Originally posted by augustgrace

Originally posted by dhayes68

Originally posted by augustgrace

Unfortunately we have an extremely vocal minority of gamers who don't seem to actually play games anymore, but rather spend their time trying to sink games.

Can you back that statement up as a fact or you just makin stuff up that suits you?

By your "logic" if the people who are unhappy with CO are a vocal minority, then the game should be doing quite well. The servers packed with the silent majority, hmm?

 

 

 

 

CO was always going to be a niche game, they were only aiming for 100k subs.

 

Do you think Cryptic, Microsoft and Marvel were only aiming for 100k subs when it was originally going to be Marvel Universe Online? Or do you think expectations were scaled back to 100k subs when Marvel and Microsoft pulled out of the project?

Originally posted by blueshadow

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

In response to this comment from the O.P.:

"I am not a fan of SOE, I just enjoy their game SWG, but as a company they also learn."

Tbh, I'm not conviced that they do learn.  What got them into so much trouble with things like the NGE?  Well, the list is huge, but let's focus on saying one thing and then doing the other.  We could also focus on massive changes to a live game, many of which erase player accomplishments and progress.  We could also focus on the poor quality of what was released.

Saying one thing and doing the other: You've mentioned EQ and EQ2.  SOE, Smed specifically, said that he was strongly opposed to adding RMT to those games.  Now, they do in fact have RMT, and a form of RMT that affects gameplay.  Has SOE really learned not to say one thing and do the other?

Regarding SWG, Smed first said that he would fast-track server mergers.  Instead of this, they eventually initiated the free transfer program.  Transfers are not server mergers.  Now, let's take this a step further.  At first players were told that there were no plans to close the servers that people could transfer from.  Those servers should of course still be open then right?  Wrong.  Despite saying that there were no plans to close the transfer from servers, they have now ceased to exist.

People who got excited about the quick server mergers would have been disappointed when they did not take place.  People that were told there were no plans to close their servers would now be disappointed that their servers have in fact been closed.  They'll be even more disappointed if they log in and find out that they have to pay 50 dollars to move their character off of a closed server.

Let's look at making changes to a live game that get rid of player progress and accomplishments.  SOE learned not to do this via the NGE right?  Wrong.  When they began their new GCW ranking system, all ranks previously gained were completely erased.  No conversion, at all. 

How about changing the business model of a live game?  SOE wouldn't do that would they?  Yes, they would.  SOE has added RMT loot by chance to their subscription-based game.  Was there a backlash to this change?  Of course there was.  In fact, some of the people who used to champion SWG on these boards quit over the shift to RMT.

Let's look at the quality at release of post-NGE development in SWG.  The Restuss PvP park was wrecked by a massive overspawn of storm-troopers.  The heroic instances had serious bugs and issues that did not allow players to complete them.  One of the recent special events had to be turned off and resheduled because it simply didn't work on the day it was planned. 

So, has SOE learned not to say one thing and do the other?  Have they learned not to make significant changes to their live games?  Have they learned to improve the quality of their content at release?  From the examples I've provided above, it sure doesn't seem like it to me.

This post  (Where you are OP) covers server merge (or character transfer):

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/6/view/forums/thread/256141/Transferring-off-of-a-closed-server-now-costs-50-bucks-Did-SOE-follow-through-on-this-edited-for-clarity.html

(though you heavily edited your post due to response but repeat it here).

 

 

So the best you can do to refute Arc's post, Blue, is to make a reference to the server merges thread, along with a snarky comment about him editing a post?

You've got nothing regarding the other issues he brought up in that post? No rebuttals? No counter-arguments to use in this debate? Just the snarky comment about server merges?

You're just going to ignore the issues he brought up and hope they go away, hoping no one will call you on it? I don't always agree with Arc (usually regarding CoX), but he brings up  very compelling and valid points here. Yet you're just going to sweep them under the rug and not address them -- like they never happened.

