I'm not kidding. The next time I see someone in these forums say "you have obviously never played an mmo at launch before", I am going to kill a kitten. Not a nice death either. I will smash it against a tree.

   People, stop being idiots. The second you use this way overused phrase, and others like it (i.e. "go back to wow noob") , you reveal yourself as an idiot.

   This is not 1998. The whole, launches are supposed to suck excuse does NOT hold water anymore. Games that released early in the genre were treading on new ground. Yes, ao had bugs, EQ had bugs, even wow was a pretty crappy launch (yes fanbois, it was). but goddammit, this isn't new technology now!

   Many of these absolute disaster launches aren't even from companies releasing their first mmo. Funcom has like 8 years experience in the business.

     The companies releasing terrible games now are using the classic "money grab" scam, and you , the gamer , are allowing them to! They have the ability to release games in a finished state. They do, I promise. Why bother though? When you can release a alpha state game, and the fanbois will come, and spew "give them time, it's a new game".

     Seriously people, think of meowie!

   You guys can make light of it if you wish, but this mentality really will kill the genre. It's a wierd phenomenon, mmo gamers seem to be the most passionate about their games, as represented by the blind defense of their terrible games(I don't care which one you play, they pretty much all suck righ t now, so you are all wrong). but then, they will allow company after company to release crap, unfinished, uninspired, clone games , and defend them to the end!

   Want proof? Go to the AoC forums. There are people there still swearing it's a good game! WOW!

    This industry will NEVER put out anything worthwhile until we, the gamers, demand it.

     I am NOT a darkfall fanboi. Until very recently I was absolutely convinced it was vapor. I have to agree with a poster in another forum though. I absoulutely hope to god the game takes off. I would be willing to forgive its faults if it launched with bugs, etc. Just do something new!

   If you are releasing a goddamn clone of wow, ffs, at least make it work at launch!. It has been done 40931574 times, and we still act like they are immune to criticism because its a new launch. It isn't a new launch. It is the same game releasing....again. Get it right  or f#$%^g delay it!

I do have to agree that WoW had a fail launch. It took most WC3 players like a year before they moved to the MMO.

Originally posted by Korby

I do have to agree that WoW had a fail launch. It took most WC3 players like a year before they moved to the MMO.

wow's launch was horrid.  it was a good 6+ months before the hyjal server was consistently available AND playable (wasn't always very playable when it was available).

but it was their first mmo and they did have tons more customers than they'd expected.

they also had official forums.  something scarehammer online can't be bothered with.

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by Korby

I do have to agree that WoW had a fail launch. It took most WC3 players like a year before they moved to the MMO.

 

wow's launch was horrid.  it was a good 6+ months before the hyjal server was consistently available AND playable (wasn't always very playable when it was available).

but it was their first mmo and they did have tons more customers than they'd expected.

 

they also had official forums.  something scarehammer online can't be bothered with.

Ok dont flame me here but didnt blizzard make diablo and starcraft, which were popular games, so how can wow be there first mmo?sorry if i don't know what im tlaking about

Man those where the days playing Wc3 dota waiting on wow and then 3 years later im on these forums, quitting wow, and waiting on another mmo man im genius! Hopfully a sandbox never had one of those cept for runscape 7 years ago.

Originally posted by Gabby-air

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by Korby

I do have to agree that WoW had a fail launch. It took most WC3 players like a year before they moved to the MMO.

 

wow's launch was horrid.  it was a good 6+ months before the hyjal server was consistently available AND playable (wasn't always very playable when it was available).

but it was their first mmo and they did have tons more customers than they'd expected.

 

they also had official forums.  something scarehammer online can't be bothered with.

Ok dont flame me here but didnt blizzard make diablo and starcraft, which were popular games, so how can wow be there first mmo?sorry if i don't know what im tlaking about

i misspoke. It was their first mmorpg. Not their first mmo.

