of loading and computing power, but also a problem form a game desing PoV.
A Zombie infestation stops being a menace if it's faced by 300 super powered players, the horror of a dark forest are completley ruined if it's swamped by dozens of players trying to jump on the respawning mobs first to get the kill...
And even so, you find enough people around as to meet new friends, and casually walk into someone you used to see posting on the forums 4 years ago and then "vanished".
its his opinion , if hes wrong why even argue ? i read his write up and tbh theres no way in hell
you gonna convince /him /her/it that he mite have approached the game in a not very clever manner
and that this showing in his comment.
why qoutewar
Well, not everyone is arguing with him, some of us have pointed out how for some it's always like that on themeparks or even in all games, but for others, that tend to be majority, games' content last quite longer.
I advance in games faster than most players around, however others advance WAY faster than me, so it's a matter of your playstyle and gaming hours.
Just as liking a game or not is a matter of preference.
If everyone did that these would be some vast and empty forums. Far as our little eyeballs could see.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
OP aint wrong, this is the "problem" with themeparks and the sub model.
Keep in mind, there is no "right or wrong" way to play a game. You can play it as fast/slow as you want. The problem here is that themepark mmos with a sub don't make much sense, why? because there is no reason to pay a sub for something that plays like a single player game with a finite amount of content and a clear start and end.
If the themepark game didn't have a sub then really theres no issue cause you pay for it what you would pay for any other game and if it were a good sandbox with user driven content then there is a good reason to pay a sub.
Taking into acocunt that visual demand now much higher proportional power than they did in the 90's it's not a fair comparison. It's absolutely a fair comparison, older devs did a lot more with less. And they did it with good game design. However, considering that 225 people can duke it out in Fusang... TSW can handle that.
Having hundreds of people in a single area, however, it's not just a problem of loading and computing power, but also a problem form a game desing PoV.
A Zombie infestation stops being a menace if it's faced by 300 super powered players, the horror of a dark forest are completley ruined if it's swamped by dozens of players trying to jump on the respawning mobs first to get the kill...Right, which is why this game should have been a straight up singleplayer game, because that's what it tries to be, and the guy who made it used to make singleplayer horror games.
And even so, you find enough people around as to meet new friends, and casually walk into someone you used to see posting on the forums 4 years ago and then "vanished".
OP aint wrong, this is the "problem" with themeparks and the sub model.
Keep in mind, there is no "right or wrong" way to play a game. You can play it as fast/slow as you want. The problem here is that themepark mmos with a sub don't make much sense, why? because there is no reason to pay a sub for something that plays like a single player game with a finite amount of content and a clear start and end.
If the themepark game didn't have a sub then really theres no issue cause you pay for it what you would pay for any other game and if it were a good sandbox with user driven content then there is a good reason to pay a sub.
Ain't wrong? You said yourself there is no right or wrong way to play a game. So for those that started in head start and due to RL responsibilities, exploration, etc. some of which haven't even finished SC yet and believe the game has more than enough content for a newly launched game what would be your response to them? They're wrong? Mmkay
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
True, but then food for thought. Most people play what, 4 hours a day. By my pace, which id say is pretty normal, just alot of time spent. Thats 2 months.
Most people do not average 4 hours per day. At least those that have a job and a life outside of gamming. There are days that I play 4 hours (seldom) but then there are days that I don't play at all.
Is the game too short or are your expectations short of what the developer intended? I am just now getting into Blue Mountain. TSW doesn't want you to see everything from a Jet airliner, take a walk, get lost, execute some Wendigos. Play the game don't beat it.
Not trying to puff up and defend TSW per say. The game is genuinely good - take your time if you haven't blown through everything yet. How long will it be good? I guess that is what is happening, not long enough for some players.
ugh... I am not saying anything different around here. Two sides of the fence, some sit on it and the rest talk about our grass as though we don't know what makes it greener... fertilizer.
OP aint wrong, this is the "problem" with themeparks and the sub model.
Keep in mind, there is no "right or wrong" way to play a game. You can play it as fast/slow as you want. The problem here is that themepark mmos with a sub don't make much sense, why? because there is no reason to pay a sub for something that plays like a single player game with a finite amount of content and a clear start and end.
If the themepark game didn't have a sub then really theres no issue cause you pay for it what you would pay for any other game and if it were a good sandbox with user driven content then there is a good reason to pay a sub.
In my opinion themeparks are actually the ones that require a sub, as they require developers to make content for players to play. just like the initial missions in TSW or any other one, and then it also require the devs to make more content for players to keep doing, like TSW (and some others) do.
On a sandbox players do their stuff, by all means that can be rather fun (i personally enjoy that to a point) but developers don't have to create the same amount of stories or content, thus not really calling for the same investment in money and resources.
If anyone plays an MMO like TSW as a single player it's his decision, not the games, cause just some of the elements are designed to be sngle player only.
OP aint wrong, this is the "problem" with themeparks and the sub model.
Keep in mind, there is no "right or wrong" way to play a game. You can play it as fast/slow as you want. The problem here is that themepark mmos with a sub don't make much sense, why? because there is no reason to pay a sub for something that plays like a single player game with a finite amount of content and a clear start and end.
