Pesco fucked around with this message on 11-27-2004 at 03:04 PM.
quote:
From the book of Pesco, chapter 3, verse 16:
Not to mention revealing you have a single point of failure is a million times worse.
As opposed to SoE's approach of "Pretend it doesn't exist and hope the problem fixes itself"?
quote:
Blah blah blah Sakkra blah blah blah...
As opposed to SoE's approach of "Pretend it doesn't exist and hope the problem fixes itself"?
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURN! [/kelso]
quote:
Derek wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
They've stated over and over again that the problems are occurring because of the huge interest in the game. The item databases are shared over multiple servers and therefore it is related to overall server population.The servers ran flawlessly until primetime on release day. Its only an assumption on my part but that seems to imply that its caused by server load.
The servers ran far from flawlessly. Even in closed beta the mailboxes and AHs would go down at times, and subsequently the server would crash. It wasn't terrible, but you could expect downtime every couple of days due to server or zone crashing. Linking to channels, other than the trade channel, was most likely removed in closed beta because it put too much strain on the servers as well. In open beta there were huge problems with lag on every sever every day. Doesn't sound flawless to me.
quote:
Pesco's fortune cookie read:
I'm sorry, but 80-something world servers (or what they will have when they bring them up) for <500,000 people is just pathetic. No other game has had to put that much horse power behind the scenes to make it run. Not to mention revealing you have a single point of failure is a million times worse.
Everquest is at how many servers now? Besides, WoW has the largest playerbase of any game that doesn't heavily use zoning or a lot of instancing. With zones/instances you can distribute the load on multiple zones easier than in a seamless game.
Just to give an example, Mythic used to keep the dungeon zones in DAoC seperate from the rest of the world to ease the loads, and I'm pretty sure DF was kept seperate from that as well. You could have the outside world crash, but you'd be fine in dungeons. If the dungeons or world server crashed, sometimes DF would be up.
Having all those servers is a good thing for WoW right now. In the future there will most likely be a problem with underpopulated servers when the playerbase shrinks. That's down the road though, and Blizzard has never ruled out server transfers. For now though, there's not much Blizzard can do except throw more servers at it. If the server is only designed to hold 2-3k people overall, can't exactly expect it to hold more. *shrugs*
quote:
Talonus stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
The servers ran far from flawlessly. Even in closed beta the mailboxes and AHs would go down at times, and subsequently the server would crash. It wasn't terrible, but you could expect downtime every couple of days due to server or zone crashing. Linking to channels, other than the trade channel, was most likely removed in closed beta because it put too much strain on the servers as well. In open beta there were huge problems with lag on every sever every day. Doesn't sound flawless to me.
I meant when release started. I played all day and it worked beautifully until the problems that evening. Sorry, I should have been more clear.
So sure, there's only 250k subscribers, but there'd be a much larger number of players in the game than you'd find on an average night of EQ1. In theory. 
quote:
Talonus was listening to Cher while typing:
Everquest is at how many servers now?
EQ1 does not have anywhere close to that many servers, and last I heard, they had over 1m subscribers.
quote:
Suddar's fortune cookie read:
You have to remember that while WoW "only" has 250k-300k subscribers, everybody's just got the game, most of them are actually people and not mules, and they probably all want to try the new game out.So sure, there's only 250k subscribers, but there'd be a much larger number of players in the game than you'd find on an average night of EQ1. In theory.
What the hell difference does it make whether people logged onto EQ are bazaar mules or people grouping for XP? They still cause stress on the server regardless.
Densetsu fucked around with this message on 11-27-2004 at 05:40 PM.
[Edit: Removed unnecessary word...I just woke up]
quote:
So quoth Densetsu:
EQ1 does not have anywhere close to that many servers, and last I heard, they had over 1m subscribers.
I'm sorry, but they've never had anywhere near a million active subscribers. Hell, I think they've never cracked a million for all of SOE's games combined. They'd release a press release bragging about that if it happened. Its had a max of roughly ~475k subscribers and has been hovering at the ~400k range for a long time now. Regardless, it was a bad comparison on my part because it does have zones/instancing.
quote:
Derek had this to say about Pirotess:
They've stated over and over again that the problems are occurring because of the huge interest in the game. The item databases are shared over multiple servers and therefore it is related to overall server population.
You made my point perfectly.
