Originally posted by SpottyGekko

Lol, if a game has 700K players, what diffirence does it make whether they are spread over 214 servers or 20 servers ? As long as the servers can handle the player numbers.

 

So having many servers with a few players on each is the same as having fewer much more populated servers?

I think your logic has gone stale... [mod edit]

---

Originally posted by cutthecrap
Ah, you changed your thread title. Good, the former one made you look like you were some dumb ass who can't count and probably failed at math, this one is slightly better.

 

---

Originally posted by pierth This is precisely what happens when a Massively Solo Online Role-Playing Game (with optional multiplayer) is created. Those players that insist MMORPGs cater to solo playstyles are actively telling Pubs/Devs to shoot themselves in the foot. Proof that solo content-locust playstyles kill MMOs.

---

Not really. Try to implement enforced grouping for leveling, and you'll have people leaving in droves. It wasn't for nothing that after EQ, Blizzard introduced solo-capable leveling in their MMO. And they were hugely successful with it, far more people prefer to be able to level solo when wanted than having to look for group all the time in order to progress in a game. In the end, it's all about fun.

 

It's only such that you need to have a lot of other features too that is regarded as fun, besides the quest based leveling.

---

Source? Metrics/Statistics? Any proof whatsoever? Because the last two "forced grouping" games that I played were FFXI and EQ1 both of which have run with profitable amounts of players for years.

Certainly, if MMO Pubs are only seeking players for less than six months they should focus on soloers- however if they are looking to profit on more than box sales then it shows that it's a stupid, stupid thing to do.

[mod edit]

Just kidding :3!

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

Lol, if a game has 700K players, what diffirence does it make whether they are spread over 214 servers or 20 servers ? As long as the servers can handle the player numbers.

 

It sounds like the doomsayers are going to use the character transfer numbers to try to "prove" that the game is finally "dead". Is the subtext here something like: "Wow, if they needed 214 servers for 1 million players, reducing that to 20 servers must mean the game only has 100K players left !!1!!!"

 

SWTOR had the smoothest launch in MMO history, but it came at quite a steep price in the end. Having so many servers at launch (and aggresively managing server loadings) made for very smooth gameplay during the initial rush, but it has left a large number of servers empty now that the population has stabilised.

So, what's really important ? The drop in player numbers is important, and we can clearly see that the numbers have dropped substantially (even by the official announcements), so nothing new there. The re-arrangement of remaining players on fewer (but bigger) servers is expected, not headline news...

 

Stop fooling yourself please.  It would be surprising if the game has greater than 500K active players right now and as soon as GW2/TSW launch they'll be heading down to the 200-300K range. (one man's opinion)

Originally posted by Fadedbomb

[updated title & post with accurate info]

I barely have words for this. I've never EVER seen a game launch with such large numbers only to go as far as reducing their total server count to a small fraction of its original count. 10 or 20 servers sure, but 100s?! 

 

 

Simply, wow...... O_o;

Um I am fairly sure WAR did something on a similar scale around 4-6 months after release, people left in droves (including me) when the lead dev kept denying things were broken even in the face of a mountain of actual facts and figures proving key features meant for balance were broken. but anyways.

Um what Can I say, I really like Star Wars but:

Shit game is shit.....

Originally posted by TheCrow2k

Originally posted by Fadedbomb

[updated title & post with accurate info]

I barely have words for this. I've never EVER seen a game launch with such large numbers only to go as far as reducing their total server count to a small fraction of its original count. 10 or 20 servers sure, but 100s?! 

 

 

Simply, wow...... O_o;

Um I am fairly sure WAR did something on a similar scale around 4-6 months after release, people left in droves (including me) when the lead dev kept denying things were broken even in the face of a mountain of actual facts and figures proving balance was broken. but anyways.

Um what Can I say, I really like Star Wars but:

 

Shit game is shit.....

War never had more than 40 servers at launch as I recall and then merged down to about 10 within 3months. Don't quote me as It's been awhile & I can't be bothered @ 6am to go hunt for hours for a source.

Originally posted by pierth

 

---

Originally posted by cutthecrap
Ah, you changed your thread title. Good, the former one made you look like you were some dumb ass who can't count and probably failed at math, this one is slightly better.