Priceless.

www.youtube.com/watch

Originally posted by truuk

Originally posted by Gabby-air

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by Korby

I do have to agree that WoW had a fail launch. It took most WC3 players like a year before they moved to the MMO.

 

wow's launch was horrid.  it was a good 6+ months before the hyjal server was consistently available AND playable (wasn't always very playable when it was available).

but it was their first mmo and they did have tons more customers than they'd expected.

 

they also had official forums.  something scarehammer online can't be bothered with.

Ok dont flame me here but didnt blizzard make diablo and starcraft, which were popular games, so how can wow be there first mmo?sorry if i don't know what im tlaking about

 

i misspoke. It was their first mmorpg. Not their first mmo.

to the person nerd raging over semantics about diablo and starcraft.

what exactly about diablo and starcraft gave blizzard experience in dealing with thousands of people in a 3d world simultaneously interacting?

was it the half a dozen people (or less, i don't remember) which could simultaneously play a single game of diablo/starcraft at once?

was it the direct-connect to another player to play diablo 2 with your friend that gave them experience in handling 50 servers with 5k people on each one?

how exactly do your comments make sense and pertain to what we're talking about?

please do educate me, gabby-air.

If one more person uses the "word" fanboi I am going to steal a monkey...

Then eat some cheese...maybe a pickle as well...

And knit a sock, a left-footed sock...

...Oh yeah, and drive a screwdriver through my own head, if I am lucky it might, at the very least, make me go blind...

Originally posted by Slampig

If one more person uses the "word" fanboi I am going to steal a monkey...

Then eat some cheese...maybe a pickle as well...

And knit a sock, a left-footed sock...

...Oh yeah, and drive a screwdriver through my own head, if I am lucky it might, at the very least, make me go blind...

fanboi deserve a much more derogatory and spiteful name; but, if it makes you feel better,

fanboi means something along the lines of, "someone that is so incredibly blind and lacking of a mind/will of their own, as to worship a game/gaming company/devs of said game as false-gods and in their blind, idiotic worship, destroy the very game which sustains their worthless, craven lives."  

again, that is a nice, watered down version of a definition deserving of the *people* who deserve the title of fanboi.

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by truuk

Originally posted by Gabby-air

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by Korby

I do have to agree that WoW had a fail launch. It took most WC3 players like a year before they moved to the MMO.

 

wow's launch was horrid.  it was a good 6+ months before the hyjal server was consistently available AND playable (wasn't always very playable when it was available).

but it was their first mmo and they did have tons more customers than they'd expected.

 

they also had official forums.  something scarehammer online can't be bothered with.

Ok dont flame me here but didnt blizzard make diablo and starcraft, which were popular games, so how can wow be there first mmo?sorry if i don't know what im tlaking about

 

i misspoke. It was their first mmorpg. Not their first mmo.

 

 

to the person nerd raging over semantics about diablo and starcraft.

 

what exactly about diablo and starcraft gave blizzard experience in dealing with thousands of people in a 3d world simultaneously interacting?

was it the half a dozen people (or less, i don't remember) which could simultaneously play a single game of diablo/starcraft at once?

was it the direct-connect to another player to play diablo 2 with your friend that gave them experience in handling 50 servers with 5k people on each one?

 

how exactly do your comments make sense and pertain to what we're talking about?

 

please do educate me, gabby-air.

Like i said i don't know about those games and i said don't flame me, i just made a simple statement, and here you go crazy on me

Originally posted by Gabby-air

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by truuk

Originally posted by Gabby-air

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by Korby

I do have to agree that WoW had a fail launch. It took most WC3 players like a year before they moved to the MMO.

 

wow's launch was horrid.  it was a good 6+ months before the hyjal server was consistently available AND playable (wasn't always very playable when it was available).

but it was their first mmo and they did have tons more customers than they'd expected.

 

they also had official forums.  something scarehammer online can't be bothered with.