This is a design flaw, (The italics) that they build and coded it in this way. Also, they pointed out specifically, again, that no matter what the load is on any server, for anyone, at anytime, BECAUSE OF this design flaw, the issues will affect them. You may be right in that the games OVERALL population has affected it, but again that cant be used as a defence in thier particular case.
Meaning you can be on Alleria which is a medium Load server, and be just as screwed as if you were on Archimonde (Although it has its own issues) due to this. High or Low population servers are irrelevant, it's what CLUSTER of servers you happen to be a part of that is more relevant, and of course can cause those who went to Low pop servers to AVOID these issues to be screwed just because they may be linked to a High Population servers DB as well.
quote:
I think youre wrong. They made a huge mistake in underestimating the number of people that they would have to accommodate, but thats what it was.
There is NO excuse for that. People complained about these exact same issues back in Closed Beta, and again in Open Beta where they HAD thier 500K people going at it. There is no possible way that can be used as a defense. They knew the issue, they had all the numbers, they had a faulty system and design in place, and it hit them hard.
Overall, it's gotten someone cleaner. I've only had a few cases here and there of Loot Lag-Out, and various other issues. Although the servers (All of them) have been handing out random disconnets to a lot of people the last couple of days. At LEAST they are working on it, and it is getting better. Monica actually got to play all night last night without getting screwed just because she has a day job so can only play peak times like she has for the last several days, and finnaly got a chance to enjoy herself.
The servers are currently down for 2 hours for Maintenence. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 11-27-2004 at 06:03 PM.
quote:
Densetsu had this to say about pies:
EQ1 does not have anywhere close to that many servers, and last I heard, they had over 1m subscribers.
According to Sir Bruce's numbers, which are widely regarded to be the most accurate collection of subscription numbers publicized, EverQuest has around 450K subscriptions. Ahead of EQ are Lineage, Lineage II, and Final Fantasy XI (due to their Asian origins). The site is down at the moment, but IIRC, the #2 and #3 North American MMOGs are Dark Age of Camelot and Star Wars Galaxies, respectively. DAoC had around 250 subs and SWG somewhere in the area of 150-200 (I can't remember exactly).
In anycase, if WoW is currently claiming 250-300 subscribers, it's in the area of EQ and DAoC and has easily twice as many servers as EQ and certainly more than DAoC. It has more servers than even FFXI, which has almost 3 times the subscriptions. Just fess up and admit that Blizzard really didn't know what to expect because they have never released a MMOG before and that, love or hate SOE, they at least have experience with this type of thing and things are certainly going smoother (stability wise) in their neck of the woods.
-Tok
quote:
Talonus thought about the meaning of life:
I'm sorry, but they've never had anywhere near a million active subscribers. Hell, I think they've never cracked a million for all of SOE's games combined. They'd release a press release bragging about that if it happened. Its had a max of roughly ~475k subscribers and has been hovering at the ~400k range for a long time now. Regardless, it was a bad comparison on my part because it does have zones/instancing.
They've bosted 'Over 400,000 subscribers' since Verant was still running the show. You want to honestly tell me that there has been practically little to no growth in at least 3 years? Why do I doubt that?Edit: I can't view Tok's link because the server hit the bandwidth limit, but assuming it is correct, then my view may be skewed a bit. I'll concede my numbers in this instance. The rest of my post is perfectly valid, though.
Unfortunately, with most of my email being lost, and SOE's sites being completely unsearchable for press releases, I cannot back-up my claim of subscriber count. It still was a bad comparison to start, and didn't even BECOME a comparison until you made it one.
Pesco was giving a conservative estimate when he said <500,000 split between those servers.
They announced ~250,000 sales in the first day, right? Let's toss in another 100k since then for the people that wanted it but didn't get it immediately, making an estimated 350,000 or so subscribers. Now we can probably assume only about half of those are playing at any given time. So we have ~175,000 people split between 80 servers. That's slightly over 2k per server at any given time.