 

---

Originally posted by pierth This is precisely what happens when a Massively Solo Online Role-Playing Game (with optional multiplayer) is created. Those players that insist MMORPGs cater to solo playstyles are actively telling Pubs/Devs to shoot themselves in the foot. Proof that solo content-locust playstyles kill MMOs.

---

Not really. Try to implement enforced grouping for leveling, and you'll have people leaving in droves. It wasn't for nothing that after EQ, Blizzard introduced solo-capable leveling in their MMO. And they were hugely successful with it, far more people prefer to be able to level solo when wanted than having to look for group all the time in order to progress in a game. In the end, it's all about fun.

 

It's only such that you need to have a lot of other features too that is regarded as fun, besides the quest based leveling.

 

Source? Metrics/Statistics? Any proof whatsoever? Because the last two "forced grouping" games that I played were FFXI and EQ1 both of which have run with profitable amounts of players for years.

Certainly, if MMO Pubs are only seeking players for less than six months they should focus on soloers- however if they are looking to profit on more than box sales then it shows that it's a stupid, stupid thing to do.

Unless the stats have changed, most players, solo or not, only stick around for 6 or so months before moving on. And, yes, EQ1 and FFXI found plenty of flagellates to masochistically enjoy their gameplay. I don't see how this disproves his point that far more people want to have solo play available to them when they want to venture out solo. That you reply with "Any proof whatsoever?" right after he just gave you the behemoth of the industry as an example kinda indicates you're probably too polarized in the group/solo thing to spend more time discussing it.

Originally posted by pierth

 

---

Originally posted by cutthecrap
Ah, you changed your thread title. Good, the former one made you look like you were some dumb ass who can't count and probably failed at math, this one is slightly better.

 

 

---

Originally posted by pierth This is precisely what happens when a Massively Solo Online Role-Playing Game (with optional multiplayer) is created. Those players that insist MMORPGs cater to solo playstyles are actively telling Pubs/Devs to shoot themselves in the foot. Proof that solo content-locust playstyles kill MMOs.

---

Not really. Try to implement enforced grouping for leveling, and you'll have people leaving in droves. It wasn't for nothing that after EQ, Blizzard introduced solo-capable leveling in their MMO. And they were hugely successful with it, far more people prefer to be able to level solo when wanted than having to look for group all the time in order to progress in a game. In the end, it's all about fun.

 

 

It's only such that you need to have a lot of other features too that is regarded as fun, besides the quest based leveling.

---

 

Source? Metrics/Statistics? Any proof whatsoever? Because the last two "forced grouping" games that I played were FFXI and EQ1 both of which have run with profitable amounts of players for years.

Certainly, if MMO Pubs are only seeking players for less than six months they should focus on soloers- however if they are looking to profit on more than box sales then it shows that it's a stupid, stupid thing to do.

Dude. Do I really have to convince you of the simple given that a lot more people enjoy it when they're able to solo level and questing more than there are people that prefer enforced grouping and/or mob grinding? I mean, seriously?

I'd bet 100 dollars that enforced grouping just isn't as popular and accepted as being able to level solo, and that people hate mob grinding more than they dislike solo quest leveling. WoW's success is enough proof of that.

And EQ and FFXI ran with profitable numbers because there was hardly any choice of MMO. When WoW came however, players left for WoW in droves.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

That you reply with "Any proof whatsoever?" right after he just gave you the behemoth of the industry as an example kinda indicates you're probably too polarized in the group/solo thing to spend more time discussing it.

And this.

I had a great time in EQ, but I'm also aware what its flaws were, what players complaints ingame often were about, and why follow up MMO's focused more on providing a larger amount of quests and the option to easier level solo, and with success.

Originally posted by Fadedbomb

Originally posted by cutthecrap

Originally posted by Fadedbomb

Originally posted by Kost

The linked numbers have nothing to do with mergers, no mergers have occured.

They are only showing the destinations for the free transfers. Very misleading thread title and content, seems intentionally misleading to be honest.

They ARE doing mergers, and the destination for the free transfers from the closed servers are listed. What i posted was correct.