If the themepark game didn't have a sub then really theres no issue cause you pay for it what you would pay for any other game and if it were a good sandbox with user driven content then there is a good reason to pay a sub.
Ain't wrong? You said yourself there is no right or wrong way to play a game. So for those that started in head start and due to RL responsibilities, exploration, etc. some of which haven't even finished SC yet and believe the game has more than enough content for a newly launched game what would be your response to them? They're wrong? Mmkay
What the heck are you saying? Im saying hes not wrong because there is no right or wrong way to play the game.
If there really was a huge lack in content, this forum would be flooded with people complaining they are done and theres nothing to do.
Ive seen two posts with this subject mostly filled with people who didnt play past beta arguing with players that they are incorrect in their feeling theres a solid amount of content for a game that just launched...also ignoring the content pack comming monthly.
Dont think that this forums wouldnt be up in arms over an issue like that.
Those of us playing know exactly how people got all their skilsl filled out and are done farming nightmare, it wasnt by doing all the content. It was done by farming dungeons with their buddies and camping in pvp...which is a viable way to get to endgame fast, if you should feel the need to bypass content then complain about it.
OP aint wrong, this is the "problem" with themeparks and the sub model.
Keep in mind, there is no "right or wrong" way to play a game. You can play it as fast/slow as you want. The problem here is that themepark mmos with a sub don't make much sense, why? because there is no reason to pay a sub for something that plays like a single player game with a finite amount of content and a clear start and end.
If the themepark game didn't have a sub then really theres no issue cause you pay for it what you would pay for any other game and if it were a good sandbox with user driven content then there is a good reason to pay a sub.
Ain't wrong? You said yourself there is no right or wrong way to play a game. So for those that started in head start and due to RL responsibilities, exploration, etc. some of which haven't even finished SC yet and believe the game has more than enough content for a newly launched game what would be your response to them? They're wrong? Mmkay
What the heck are you saying? Im saying hes not wrong because there is no right or wrong way to play the game.
Ah...pretty self explanatory really. You're saying he's right even though you also say there is no right or wrong way to play a game and also discounting those that are fine with the way themeparks are set up pay model wise, content wise, etc. Not to mention many would disagree with some of your other sentiments as well.
You can't have it both ways.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Comments
Yeah i just think of them as seperate servers that you can move your character to on a temp basis if you need to group up
The persistant PVP zone is per server only no cross server with that.
if you say so.
DAoC was made on a shoestring budget by 30 people without a publisher on old tech.
If Funcom, funded by publishers, with a budget in the hundred millions cannot do better than DAoC, that's sad.
And no, I'm not comparing it to ToA. I'm comparing it to about 4 months after launch (when I started playing) to about up to the SI expansion. (which was the first).
And it's pretty clear that there's a LOT of things you don't remember about the game, or else I wouldn't have had to make the corrections I did.
Yet the zones never allow a massive number of people to be together and there isn't a persistent world... kind of two big requirements for an MMO.
This is great! A MMO with the most content ever in 10yrs and some guys says it is to short! Awesome and only two weeks to new content.
Betting he didn't even come close to playing all the content and played TSW like every other MMO rush to max because the rest didn't matter.
Well it is his loss!
Shouldn't have played it like a themepark WOW clone OP!
Uhhhh.... I'm sorry but what?
Have you played...just about almost any other MMO in the last 10 years?
Fallen Earth? Planetside? SWG? DAoC? CoH? VANGUARD? Darkfall? EQ2?
I don't think you could have made a less accurate summary of TSW if you tried
The main story is a continuing thread through multiple zones, but it is far from being the MAIN content in each zone. It is only a small fraction of the quest content in each zone. Saying that "almost all of the content falls into it" is a gross exaggeration.
Your statement about an "instanced world, makes it a single-player game" is complete nonsense. Each zone is separated from other zones, but within that zone you play with a whole bunch of other players. If the zone fills up too much, a new instance of the zone is created. MMO's have used that mechanism for many years. Casual grouping is common in TSW, more so than I've seen in any other MMO of the last few years.
Certain of the main quests in each zone (nothing to do with the main story quest) do have steps that take place in single-player instances, but those are typically the last step in the quest, with the other 3 or 4 steps being completed in the open world amongst all the other players. TSW is nothing like SW:TOR where an entire quest can take place in a single-player instance.
Each server can handle quite a lot of people in the same place.. just as much as i have seen on any other recent aaa title. Hell at launch on my server the starting ponit for templars was just covered with people..
The world is just as persistant as any other themepark as its always there.. sure you dont change anything in that world but thats themepark games for you.. There is no open world pvp and that is limited to the battle zones or the 1 persistant PVP warzone similar to GW2s wvwvw zone..
on the "too short" part... it really depends. For most players it is not, for those that simply powerlevel thru games, no themepark will last enough, and sandboxes will... simply cause they don't really have ciontent to "finish".
I have 5 and a half "played" days and i'm just starting Egypt. Most people in my Cabal (150+) is not even there.