Ok dont flame me here but didnt blizzard make diablo and starcraft, which were popular games, so how can wow be there first mmo?sorry if i don't know what im tlaking about

 

i misspoke. It was their first mmorpg. Not their first mmo.

 

 

to the person nerd raging over semantics about diablo and starcraft.

 

what exactly about diablo and starcraft gave blizzard experience in dealing with thousands of people in a 3d world simultaneously interacting?

was it the half a dozen people (or less, i don't remember) which could simultaneously play a single game of diablo/starcraft at once?

was it the direct-connect to another player to play diablo 2 with your friend that gave them experience in handling 50 servers with 5k people on each one?

 

how exactly do your comments make sense and pertain to what we're talking about?

 

please do educate me, gabby-air.

 

Like i said i don't know about those games and i said don't flame me, i just made a simple statement, and here you go crazy on me

you asked a question.  if you believe that the other games were mmos created by blizzard and this experience would be beneficial in that you seem to be supporting that wow is not their first mmo, then how exactly does that experience help them in such a way as for us to not consider wow as their first mmo?

or should i just ask what color is cheese and then tell you to not follow up on my question because i'll make little running around guys on you?

Originally posted by severity3

   I'm not kidding. The next time I see someone in these forums say "you have obviously never played an mmo at launch before", I am going to kill a kitten. Not a nice death either. I will smash it against a tree.

   People, stop being idiots. The second you use this way overused phrase, and others like it (i.e. "go back to wow noob") , you reveal yourself as an idiot.

   This is not 1998. The whole, launches are supposed to suck excuse does NOT hold water anymore. Games that released early in the genre were treading on new ground. Yes, ao had bugs, EQ had bugs, even wow was a pretty crappy launch (yes fanbois, it was). but goddammit, this isn't new technology now!

   Many of these absolute disaster launches aren't even from companies releasing their first mmo. Funcom has like 8 years experience in the business.

     The companies releasing terrible games now are using the classic "money grab" scam, and you , the gamer , are allowing them to! They have the ability to release games in a finished state. They do, I promise. Why bother though? When you can release a alpha state game, and the fanbois will come, and spew "give them time, it's a new game".

     Seriously people, think of meowie!

 

Depends on your definition of  "suck"  MMOs are big complicated  beasts. They're the most complex and demanding games to deploy. I can forgive a few things that got through testing or not enough servers at startup. I can even forgive a game mechanic that didn't quite work as intended. After all players don't tend to do what developers want them to. Dupes and exploits can sometimes get through the most diligent testers.  If you're talking about the Vanguard or AoC level of suck I agree. There's also no excuse for ignoring known game breaking  issues post launch for weeks.

First of all i have not even played both games, all i know was that they were from blizzard and were great games, secondly my statement wasnt attacking his post i was just saying that they made those games, which i had no idea even weren't mmorpg's, my whole intention was that i was curious if those games were bought by blizzard later on or something?

and you come here call me a nerd right up for saying that...

Originally posted by Gabby-air

First of all i have not even played both games, all i know was that they were from blizzard and were great games, secondly my statement wasnt attacking his post i was just saying that they made those games, which i had no idea even weren't mmorpg's, my whole intention was that i was curious if those games were bought by blizzard later on or something?

and you come here call me a nerd right up for saying that...

so... don't nerd rage then?

Originally posted by severity3

   I'm not kidding. The next time I see someone in these forums say "you have obviously never played an mmo at launch before", I am going to kill a kitten. Not a nice death either. I will smash it against a tree.

   People, stop being idiots. The second you use this way overused phrase, and others like it (i.e. "go back to wow noob") , you reveal yourself as an idiot.

   This is not 1998. The whole, launches are supposed to suck excuse does NOT hold water anymore. Games that released early in the genre were treading on new ground. Yes, ao had bugs, EQ had bugs, even wow was a pretty crappy launch (yes fanbois, it was). but goddammit, this isn't new technology now!