Nope, it wasn't. You can't even count, which is purely lame and hilarious. I'd laugh at your OP and the misinformation in it, but I'm too bored with it all right now. Try better next time, entertainment value was imo an F, I'm sure you can do better.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/06/13/star-wars-the-old-republic-unleashes-second-wave-of-server-tran/

 

Quote:

"Star Wars: The Old Republic's server merges are continuing at a steady pace, and today Bioware has sent another round of servers up to bat. If you've been waiting patiently for your chance to hop to a more populated server, now's your opportunity."

 

You do realise that the quote is from the Massively article writer & not BioWare right?

[mod edit]

on december 26 when on official forums you got a thread thats " OMGAD SKILL DELAY PEW PEW PEW" and theres 1000 comments and its been viewed 100k times and devs actually commentate saying that everything was working as intented (who saw it knows the comment im talking about, was left only a few hours untill removed from mods but I saw it) insulting the players telling them they are at fault....really explains everything.

Warhammer had more than 40 in US more like 98 I think from what I recall. I mean here they closed 63 servers in this article.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/warhammer-online-closing-63-servers

"Mythic's MMO Warhammer Online is closing 63 low-population servers: 43 in the North American and Oceanic regions run by Mythic itself, and 20 of the European servers operated by GOA."

That is why I cannot understand how they never learnt from that mistake.

i know that the people who hate this game see this as a sign that its dead but it really makes me want to resub and see if I can use the more populated server and the new dungeon queue to actually see what the end game stuff is like.

I unsubbed 2 days after hitting 50 because i was one of 4 people on my fleet one night (this was 4 weeks after launch too) and waited 5 hours in a WZ queue and was like "Yeah... no. fuck this." I mean a few weeks after launch and there isnt even 5 pubs in the main fucking game hub?

---

Originally posted by Loktofeit

---

Originally posted by pierth  

---

Originally posted by cutthecrap Ah, you changed your thread title. Good, the former one made you look like you were some dumb ass who can't count and probably failed at math, this one is slightly better.  

---

Originally posted by pierth This is precisely what happens when a Massively Solo Online Role-Playing Game (with optional multiplayer) is created. Those players that insist MMORPGs cater to solo playstyles are actively telling Pubs/Devs to shoot themselves in the foot. Proof that solo content-locust playstyles kill MMOs.

---

Not really. Try to implement enforced grouping for leveling, and you'll have people leaving in droves. It wasn't for nothing that after EQ, Blizzard introduced solo-capable leveling in their MMO. And they were hugely successful with it, far more people prefer to be able to level solo when wanted than having to look for group all the time in order to progress in a game. In the end, it's all about fun.   It's only such that you need to have a lot of other features too that is regarded as fun, besides the quest based leveling.

---

  Source? Metrics/Statistics? Any proof whatsoever? Because the last two "forced grouping" games that I played were FFXI and EQ1 both of which have run with profitable amounts of players for years. Certainly, if MMO Pubs are only seeking players for less than six months they should focus on soloers- however if they are looking to profit on more than box sales then it shows that it's a stupid, stupid thing to do.

---

Unless the stats have changed, most players, solo or not, only stick around for 6 or so months before moving on. And, yes, EQ1 and FFXI found plenty of flagellates to masochistically enjoy their gameplay. I don't see how this disproves his point that far more people want to have solo play available to them when they want to venture out solo. That you reply with "Any proof whatsoever?" right after he just gave you the behemoth of the industry as an example kinda indicates you're probably too polarized in the group/solo thing to spend more time discussing it.

---

And yet he didn't, all he asserted was an opinion. I can say the industry is massively misinformed, and it's obvious that the majority of players want a MMORPG that focuses and revolves around meaningful progression via grouping. Prove me wrong. It's the same thing, just because I say it doesn't make it immediately true.

No amount of logical fallacies (ad hominem such as calling those that prefer gameplay you do not as masochistic flagellates, etc) prove anything you're saying.