Lame.

Arc +1 (at least)

Originally posted by Suvroc

This whole thing reminds me of the Dunkirk evacuation of WW2 when over 300K British and French troops were rescued in the "miracle of the little ships". The press presented this evacuation as such a success that Winston Churchill had to remind the people that "we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations."

Excellent post, and a very appropriate quote for this discussion. Kudos.

Originally posted by blueshadow

If SWG  died. and thousands of players that love and are addicted to their characters and community would loose their game, a place they stay hours everyday. Would that make you feel good ?.. if so that person is evil.

Isn't that exactly what happened in November of 2005? Don't  you think the people that post here already have a frame of reference for exactly what you just stated? They know exactly what it feels like to have the rug yanked out from under them, so please don't act like they don't. They've been there, done that. They lived through the scenario you just described.

As for using the term evil (which I think is a bit of an exaggeration), just think about the people that made the decisions and brought about those drastic changes in November four years ago. Are they evil for perpetrating those changes? Did they ruin the game and run everyone off? If so, why blame the people that post here for the game's current state regarding population? The people that post here are not the ones responsible for the changes in the game that drove everyone off.

The game itself is the reason many people haven't stuck with it. As someone pointed out on these boards before, if the game was great it would sell itself. No amount of negativity could keep people away from it.

Originally posted by Raltar

Uh... I watched the first episode of SGU as well... and I don't recall them ever directly saying that the game he was playing was SGW. I got the impression it was just a random fictional game they made up for the story.

Also, while I liked SGU, I don't like the fact thats its trying really hard to be Battlestar Glactica. The last thing we need is another soap oprea in space where every episode revolves around trying to figure out who is having sex with who and playing guessing games to figure out who the actual bad guys are. The writers of this show need to stick to what made the previous Stargate shows great rather than trying to copy some other show which wasn't really that great.

I totally agree with your post regarding BSG. It felt much less like SG-1 or Atlantis and more like BSG. There was also some Lost tossed in, imho.

Eli reminded me very much of Hurley, while Rush and the Colonel reminded me of Locke and Jack. Rush seems to have ulterior motives and the previews showed him talking about this being his destiny, very much like Locke. The Colonel, meanwhile, was very straight-forward and focused on getting  everyone home while being very much in conflict with Rush, much like Jack was with Locke in earlier seasons of Lost.

The story telling also was reminiscent of Lost, with the flashbacks that focused on telling each character's back story.

Having said that, I did enjoy the first episode and was intrigued with the directions the show could take. I just hope the resonances of BSG and Lost don't become distracting in future episodes.

--Edited for clarity

Originally posted by Riceman

 

 

I don't think I can reply to this without seeming bitter, but here goes.

In a nutshell, my entire original post can be rendered down to one sentence:

"I like Galaxies. Try it, you might too."

  Actually, that was two sentences.

"I like Galaxies."
"Try it, you might too."

If memory serves, one of the early Going Rogue announcements included the fact that you will be able to quest and add 10 additional slots to your level 50's build. It's not increasing the level cap, but it is a way to add a few more set bonuses to help fill in any weaknesses or further enhance the strengths your 50 possesses.

Originally posted by TUX426

Originally posted by Bogie

Thanks for the feedback from everyone.  I've been playing mainly older games to waste time.  Played Mass Effect again and working on playing Titan Quest.  Would like to try Champions Online, but not sure if I want to pay $50 for it.  I guess I am like the rest of you waiting for TOR, also kind of interested in Star Trek Online.  Another one that has got my interest is Global Agenda.

 

Oh sweet Geezus...Mass Effect "again"? UGH!!! I couldn't finish it once >.< I am just soooo not a fan of Bioware RPGs. I admire anyone who was able to play it TWICE...that's my greatest fear of ToR...I just PRAY it's not KotOR or Mass Effect online. And so far, it doesn't look at all like it will be. Obviously some similar styles, but not the same engine thank God.