EQL broke that amount of people per server before Velious. Densetsu fucked around with this message on 11-27-2004 at 06:31 PM.
quote:
This one time, at Toktuk camp:
According to Sir Bruce's numbers, which are widely regarded to be the most accurate collection of subscription numbers publicized, EverQuest has around 450K subscriptions. Ahead of EQ are Lineage, Lineage II, and Final Fantasy XI (due to their Asian origins). The site is down at the moment, but IIRC, the #2 and #3 North American MMOGs are Dark Age of Camelot and Star Wars Galaxies, respectively. DAoC had around 250 subs and SWG somewhere in the area of 150-200 (I can't remember exactly).In anycase, if WoW is currently claiming 250-300 subscribers, it's in the area of EQ and DAoC and has easily twice as many servers as EQ and certainly more than DAoC. It has more servers than even FFXI, which has almost 3 times the subscriptions. Just fess up and admit that Blizzard really didn't know what to expect because they have never released a MMOG before and that, love or hate SOE, they at least have experience with this type of thing and things are certainly going smoother (stability wise) in their neck of the woods.
-Tok
450k now. My mistake. Could have sworn it was in the range of 400k. In my defense, I did use the squiggly to indiciate that it was roughly 400k. 450k is kind of close to 400k! Regardless, they've never gotten half of the 1 million Dens mentioned.
Maybe you've missed my posts about Blizzard and the release, but I've bitched a hell of a lot about the release. They fucked up a lot. Hell, my server is down right now for maintenance. I criticize Blizzard where I feel its necessary, but I will say they do good when they do good though. Their starting areas are unable to handle the load of the people there. In order to fix it, they're throwing more servers at it. Like I said, its a bandaid fix which is going to result in underpopulated server later on. They'll most likely have to allow the server transfers they've mentioned in the past to fix that problem, which will even it out in the future.
quote:
They've bosted 'Over 400,000 subscribers' since Verant was still running the show. You want to honestly tell me that there has been practically little to no growth in at least 3 years? Why do I doubt that?Edit: I can't view Tok's link because the server hit the bandwidth limit, but assuming it is correct, then my view may be skewed a bit. I'll concede my numbers in this instance. The rest of my post is perfectly valid, though.
As of the release of GoD they had 430k subscribers. At the release of EQ2, they had 750k subscribers. PS has roughly 75k subscribers. For the sake of arguement, we'll say that SWG has roughly 250k subscribers. That leaves roughly 425k for EQ1.
On another note, I remember having a discussion with a Mythic dev concerning player numbers. After the first week or two of release, primetime numbers (est or pst) are about 1/4 of the total active subscriber base. This was true for all of their online games in the past, as well as the games they could get active server populations from on a nightly basis. So in about two weeks we could get a proper gauge of the players WoW has most likely.
quote:
Sakkra was naked while typing this:
As opposed to SoE's approach of "Pretend it doesn't exist and hope the problem fixes itself"?
SoE also maintains 4 MMOG.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with how SoE runs shop. Blizzard isn't SoE. During the EQ2 beta, they saw they had a lag issue and fixed it ( faster then they had expected I imagine ) THEN released the game. Blizzard on the other hand, had MORE time then SoE and still managed to mess up the release and have put it nothing but a ton of bandaid fixes thus far.
No excuses, Blizzard fucked it up hardcore.
quote:
Pesco got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
SoE also maintains 4 MMOG.But this has absolutely nothing to do with how SoE runs shop. Blizzard isn't SoE. During the EQ2 beta, they saw they had a lag issue and fixed it ( faster then they had expected I imagine ) THEN released the game. Blizzard on the other hand, had MORE time then SoE and still managed to mess up the release and have put it nothing but a ton of bandaid fixes thus far.
No excuses, Blizzard fucked it up hardcore.
You are absolutely right.
Blizzard couldn't handle the load that they got when they released WoW. And SoE was able to, probably due to more experience with handling MMOG servers. They also have a more stable network architecture since they've been doing it longer, so they have fewer potential issues with database lag.
Too bad SoE doesn't have as much experience in making their gameplay not suck as they do with running lag-free networks... maybe then they'd be able to compete with WoW in terms of sheer fun Khyron fucked around with this message on 11-27-2004 at 07:38 PM.
AWESOME! 
I'm done.
quote:
A sleep deprived Addy stammered:
Omg, I just realized that Tauren = MOO in the char thingie.AWESOME!
I'm done.
You have problems missy.
quote:
Addy had this to say about John Romero:
Omg, I just realized that Tauren = MOO in the char thingie.AWESOME!
I'm done.
Tauren, in game, have a silly emote you would like.
If you type in /v Silly enough, they will say "Moo. Are you happy now?"
quote:
A sleep deprived Talonus stammered:
You have problems missy.
no u
quote:
Addy painfully thought these words up:
no u
That made no sense at all.
quote:
Talonus impressed everyone with:
That made no sense at all.