What I'm saying is SWTOR is a MMO (and I use that term loosely) that came directly from the lineage of single player games and made the majority of its gameplay accessible and comfortable for solo players- moreso than any of it's predecessors and this is the result. And pointing out WoW as an example is laughably ridiculous- if WoW's success was based solely from being able to solo (and I'll even add having a successful IP) then why is SWTOR in the crapper? Why weren't all the other WoW-clones more successful?

I can see you disagree with me, but opinions prove nothing.

@pierth: if you think that enforced grouping will be warmly embraced by the majority of MMO gamers, and that quest content isn't liked and preferred above mob grinding, then there's very little left to say. Enjoy your long wait for MMO's that offer just that, I'm sure there will be some, but the majority of MMO gamers just don't enjoy stuff like enforced grouping.

Heck, you can hold a poll on this site, other sites, and it should become equally clear.

But hey, whatever, looks like it's your wet dream to play in MMO's like that, and you have a thorough, black&white kind of dislike for MMO's that offer solo friendly, quest based leveling, MMO's that you despise. Can't say I'm really surprised, after all this is the site where many disgruntled ex-MMO gamers go to who want to complain that they can't enjoy the MMO genre anymore. I wish you luck with your search for MMO's with enforced grouping and lack of quest leveling content.

Originally posted by Fadedbomb

[updated title & post with accurate info]

I barely have words for this. I've never EVER seen a game launch with such large numbers only to go as far as reducing their total server count to a small fraction of its original count. 10 or 20 servers sure, but 100s?! 

 

 

Simply, wow...... O_o;

Can't even compare to WAR, the huge drop came just after 2 months in WAR and SWTOR has been out for 6 months. Even though they lost a lot of players the honor of sharpest decline in player base after release still goes to WAR and AOC.

SWTOR opened with too many serveres and even when they were claiming to have 1.3 million players a lot of serveres were still on light. As of now SWTOR still has second highest player base in P2P category with Rift being third.

---

Originally posted by cutthecrap

---

Originally posted by pierth  

---

Originally posted by cutthecrap Ah, you changed your thread title. Good, the former one made you look like you were some dumb ass who can't count and probably failed at math, this one is slightly better.    

---

Originally posted by pierth This is precisely what happens when a Massively Solo Online Role-Playing Game (with optional multiplayer) is created. Those players that insist MMORPGs cater to solo playstyles are actively telling Pubs/Devs to shoot themselves in the foot. Proof that solo content-locust playstyles kill MMOs. Not really. Try to implement enforced grouping for leveling, and you'll have people leaving in droves. It wasn't for nothing that after EQ, Blizzard introduced solo-capable leveling in their MMO. And they were hugely successful with it, far more people prefer to be able to level solo when wanted than having to look for group all the time in order to progress in a game. In the end, it's all about fun.     It's only such that you need to have a lot of other features too that is regarded as fun, besides the quest based leveling.   Source? Metrics/Statistics? Any proof whatsoever? Because the last two "forced grouping" games that I played were FFXI and EQ1 both of which have run with profitable amounts of players for years. Certainly, if MMO Pubs are only seeking players for less than six months they should focus on soloers- however if they are looking to profit on more than box sales then it shows that it's a stupid, stupid thing to do.

---

Dude. Do I really have to convince you of the simple given that a lot more people enjoy it when they're able to solo level and questing more than there are people that prefer enforced grouping and/or mob grinding? I mean, seriously?

 

I'd bet 100 dollars that enforced grouping just isn't as popular and accepted as being able to level solo, and that people hate mob grinding more than they dislike solo quest leveling. WoW's success is enough proof of that.

And EQ and FFXI ran with profitable numbers because there was hardly any choice of MMO. When WoW came however, players left for WoW in droves.

  Originally posted by Loktofeit

---

That you reply with "Any proof whatsoever?" right after he just gave you the behemoth of the industry as an example kinda indicates you're probably too polarized in the group/solo thing to spend more time discussing it.

---

And this.

I had a great time in EQ, but I'm also aware what its flaws were, what players complaints ingame often were about, and why follow up MMO's focused more on providing a larger amount of quests and the option to easier level solo, and with success.