What about Stargate Worlds? Isn't that due out next year? Or Earthrise?

Stargate Worlds allegedly is struggling with a lack of funding and allegations that it's caught up in part of a Ponzi scheme. Lot of drama surrounding it. A number of posters in the SGW forum here, including some who claim to be investors, think it'll wind up being vaporware. Check out the SGW forum here. Makes for some interesting reading.

Originally posted by asdfg

<p>So you nge haters!, would la let soe to make another mmo for them if nge was a failure? Nge is a huge success and thats why they let soe make them another mmo! Imo if they released the SWG as the latest state of nge in 2003 noone it would have 10 millions subs not wow! Pre nge drove casual gamers away from swg. pre nge is the biggest failure of a mmo ever.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

This guy is the anti-matter universe's version of Darth Raiden on these boards.

Originally posted by ummax

You can't mislead people who can go check with their own eyes.   Neither you nor badger can judge for others.    Anyone who actualy listens to stuff on these boards be them positive or negative and takes it all as totaly accurate is going to have issues.  

Bottom line let them log in and see for themselves and leave it at that this stuff about "misleading" is on both sides and is just a way to keep up heated discussions on something that only a player can judge

Calling what one person says as misleading and saying the complete total opposite is unfair

now they can't be both

1) totally deserted

2) highest popution possible

anyone with a brain in their head is gonna go check for themselves and decide it the population is large enough to actually play the game.   If you see something that says "light" then the traffic is lowest there.  If you want high population then go to where is says the population is highest.

There are some servers that will be closing down because the free server transfers was actually a merge so just dont go to them.   I can't remember all the servers that were "transfer from"  servers but there is a list somewhere.   Don't play on those servers play on the servers that are "transfer to" servers.    That is where the people are .  Of course I am never sure why these questions are repeatedly posted when most gamers usualy look at the server population guages from the company to see what server has people when they start a character.

Obviously you have to pick one that has traffic when you actually play so when you make your character check the server traffic ratings and pick one to your liking.  The rest is just for arguments sake.  No one knows what the present population of swg is they are only guessing, but if you want to play on a high pop server people can tell you what servers those are.

 

 

I agree with this. The truth probably lies somewhere in between, regarding claims of whether servers are totally deserted or highest population ever. I'm not much of one for hyperbole, which is why I often disagree with Badger's assertions that a given population is the highest it's ever been and such. On the other end of the spectrum, I used to roll my eyes at some of Wildcat's assertions about population size being incredibly low and scenarios for the game's closing, especially since none of us had any empirical evidence to back up such claims on either side.

Originally posted by BadgerSmaker

Originally posted by Lord_Ixigan

If this was the case then SWG would have been steadily growing over the years, not declining.

 

It is.  Log in to one of SWGs top eight servers and see.

If players hadn't skewed themselves across the top eight servers with the Free CTS, we'd have a healthy population on all 24 servers, just a bit larger than Shadowfire currently. 

But try Starsider, it's rockin'.

That's an awfully bold claim. What kind of empirical evidence do you have to back that up? I saw your annecdotal evidence above about what you see when in-game, and I respect that. But to try to use that alone and spin it into the claim above is an incredible leap.

How do you arrive at this conclusion, other than saying, "I see plenty of people on my server(s)." How can you seriously quantify the size of the population base and deem it's enough to "have a healthy population on all 24 servers"? I don't think any of us can do that, given the limited knowledge regarding subs and such. Are you privy to information we're not?

To me, this conclusion just seems like a huge leap with no real way of backing it up.

Originally posted by BadgerSmaker

Originally posted by Valeran

Originally posted by Gutboy

And your source for saying that sub numbers go down every time is?

 

my eyes

 

What server do you play on, Valeran?

I put together some server population stats recently, you can see the effect of the Free Character Transfer on the different servers.

