All Posts by Xasapis

And what would that be? Saga of Ryzom?

That is however the only flaw with the OP's post. He is entitled to his opinion (this time a positive one).

For the record, Funcom has officially confirmed 500.000 accounts activated (which translates to units sold) some time ago. The 1M number is related to boxes produced and delivered to retailers and not to actual sales. That means that the demand from the market was present, but it doesn't mean that those units were sold.

Past October-November 2007 I had an issue with EVE disconnecting me ever 1-2 minutes of gameplay (just a bit more than a miner's laser takes to run a full circle). This was totally unexpected, since I was playing the game flawlessly up to that point. As you can probably understand, I was really frustrated. I head to the forums to see if I was alone on this. Apparently others had the same issue as well, spread all around Europe.

CCP never answered to that thread, or my email regarding the issue. Then some day it was fixed. Luckily for both of us, my subscription didn't run out so I continued playing. Until this day, I don't know if it was an internet issue or something that they did to the client (problems started after a game update), or both.

This is not an excuse for Funcom. I understand and sympathise with the frustration of all the people that are having lag issues with the game, making it unplayable. If I were them, I would have cancelled my subscription and came back only when I was assured that the issue was resolved.

But the above issue is not something that has plagued only Funcom's games.

Edit: Lobotomist, are you still playing the game? I thought you cancelled long ago.

To the OP:

To be the worst launch on MMO history, the game should have the servers crashing left and right. As far as I'm aware, the servers have been and are still rock stable. So, no, it was not the worst launch on MMO history by far.

In fact, given the initial rush of players, that was unexpected even for Funcom, the servers behaved flawelssly. Admittedly some people were having problems on the client side. But from my understanding these were due to three issues:

• Lacking machine (when was the last time people actually had a good experience with any game playing with the minimum settings?)
• Outdated drivers (this little bit affects stuttering a lot. The very latest nVidia drivers will cut down this problem a lot on medium machines and completely on the high end)
• Genuine PC/ game incompatibility issues (PCs are so diverse that these things will happen. This is part of the reason I'm buying hardware from brands with good support, although they cost more)

I understand that some people had issues with client crushes, but from what I've seen (from my limited experience), these were the exception. Most of the people had a very good experience with the launch and were happy with the way the game played in Tortage and a little beyond.

• The game still has bugs. Very visible bugs. They are not gamebreaking (in my opinion), but hey do detract from the enjoyment of the game.
• Some people don't like the gameplay.
• There is not enough content in the mid to higher levels.

However, the above and more are problems not related with the launch, but with the game in general. We can therefore argue based on them, that the game will not have the longlivity the developers were hoping, if the game stays as is. But these are not points for an argument about how good or bad the game launched.

This must be a joke post. Beta testers at fault? Sure, if they were paid to do so, aka professionals not doing their job. But Beta testers are amateurs. And while some amateurs produce better results than some professionals, the rule is that you can't really expect professional work from an amateur.

Does SOE promote Vanguard in the same manner they do with EQ2, ie giving 60 days to veterans to try the game?

The first thing that everyone forget is that "success" needs a clear definition, as different people may mean different things.

How about a wastelands type MMO? Fallout style?

In that case the thread title, the body of the OP's post and the screenshot do not add up.

I'm not sure what you're implying but don't expect Blizzard to do something tha twill not be popular among its players. Their content usually caters to as much players as possible.

I'm looking at the screenshot but I can't seem to spot the problem.

I believe some other poster said it best (I think I read it on this site). Even if all the cooks have the same material, the soup will still taste different. It does't matter that some ideas are getting rehashed, as long as each generation adds something to the previous one.

As long as the majority of player have to use outside the game sources to play the game properly, something does not work properly. This situation plagued the old games more than the modern ones (even if the improvement is slight). Hopefully in the future we'll see games that do not require outside sources to be played properly.

To Gishgeron :

What I tried to say (unsuccesfully it seems) is that subscription numbers have an impact to future development but it's not a direct analogy. Past examples have shown that smaller companies have presented more material and expanded their world much further than more established ones.

My point remains however that as far as players are concerned, more subscriptions just mean more servers. And since we usually just spend our time in just one, it doesn't affect our gameplay. To give an example, once upon a time I used to play AO, a game with two servers. Once upon a time I also used to play WoW, a game with ... 800? servers? The bottom line is that I had a blast in my stay in both games, regardless of the amount of people that were playing them.

The best MMO is the one you like and play. Subscriptions mean one thing only, expansions to the game world. And we have seen first hand that the amount of suscriptions is not directly related to the amount of content produced by each MMO company.

So, subscriptions mean nothing to the gamers really. Maybe to those not mature enough to need numbers to affirm their hobby. It may mean a lot to the company and the shareholders, but we are not them. We are gamers. One full server is enough to have fun.

To Alan0n:

You are right about the sieges but wrong about the mounts. At least the part where you say that hey were not available long enough.

What I did not witness is mounted PvP of a small or larger scale. Probably  because there weren't a ton of things you could do on top of a mount.

Actually the max 50 people is misinformation. The poster probably read it in these forums and now just parroting it.

Actually the 500.000 number originated from a Funcom announcement to their investors. They were referring to the amount of people making an account up to that point. So that number can be taken as a confirmed amount of units sold up to that point. I estimate that this number is now higher. How much higher though is unknown. We'll probably need the next announcement to the investors for it.

Besides, somebody who bought and activated an account is not guaranteed to have stayed in the game. It just means that he bought the box and tried the game for the free month. Retention and amount of subscribers over time is still pretty much in the air.

To the OP:

I like AoC and I feel confident that it will grow to something good, given time. Your attitude however is something that is not necessary nor needed. Despite popular belief, people can spot a highly subjective opinion. And I'm afraid, this whole thread is just that.

How do you people come up with all these numbers? (not talking to anyone specifically)

How did you manage to split the 30 mins it takes to reach level 6 in a week? Sorry friend, it's just that I found the title of your thread funny and kind of detached from what you're writing in your post.

As for the combat, it's a matter of taste. If you didn't like it early, you probably won't like it later on.