---

You can bet a billion dollars if you like, we'll never know until there's a AAA group-centric MMO with modern graphics and the polish of WoW to base that from. I'm not saying soloing shouldn't be possible. Soloing was definitely possible in EQ1 (even moreso over time) but they didn't make content specifically so everyone could solo it alone.

As for the rest of your reply, just because it's repeated that most players prefer to solo doesn't make it true.

Again I'll say, if Devs/Pubs want to make money solely on box sales then continue making games that cater to soloers- they'll buy them, play them as single player games, and leave.

I'd posit that this is one of the reasons that F2P/freemium (even B2P) models are taking over the industry- if players won't accept grindy games, and they are to continue catering to solo players that leave within six months anyway, then there's no reason to go the P2P route because there won't be enough players to stay around for it to be more profitable than a cash shop instead.

Edit: forgot a needed word, also- I'm still happily playing MMOs, there are a few titles I enjoy including one that hasn't been released yet. Has nothing to do with what I want. I have what I want- I'm showing that there's clear evidence in SWTOR- a hugely hyped, big IP, solotastic faux-MMO will fail when they make the game all about soloing. I'm sorry that doesn't fit some people's preferred playstyles, but the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

Originally posted by pierth

 

I'd posit that this is one of the reasons that F2P/freemium (even B2P) models are taking over the industry- if players won't accept grindy games, and they are to continue catering to solo players that leave within six months anyway, then there's no reason to go the P2P route because there won't be enough players to stay around for it to be more profitable than a cash shop instead.

WHat? how many B2P MMO have released that proved to be so successful that you are claiming they are taking over the industry? moreover F2P is nothing but a gimmick. Most of the players end up subscribing anyways to regular monthly fee for unilimited access to all the features of game because otherwise you end up forking a lot more cash if you stick to F2P model.

F2P model is nothign more thana glorious trial, best deal is still to pay a monthly sub. Companies sure now how to fool people don't they? F2P/B2P taking over industry..yeah right.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by pierth

Just goes to show the importance of having a quality, compelling endgame.

Not really. TOR is just putting all the focus on soloing so people enjoy the game for 1-3 months and then feel done with it like a singleplayer game.

If you want people to play a long time you need to focus on multiplayer instead or at least have 50/50.

That is a bit contradictory. You first off disagree with "Not really", and then agree with the rest of your post

I guess it depends on your point of view, but I find most other MMOs endgame revoives around multiplayer, as mainly because they are multiplayer experiences more than single player,  due to them being Massively Muitiiplayer Online games!

Originally posted by sgel

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

Lol, if a game has 700K players, what diffirence does it make whether they are spread over 214 servers or 20 servers ? As long as the servers can handle the player numbers.

 

So having many servers with a few players on each is the same as having fewer much more populated servers?

I think your logic has gone stale... 

[mod edit]

Perhaps my logic has "gone stale" :D

So can you please explain to me how subscriber numbers are irrelevant, but server numbers are important ?

---

Originally posted by Sameer1979

---

Originally posted by pierth   I'd posit that this is one of the reasons that F2P/freemium (even B2P) models are taking over the industry- if players won't accept grindy games, and they are to continue catering to solo players that leave within six months anyway, then there's no reason to go the P2P route because there won't be enough players to stay around for it to be more profitable than a cash shop instead.

---

WHat? how many B2P MMO have released that proved to be so successful that you are claiming they are taking over the industry? moreover F2P is nothing but a gimmick. Most of the players end up subscribing anyways to regular monthly fee for unilimited access to all the features of game because otherwise you end up forking a lot more cash if you stick to F2P model.

F2P model is nothign more thana glorious trial, best deal is still to pay a monthly sub. Companies sure now how to fool people don't they? F2P/B2P taking over industry..yeah right.

---

I extended the logic of the F2P/freemium pricing to B2P because essentially it'll be the same thing- monetizing after the fact via DLC/RMT as opposed to a subscription.

As I argued earlier in the thread, do you have any proof that the majority of players sub for the majority of their played time in a F2P (if possible) or freemium game? I know I haven't but anecdotal evidence is just that.

What about Aion's F2P? Is that a scam?

The only freemium game I've played where it was very necessary to subscribe was EQ2 and that's only if you're interested in its endgame due to gear limitations playing free.