Most of the players that usually post on forums are among the "hardcore" ones, too.
So for a large amount of people it's a rather good game, that's still ways away from being "finished" in it's launch condition, the first content addition, and for the looks of it the second, and perhaps third (considering the first third of the game is gonna be done for them just sligthly before the first addition) will be deployed before the finish the original content. Without taking real time into PvP nor farming dungeons.
So... almost none, then? Recent AAA games aren't really something you want to compare to for quality. If games from the 90s could handle hundreds of people in a zone, why can't TSW?
Every MMO doesn't have enough content for some people. That's just how it is. I will say that the VAST majority of players disagree with you. Just look at the achievements and see how many quests and such you've accomplished to start with.
Chances are you missed a few missions.
Taking into acocunt that visual demand now much higher proportional power than they did in the 90's it's not a fair comparison. However, considering that 225 people can duke it out in Fusang... TSW can handle that.
Having hundreds of people in a single area, however, it's not just a problem of loading and computing power, but also a problem form a game desing PoV.
A Zombie infestation stops being a menace if it's faced by 300 super powered players, the horror of a dark forest are completley ruined if it's swamped by dozens of players trying to jump on the respawning mobs first to get the kill...
And even so, you find enough people around as to meet new friends, and casually walk into someone you used to see posting on the forums 4 years ago and then "vanished".
its his opinion , if hes wrong why even argue ? i read his write up and tbh theres no way in hell
you gonna convince /him /her/it that he mite have approached the game in a not very clever manner
and that this showing in his comment.
why qoutewar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: try xsyon .....its sandbox /full loot ect....but i bet you be done with it in max 5 days ^^
Well, not everyone is arguing with him, some of us have pointed out how for some it's always like that on themeparks or even in all games, but for others, that tend to be majority, games' content last quite longer.
I advance in games faster than most players around, however others advance WAY faster than me, so it's a matter of your playstyle and gaming hours.
Just as liking a game or not is a matter of preference.
If everyone did that these would be some vast and empty forums. Far as our little eyeballs could see.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
OP aint wrong, this is the "problem" with themeparks and the sub model.
Keep in mind, there is no "right or wrong" way to play a game. You can play it as fast/slow as you want. The problem here is that themepark mmos with a sub don't make much sense, why? because there is no reason to pay a sub for something that plays like a single player game with a finite amount of content and a clear start and end.
If the themepark game didn't have a sub then really theres no issue cause you pay for it what you would pay for any other game and if it were a good sandbox with user driven content then there is a good reason to pay a sub.
Ain't wrong? You said yourself there is no right or wrong way to play a game. So for those that started in head start and due to RL responsibilities, exploration, etc. some of which haven't even finished SC yet and believe the game has more than enough content for a newly launched game what would be your response to them? They're wrong? Mmkay
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Most people do not average 4 hours per day. At least those that have a job and a life outside of gamming. There are days that I play 4 hours (seldom) but then there are days that I don't play at all.
Is the game too short or are your expectations short of what the developer intended? I am just now getting into Blue Mountain. TSW doesn't want you to see everything from a Jet airliner, take a walk, get lost, execute some Wendigos. Play the game don't beat it.
Not trying to puff up and defend TSW per say. The game is genuinely good - take your time if you haven't blown through everything yet. How long will it be good? I guess that is what is happening, not long enough for some players.
ugh... I am not saying anything different around here. Two sides of the fence, some sit on it and the rest talk about our grass as though we don't know what makes it greener... fertilizer.
In my opinion themeparks are actually the ones that require a sub, as they require developers to make content for players to play. just like the initial missions in TSW or any other one, and then it also require the devs to make more content for players to keep doing, like TSW (and some others) do.
On a sandbox players do their stuff, by all means that can be rather fun (i personally enjoy that to a point) but developers don't have to create the same amount of stories or content, thus not really calling for the same investment in money and resources.
If anyone plays an MMO like TSW as a single player it's his decision, not the games, cause just some of the elements are designed to be sngle player only.
What the heck are you saying? Im saying hes not wrong because there is no right or wrong way to play the game.
If there really was a huge lack in content, this forum would be flooded with people complaining they are done and theres nothing to do.
Ive seen two posts with this subject mostly filled with people who didnt play past beta arguing with players that they are incorrect in their feeling theres a solid amount of content for a game that just launched...also ignoring the content pack comming monthly.
Dont think that this forums wouldnt be up in arms over an issue like that.
Those of us playing know exactly how people got all their skilsl filled out and are done farming nightmare, it wasnt by doing all the content. It was done by farming dungeons with their buddies and camping in pvp...which is a viable way to get to endgame fast, if you should feel the need to bypass content then complain about it.
Ah...pretty self explanatory really. You're saying he's right even though you also say there is no right or wrong way to play a game and also discounting those that are fine with the way themeparks are set up pay model wise, content wise, etc. Not to mention many would disagree with some of your other sentiments as well.
You can't have it both ways.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Kuppa , themepark makes sense ..just not to you ..fine with me
but saying sandbox these days is a better option....im cracking up
Darkfall ? MO ? Xsyon ?