As Gutboy says, paticipation in the GCW ranking system has increased by 2000 players or so since GU10 and I will be making a new chat on that later tonight.

Green: Destination server
Yellow: Destination server
Red: "Transfer from" server.

West Coast USA Servers

Flurry - 1219 GCW Ranked players and 188 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Bria - 910 GCW Ranked players and 187 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Ahazi - 726 GCW Ranked players and 152 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Sunrunner - 233 GCW Ranked players and 69 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Kettemoor - 1 GCW Ranked players and 7 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Valycn - 12 GCW Ranked players and 5 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Corbantis - 1 GCW Ranked players and 5 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Intrepid - 0 GCW Ranked players and 5 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Scylla - 5 GCW Ranked players and 3 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Naritus - 1 GCW Ranked players and 2 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Tempest - 2 GCW Ranked players and 3 Rank 2 or above player cities.

East Coast USA Servers

Starsider - 1749 GCW Ranked players and 216 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Bloodfin - 931 GCW Ranked players and 184 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Chilastra - 861 GCW Ranked players and 155 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Shadowfire - 380 GCW Ranked players and 93 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Radiant - 363 GCW Ranked players and 76 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Gorath - 334 GCW Ranked players and 87 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Eclipse - 334 GCW Ranked players and 84 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Kauri - 9 GCW Ranked players and 4 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Lowca - 3 GCW Ranked players and 4 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Tarquinas - 0 GCW Ranked players and 6 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Wanderhome - 0 GCW Ranked players and 4 Rank 2 or above player cities.

European Servers

Europe-Chimaera - 827 GCW Ranked players and 162 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Europe-FarStar - 903 GCW Ranked players and 156 Rank 2 or above player cities.
Europe-Infinity - 3 GCW Ranked players and 4 Rank 2 or above player cities.

Here's some stats on how the servers ended up as they are currently due to the Free CTS:

 

So Badger, if we take your hypothesis that there's a surge in population based on the numbers you present in regards to the GCW, can we also posit that almost half the servers are practically empty because they have 12 or fewer officers? It appears 12 of the 25 servers are red and have less than a dozen officers.

If I'm understanding you, the bump in officer numbers on several servers is indicative of either a migration of players or of new players/old vets jumping into the game. So how do you explain such low numbers on half the servers, other than the recent migration? Do you think that's a positive reflection of a game with a healthy sub base, and should those 12 servers be shut down or condensed?  I'm just curious as to what your take on that is.

Originally posted by ummax

 

---

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

 

. Notice any differences between these tournaments and SOE's?
 

---

 

Soe is holding free online tournaments within an mmorpg setting and giving away prizes.

So if the online tournament is free, I can play without having to pay a monthly subscription fee? If I could download the TCG client by itself as freeware and participate without paying the MMO subscription, I'd agree with you that the tournament is free.

On the other hand, if I do have to pay a fee (the monthly subscription fee) to gain access to the TCG client and participate in the online tournament, the tournament then ceases to be free. I'm having to pay to play it, which could be what differentiates the TCG tournament from those Arc posted above as free.

Originally posted by MikeMB

First things first, this is not gambling. Before you scream at me about how it is, I am one who does gamble and I enjoy it. And there is some skill used in gambling, knowing the odd's or telling if that person across from you has a better hand then you do. There is also another thing that comes with gambling, a level of enjoyment! Yes you could lose or you could win but you can have fun when doing it!

The card game loot is just "random" there is no real enjoyment with it unless you really like the card game. And even then those loot cards are just too random, from what I have seen there are no odds or chances with the card game loot cards. Some drop a bit more then others... But still there isn't really any enjoyment that comes with it.

Actually, your description of the TCG matches  the process of gambling via lotteries like Powerball and Mega-Millions. There's no skill involved and no one sitting across from you to compete with when playing the lottery. There's no level of enjoyment, unless you win. And like you said,  the loot cards are extremely random -- just like the lottery numbers in Powerball or Mega Millions.  In both the TCG and Powerball/Mega-Millions, you have to pay to play (either a subscription fee or for a pack of cards in SWG).