   Many of these absolute disaster launches aren't even from companies releasing their first mmo. Funcom has like 8 years experience in the business.

     The companies releasing terrible games now are using the classic "money grab" scam, and you , the gamer , are allowing them to! They have the ability to release games in a finished state. They do, I promise. Why bother though? When you can release a alpha state game, and the fanbois will come, and spew "give them time, it's a new game".

     Seriously people, think of meowie!

 

I think kitten would kill your ass.

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by truuk

Originally posted by Gabby-air

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by Korby

I do have to agree that WoW had a fail launch. It took most WC3 players like a year before they moved to the MMO.

 

wow's launch was horrid.  it was a good 6+ months before the hyjal server was consistently available AND playable (wasn't always very playable when it was available).

but it was their first mmo and they did have tons more customers than they'd expected.

 

they also had official forums.  something scarehammer online can't be bothered with.

Ok dont flame me here but didnt blizzard make diablo and starcraft, which were popular games, so how can wow be there first mmo?sorry if i don't know what im tlaking about

 

i misspoke. It was their first mmorpg. Not their first mmo.

 

 

to the person nerd raging over semantics about diablo and starcraft.

 

what exactly about diablo and starcraft gave blizzard experience in dealing with thousands of people in a 3d world simultaneously interacting?

was it the half a dozen people (or less, i don't remember) which could simultaneously play a single game of diablo/starcraft at once?

was it the direct-connect to another player to play diablo 2 with your friend that gave them experience in handling 50 servers with 5k people on each one?

 

how exactly do your comments make sense and pertain to what we're talking about?

 

please do educate me, gabby-air.

I'll educate you, actually.  First of all, it was fewer for individual games for D2 and SC.  Most of the time, it capped at 8.  That's not relevant, though.  You don't realize how battle.net runs and how closely related to that architecture WoW is.

Battle.net runs off a finite number of servers.  Each one holds more than one game.  In fact, playerwise, the capacity for a b.net server isn't too far from that of a WoW world server.  Each modern WoW realm is run by three world servers.  They can crash individually.  That's right.  Kalimdor and its associated instances can actually be down while people in EK are playing fine.  So individual WoW servers are not very big.  In terms of overall player count across all servers, Blizzard had experience there too.  When both D2 and SC were very hot, the total concurrency count for all of b.net was well into the hundreds of thousands.  Think about that.  Concurrency, not total players, in the hundreds of thousands.  No MMORPG has seen that, ever, short of WoW.

So, in terms of player numbers, going from battle.net architecture to WoW at launch wasn't so far off.  It was a lateral move, if you look only at player count or total players across all servers.  That's why Blizzard was confident.  It was other things that got Blizzard.

First off, the population at launch was not evenly distributed.  I played starting about a week after launch and for months after that.  I saw one queue that lasted five minutes.  No crashes.  No lag during peak times.  There were several servers like that.  Blizzard didn't anticipate parabolic growth, though, since they entirely underestimated how many people would join WoW due to word of mouth.  By the time they opened new servers, it was too late.  The ones that were overcrowded stayed that way, and they were left with unused capacity on the smaller ones.

Second, it was the scale of the overall system which eventually started to hurt them.  WoW's architecture would have been fine if WoW didn't smash all records in the space of a few months.  B.net to WoW at launch, assuming perfectly distributed players, would have been fine.  B.net to WoW two or three months in was another object entirely.  They had to invent a whole new set of rules, since they started to enter into levels of concurrency, and amount of server storage required, that hadn't been seen before for an online game.

Originally posted by Kurush

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by truuk

Originally posted by Gabby-air

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by Korby

I do have to agree that WoW had a fail launch. It took most WC3 players like a year before they moved to the MMO.

 

wow's launch was horrid.  it was a good 6+ months before the hyjal server was consistently available AND playable (wasn't always very playable when it was available).

but it was their first mmo and they did have tons more customers than they'd expected.

