Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
02-02-2010, 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeronas
And what I try to tell you (and I am sertainly not the only one on this).

When you look what has happened lately. What has become of the Headstart. The login queue experimentations.

What do you think yourself?
I know that is not a sustainable state of affairs under live launch.

Any developer or network systems designer would know this inherently. They don't need people like me telling them this.

So the fact they're not telling us what they already know, is concerning.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
02-02-2010, 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soyinka
I know that is not a sustainable state of affairs under live launch.

Any developer or network systems designer would know this inherently. They don't need people like me telling them this.

So the fact they're not telling us what they already know, is concerning.
Exactly.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
02-02-2010, 12:24 AM
It's frustrating, isn't it? You'd think that they'd acknowledge your issues by posting a locked thread stating something to the effect that they are sympathetic to our plight, etc. Just one simple acknowledgement would be all that it would take to pacify the angry hordes.

Unfortunately, they don't seem to recognise that by not directly addressing our concerns they are destroying our good will. How many of us have been here before? Where's Conan, Vanguard and PotBS now, to name a few?

How many of you now are already looking forward to the release of Star Wars the Old Republic, hmm?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
02-02-2010, 12:25 AM
The "more servers" was a lie, Cryptic know about 60-75% will stop playing after 1 month. So why invest in new hardware?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
02-02-2010, 12:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo2008jedi
The "more servers" was a lie, Cryptic know about 60-75% will stop playing after 1 month. So why invest in new hardware?
Good point.
Also take it as a given.
Cryptic never tell you bad news only good.
So you know the answer already.
They haven't set up any new servers yet.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
02-02-2010, 12:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soyinka
There is no way they could not have understood the level of demand this game would have.
Actually it's completely easy to understand why they would. I'll itemize it again, since you must not have seen my past posts on the matter.

First, the obvious one: The economy is crap. That alone makes things rather unpredictable. It's also just after Christmas and at a time when many families are trying to recover savings.

Second, while a very long-lasting and generally popular IP, it hasn't been without its problems. When this game began the IP was, by many, considered dead. For the first time in many years there wasn't a series actively running, we hadn't seen a movie for a while, and fans were at each others' throats arguing over why. Then, less than a year before the game's release, a movie reboots the franchise and breathes new life into the IP. This presents an uncertain environment. There's also been no real games since the movie to judge gamer reception.

Third, it's a different kind of game. It's got two different playstyles which is uncommon (space and ground) and both are stripped down versions of what you'd find elsewhere. The space combat isn't as deep as it is in EVE, and the ground combat isn't as deep as you'd find in WoW or Guild Wars. That creates an unknown factor; it's not a cookie cutter fantasy MMO ala Warhammer and ****.

Fourth, Star Trek games have a history of not being received so well. Elite Force appealed decently to the FPS crowd and Armada to the RTS crowd, but most others were designed more for Star Trek fans than any general gaming group and while they may have been successful to that small group, an MMO needs wide, positive reaction and the IP simply doesn't have many examples of success there.

Fifth and finally, this is a game that's had a very rocky development cycle. This doesn't excuse bad estimates, per se, but it does help explain why investors would be stingy and conservative. For them it's safer to release small and grow as needed than it is to waste money on a big deployment for a game that may or may not succeed. Afterall, exceeding expectations can be seen as a "good problem".
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
02-02-2010, 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo2008jedi
The "more servers" was a lie, Cryptic know about 60-75% will stop playing after 1 month. So why invest in new hardware?
This again is an opinion, not a fact.

You're welcome to have it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
02-02-2010, 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soyinka
This again is an opinion, not a fact.

You're welcome to have it.
Let them come forward then and give us FACTS.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
02-02-2010, 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikaelus View Post
Actually it's completely easy to understand why they would. I'll itemize it again, since you must not have seen my past posts on the matter.

First, the obvious one: The economy is crap. That alone makes things rather unpredictable. It's also just after Christmas and at a time when many families are trying to recover savings.

Second, while a very long-lasting and generally popular IP, it hasn't been without its problems. When this game began the IP was, by many, considered dead. For the first time in many years there wasn't a series actively running, we hadn't seen a movie for a while, and fans were at each others' throats arguing over why. Then, less than a year before the game's release, a movie reboots the franchise and breathes new life into the IP. This presents an uncertain environment. There's also been no real games since the movie to judge gamer reception.

Third, it's a different kind of game. It's got two different playstyles which is uncommon (space and ground) and both are stripped down versions of what you'd find elsewhere. The space combat isn't as deep as it is in EVE, and the ground combat isn't as deep as you'd find in WoW or Guild Wars. That creates an unknown factor; it's not a cookie cutter fantasy MMO ala Warhammer and ****.

Fourth, Star Trek games have a history of not being received so well. Elite Force appealed decently to the FPS crowd and Armada to the RTS crowd, but most others were designed more for Star Trek fans than any general gaming group and while they may have been successful to that small group, an MMO needs wide, positive reaction and the IP simply doesn't have many examples of success there.

Fifth and finally, this is a game that's had a very rocky development cycle. This doesn't excuse bad estimates, per se, but it does help explain why investors would be stingy and conservative. For them it's safer to release small and grow as needed than it is to waste money on a big deployment for a game that may or may not succeed. Afterall, exceeding expectations can be seen as a "good problem".
Except .... that is why companies do preorders.... to guage how many players they expect to have. Oh and same thing happend with CO about 6 months ago.... same company.... should learn.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
02-02-2010, 12:33 AM
Back when they said they were getting new hardware, it was difficult to log in, to get to the character selection screen. That persisted for a while and then stopped. There was some bad lag in game after that for a day or two then that was fixed.

I can only assume they did actually get the new hardware, then had to adjust the software to fix the lag.

I agree they need more communication tho, thats a given.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:18 AM.