Stop hijacking the thread sir.
Omg.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Addy:
Stop hijacking the thread sir.Omg.
I'm not hijacking. I'm showing EQ2 players are a bunch of wackos. You're proof!
quote:
Talonus had this to say about (_|_):
I'm not hijacking. I'm showing EQ2 players are a bunch of wackos. You're proof!
quote:
Addy wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Its true! 
quote:
This one time, at Talonus camp:
Its true!
Then WoW is filled with BIG MEANIE HEADS LIKE YOU 
quote:
Addy's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Then WoW is filled with BIG MEANIE HEADS LIKE YOU
Duh?
quote:
Talonus had this to say about (_|_):
Duh?
I prove my point.
Or something.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Khyron wrote:
Too bad SoE doesn't have as much experience in making their gameplay not suck as they do with running lag-free networks... maybe then they'd be able to compete with WoW in terms of sheer fun
But... I played WoW... And I had fun for about 2 months.. and then I stopped.. because I wasn't having fun (level 47 or so.) I got a chance to play EQ2, I had fun, and I'm continuing to have fun in retail.
My emotions must be lying to me! 
quote:
Cobalt Katze had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
But... I played WoW... And I had fun for about 2 months.. and then I stopped.. because I wasn't having fun (level 47 or so.) I got a chance to play EQ2, I had fun, and I'm continuing to have fun in retail.My emotions must be lying to me!
I've certainly never heard of people liking or disliking different games before.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Sentow, Maybe was all like:
I've certainly never heard of people liking or disliking different games before.
My point was I like both, but one got old for me And debunking the statement that EQ2's gameplay isn't good. My textual humor skills aren't a high enough level yet.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about pies:
You may be right in that the games OVERALL population has affected it, but again that cant be used as a defence in thier particular case.
If I was defending them I would have said "It's okay because..." or something to that effect. You stated that overloading had nothing to do with the problems and I felt the need to correct you. That's all.
quote:
Talonus said this about your mom:
I'm not hijacking. I'm showing EQ2 players are a bunch of wackos. You're proof!
You've never been on B.Net.... have you?
quote:
Khyron had this to say about dark elf butts:
Too bad SoE doesn't have as much experience in making their gameplay not suck as they do with running lag-free networks... maybe then they'd be able to compete with WoW in terms of sheer fun
Right, the most popular MMOG in the US and Europe for the last 5 years has shitty gameplay. And the 3rd most popular also has shitty game play for that matter. That is exactly it, SoE has no fucking clue how to make a fun game. Games that you played, which just adds to the irony of it all.
And you people call me a fanboy, sheesh.
( Just for clarification, I'm excluding both WoW and EQ2 from the above statement as we have no hard numbers on them nor have they been out for more then a month )
quote:
Pesco stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Right, the most popular MMOG in the US and Europe for the last 5 years has shitty gameplay. And the 3rd most popular also has shitty game play for that matter. That is exactly it, SoE has no fucking clue how to make a fun game. Games that you played, which just adds to the irony of it all.And you people call me a fanboy, sheesh.
( Just for clarification, I'm excluding both WoW and EQ2 from the above statement as we have no hard numbers on them nor have they been out for more then a month )
Until now, there hasn't been anything close to the amount of content that EQ1 had. DAoC suffered from everyone looking alike. CoH suffered from difficulty once you reached level 20. FFXI suffered from lack of things to do solo. SWG suffers from lack of feeling like you are advancing at a decent rate in the game world.
Yes, EQ1's gameplay sucked, but there was enough balance between various aspects of the game as to where it didn't suck horribly in any one area, which IMO messes up a game.
And as for Blizzard's server shit, there was ONE DAY that they seriously had trouble, and now it seems that they are getting on the right track and less server shit should be happening.
But whatever, yall are just out to hate SoE at this point. WoW is probably a good game and I've said that on several occasions. Do I think WoW is the end-all-be-all? Hell no. And what is happening right now with it just proves it.
I could go more indepth as to why I think such, but most likely several of you would get offended.
quote:
Pesco stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
I tend to disagree that EQLive has shitty gameplay, but that is just a difference of opinion.But whatever, yall are just out to hate SoE at this point. WoW is probably a good game and I've said that on several occasions. Do I think WoW is the end-all-be-all? Hell no. And what is happening right now with it just proves it.