The only differences are 1) SOE doesn't publish chances to win like Powerball and Mega Millions, and 2) PB and MM are regulated by state and federal agencies.

Other than that, it seems your description of the payment/distribution method employed by the TCG  matches that of regulated gambling game like Powerball and Mega Millions.

deleted

Perhaps we add an N1 category for posters like myself? I usually lurk and digest the various debates on a daily basis, but rarely post. I'm usually prompted to post when something seems outrageous on either side.

This could also represent the few posters that come down on both sides of the fence -- they run the middle of the road, if you will. Of course, that's rather rare here.

Saay, how much of the growth on your servers can be attributed to new players, and how much of it can be attributed to current players checking out other servers before the free transfers begin?

Originally posted by Gutboy

To the OP, in the Pre-cu time period you did not have "quests", you would take a terminal mission and kill lairs of kreedles, womp rats and such over and over, no story line just mindless killing to level up.

Gutboy is right, there wasn't a lot of directed quests or story arcs in the pre-cu era. But to me, the beauty of that time was I didn't really need a lot of dev-created content to enjoy the game at that time.

I had four toons I used to set up a resources business on Shadowfire. My BH used his scout skills to harvest organics. I took custom orders and had bulk items offered on a vendor. I also enjoyed being an MCH with him, taming new pets and raising them.

My smuggler sliced weapons and armor for various smiths or people just passing by looking for a cheap slice. He also sold spice.

My TKM/Swords was my adventure toon. I used him to explore the more dangerous areas of the galaxy, and he was my favorite pilot. I'd use him on salvage runs to stock up on ship loot so I could use my SW to RE quality parts for other pilots. I took orders for missiles, torpedoes and flares, and occassionally I built custom ship parts for friends.

And the SW was also more than just a ship builder. I used him to mine resources across the galaxy. I spent tons of time surveying on all the planets, setting up my harvesters and logging in my other characters to place harvesters in the best spots, too. When I wasn't off adventuring in space or on dangerous planets, I was checking my harvesters, comparing  my prices to those of the competitors and slashing if necessary, haggling on prices with customers, crafting new items, trying to stir up new business in the cantina or interacting with tons of people by just shooting the breeze.

So, Pre-cu was more than just doing terminal missions and mindless killing to level up -- I made my own content by running a virtual business and interacting with so many other players. And sure, a number of those things can still be done in the current version of the game (well, except for the slicing and the spice crafting). But for me, it's just not the same without the same bustling community as before. A number of the systems that were set up to promote socialization and dependecy were done away with the NGE. Then the community took a major hit with the NGE, and so did my ability to make my own content and enjoy the game as I had in the past.

Originally posted by Gutboy

Do you get 5 free packs (15 cards per pack) of TCG cards each month as part of your subscription in WoW?

 

 

Those cards aren't free are they? Don't they come with the $15 monthly subscription? If they were free, you could mail in and get them for nothing other than the cost of a stamp, just like when you enter a McDonald's giveaway promotion. Hence the "no purchase necessary" line that goes with the McDonald's promotion.

If you don't pay your $15 monthly fee, do you still get the cards? If not, then they're not truly free.

Edited for clarity.

Originally posted by gimmly12

no i am just sick of people on all these foums sayin rumors that shouldn't be said cause they are ticked about the NGE and most havn't even given it a try yet to see how much better it has become.

How can you quantify this as a fact?  Given it has been three years and there have been numerous free trials provided, don't you think a number of former players have probably tried it to see if they like it? Don't you think a number of players have used their free trials to check out game updates from time to time? I've tried it several times myself.

I think if you change the word "most" to "some" in the highlighted fragment above, you might be correct. But to use the word "most" is taking a pretty huge leap when you have no way of actually backing up that claim.