 

they also had official forums.  something scarehammer online can't be bothered with.

Ok dont flame me here but didnt blizzard make diablo and starcraft, which were popular games, so how can wow be there first mmo?sorry if i don't know what im tlaking about

 

i misspoke. It was their first mmorpg. Not their first mmo.

 

 

to the person nerd raging over semantics about diablo and starcraft.

 

what exactly about diablo and starcraft gave blizzard experience in dealing with thousands of people in a 3d world simultaneously interacting?

was it the half a dozen people (or less, i don't remember) which could simultaneously play a single game of diablo/starcraft at once?

was it the direct-connect to another player to play diablo 2 with your friend that gave them experience in handling 50 servers with 5k people on each one?

 

how exactly do your comments make sense and pertain to what we're talking about?

 

please do educate me, gabby-air.

 

I'll educate you, actually.  First of all, it was fewer for individual games for D2 and SC.  Most of the time, it capped at 8.  That's not relevant, though.  You don't realize how battle.net runs and how closely related to that architecture WoW is.

Battle.net runs off a finite number of servers.  Each one holds more than one game.  In fact, playerwise, the capacity for a b.net server isn't too far from that of a WoW world server.  Each modern WoW realm is run by three world servers.  They can crash individually.  That's right.  Kalimdor and its associated instances can actually be down while people in EK are playing fine.  So individual WoW servers are not very big.  In terms of overall player count across all servers, Blizzard had experience there too.  When both D2 and SC were very hot, the total concurrency count for all of b.net was well into the hundreds of thousands.  Think about that.  Concurrency, not total players, in the hundreds of thousands.  No MMORPG has seen that, ever, short of WoW.

So, in terms of player numbers, going from battle.net architecture to WoW at launch wasn't so far off.  It was a lateral move, if you look only at player count or total players across all servers.  That's why Blizzard was confident.  It was other things that got Blizzard.

First off, the population at launch was not evenly distributed.  I played starting about a week after launch and for months after that.  I saw one queue that lasted five minutes.  No crashes.  No lag during peak times.  There were several servers like that.  Blizzard didn't anticipate parabolic growth, though, since they entirely underestimated how many people would join WoW due to word of mouth.  By the time they opened new servers, it was too late.  The ones that were overcrowded stayed that way, and they were left with unused capacity on the smaller ones.

Second, it was the scale of the overall system which eventually started to hurt them.  WoW's architecture would have been fine if WoW didn't smash all records in the space of a few months.  B.net to WoW at launch, assuming perfectly distributed players, would have been fine.  B.net to WoW two or three months in was another object entirely.  They had to invent a whole new set of rules, since they started to enter into levels of concurrency, and amount of server storage required, that hadn't been seen before for an online game.

link for your information?   sorry, i don't tend to just take random internet persons as experts in any field.

Originally posted by severity3

   I'm not kidding. The next time I see someone in these forums say "you have obviously never played an mmo at launch before", I am going to kill a kitten. Not a nice death either. I will smash it against a tree.

   People, stop being idiots. The second you use this way overused phrase, and others like it (i.e. "go back to wow noob") , you reveal yourself as an idiot.

   This is not 1998. The whole, launches are supposed to suck excuse does NOT hold water anymore. Games that released early in the genre were treading on new ground. Yes, ao had bugs, EQ had bugs, even wow was a pretty crappy launch (yes fanbois, it was). but goddammit, this isn't new technology now!

   Many of these absolute disaster launches aren't even from companies releasing their first mmo. Funcom has like 8 years experience in the business.

     The companies releasing terrible games now are using the classic "money grab" scam, and you , the gamer , are allowing them to! They have the ability to release games in a finished state. They do, I promise. Why bother though? When you can release a alpha state game, and the fanbois will come, and spew "give them time, it's a new game".

     Seriously people, think of meowie!

 

lol dood why don't you just go choke the chicken, you'll feel better