I could go more indepth as to why I think such, but most likely several of you would get offended.
Don't stick words in my mouth please. I didn't say I hate SoE. I didn't say I hate EQ2. Actually, I have put serious thought into getting EQ2 if I ever upgrade my memory to such a level to where I feel that my framerate won't absolutely suck when I enter a city area.
My thoughts on the matter are difficult to explain when I have so many guns pointed at my head. But I'm used to that reaction here, so I keep plugging along anyway.
Snoota fucked around with this message on 11-28-2004 at 04:01 AM.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Pesco:
Right, the most popular MMOG in the US and Europe for the last 5 years has shitty gameplay. And the 3rd most popular also has shitty game play for that matter. That is exactly it, SoE has no fucking clue how to make a fun game. Games that you played, which just adds to the irony of it all.And you people call me a fanboy, sheesh.
EQ1 only had decent gameplay for its time, and that time only lasted 1 1/2 maybe 2 years, before more inventive and fun gameplay was introduced. EQ1's saving grance through all these new and innovative gameplay things being introduced was deep levels of content, and player loyalty due to line spent. EQ1
s actual GAMEPLAY was trumphed early on after its release, but nothing could really beat the 'addictiveness' (Yes 'Sage I said it, but only as a relative term and not a conclusive one. ) of the advancement system for the time and its sheer amount of story and content.
No, I personally don't think SoE has a clue how to make a fun game, but that as you said later on is a matter of opinion. In fact, in my opinion I found SWG, a game I should have died in my chair cause I never left it loving, because I am such a SW fanboi to be the most eye-gouging experience ever and the greatest testament to a persons stamina when dealing with intense boredom. I also found Planetside to be Lacking, and there were better things out there for free. EQ2 I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to play for various reasons, and only a few of them have anything to do with how fun I think it may or may not be.
SoE also has the grace of being the hands down shittiest game engine designer team ever. EQ2 is no exception. And my point of shitty engines has no relevance to how pretty it is, I know it is pretty. But thier engines suck, SWG being a shining example here.
They are also first and foremost a corporation, and have always in the past, acted as one. Now, you can't fault them for that, they are a buisness, they do have a reputation, but thier CS is shit. Always has been, especially as soon as they dropped Verant completely.
Also, again, SoE has the top rated game due to it being the first of its kind and because of that gaining the loyalty of its fanbase of the time who feel they have invested so much which makes it hard for them to part ways. It's a rational, not a reason. I played it for 4 years, I'm not an exception to it either.
This thread reeks of fanboism on both sides of the fence however. Suffice to say to each his own.
Last I checked, advancement was part of gameplay. And as you stated, the 'addictiveness' of the advancement system is unmatched. Maybe I have a different definition of gameplay then yall. I'm also well aware that I am a different type of gamer then 90+% of these boards. Maybe that is where the crossroads lie. SoE has done a lot of innovative stuff in their time thus far. ( Hello, AA systems / Teired Content ) On the flip side, they have also reacted to what others have done. ( Hello, LoY ) In addition they have made mistakes and have paid dearly for them. ( Hello, GoD ) But have also done some very redeeming things. ( Hello, PoP ) And while not the first at some things, they helped in perfecting it. ( Hello, Instancing ) And those are only relative to EQLive, let alone the 4 other games they run ( I forgot EQ 
A the first time I mentioned the number )
Overall, Blizzard has done similiar things. I mean, look across all their games. Were they the first to do a lot of the things they do? Nope. Did they help to prefect things? Yep. Were they also capable of riding their name to success? Oh hell yea. WC3 was mediocre, overall, it's success rides on the fact the Blizzard label is on it. StarCraft on the other hand was absolutely great. SC was original in some of the things they did, and others they really built on not-so-original ideas. Ofcourse, during the time of SC, the RTS genre was heavily contested with some really heavy hitters. ( Westwood / Cavedog anyone? ) Diablo speaks for itself, but games like Dungeon Siege, Nox and to some point the Baulder's Gate series give the gameplay factors of Diablo a serious run for their money when it comes to single player RPGs. And those are just a few of the games that compete with Diablo.
Basically SoE and Blizzard are in the same boat as far as I'm concerned. I'm just choosing what fits my gameplay style the best.
