Trion killed Rift.

[Forbin]

I've heard rumors that WoW has some servers that are pretty quiet. Certainly, back when I was playing it, I could level through whole zones without seeing anyone.

WoW has had PvP servers that have needed a merge for the last 5 years. Other than those 20 servers that have always been low since day 1, I think the ther servers are in 'wait until MoP' status. There isnt a single PvE server that is low in primetime, but merges could be useful if there isnt a population rise for MoP, which there could be.

But Laeris was insinuating that there werent AAA MMORPGS that havent merged servers, when in fact there have been two.

[bah]

Name 1 AAA MMO that has never performed a server merge.

Name one AAA MMO that has performed a server merge without losing players. Better yet, name one AAA MMO that closed servers while it's population was steady or growing. EVERY MMO that has ever merged servers has done so due to a declining population...every one. Except Rift apparently.

Everquest 2 is a perfect example of why the "player hours" theory is bogus. They have the same amount of servers as Rift now and according to the "player hours" theory they haven't lost that many subscribers, they just all play less and that's the reason why all the other servers have been closed down. Do you think anyone buys that nonsense?...no, so why should they buy that excuse for Rift?

When ToR closes down a few servers in the coming months do we get to use the asinine player hours defense or will you guys be using it as ammunition for how that game is failing?

Either the player hours defense works universally or it doesn't work at all. I think we all know the truth, even those of us who continue to lie to ourselves about it.

WoW has had PvP servers that have needed a merge for the last 5 years. Other than those 20 servers that have always been low since day 1, I think the ther servers are in 'wait until MoP' status. There isnt a single PvE server that is low in primetime, but merges could be useful if there isnt a population rise for MoP, which there could be.

But Laeris was insinuating that there werent AAA MMORPGS that havent merged servers, when in fact there have been two.

Yes, Blizzard flat out refuses to merge servers when they know full well they have a couple dozen that are dead. In fact, I was unfortunate enough to play on one PvP that got switched to a PvE due to the low population and server they made me transfer is now even worse.

Blizzard could stand to lose about 1/3 of their US servers but they don't want people to realize what most of us already know, the US population is not nearly as high as it once was. Of course, maybe I'm wrong and those servers have been dead for 5 years because people don't play as much, not because they don't play at all...lol.

[TechnoMage]

Why does it have to go from tier 3 to tier 4? Wouldnt it be better to have a tier 3.5 -> 4.5 raid before the tier 4 raid? There should always be some sort of overlap like that.

You really are just getting into a naming thing.

Does it matter if the progression is..


3.... 4.... 5.....

Or

3... 3.5....4...

Or even..

1.... 1.1.... 1.2

The numbers are just numbers that players use as a short hand for "Gear that is better by some amount from content that is harder by some amount."

[the_real_seebs]

You really are just getting into a naming thing.

No, he's making a real point.

The numbers are just numbers that players use as a short hand for "Gear that is better by some amount from content that is harder by some amount."

Not quite. Consider the standard T1->T2->T3->T4 progression.

What Forbin's proposing is a second progression which is about half a tier off; T0.5->T1.5->T2.5, etc.

So if you are not quite ready for the T1 raid, you can do the T0.5 raid, and if you gear up exclusively in that, you end up a little ahead of the requirements for T1, but not quite up to the requirements for T2. Which means that you can start raiding a little sooner, and then hop from the 0.5 raid to the 1 raid, and then you can start on the 1.5 raid before you're ready for 2, so you can have a smoother progression with overlapping choices -- at any given time, there's two raids that are interesting upgrades.

It's a neat idea and would be a good way to smooth out the equipment curve a bit.

[TechnoMage]

No, he's making a real point.



Not quite. Consider the standard T1->T2->T3->T4 progression.

What Forbin's proposing is a second progression which is about half a tier off; T0.5->T1.5->T2.5, etc.

So if you are not quite ready for the T1 raid, you can do the T0.5 raid, and if you gear up exclusively in that, you end up a little ahead of the requirements for T1, but not quite up to the requirements for T2. Which means that you can start raiding a little sooner, and then hop from the 0.5 raid to the 1 raid, and then you can start on the 1.5 raid before you're ready for 2, so you can have a smoother progression with overlapping choices -- at any given time, there's two raids that are interesting upgrades.

It's a neat idea and would be a good way to smooth out the equipment curve a bit.

If your progression is .5... 1... 1.5...2...2.5...

Why not just call it...

1...2...3...4...5..?

The numbering system doesn't matter... if what he's looking for is something simple like.. "Make the differences in gear and difficulty between each raid dungeon smaller" that's easier and would accomplish the same thing instead of using some sort of tortured numbering system.

[Alyn]

Hi everyone,

We feel that this thread has degenerated into a non-constructive discussion, so we've closed it. Please remember to keep your comments respectful and constructive at all times on our forums, even when you disagree with others.

If anyone has questions or concerns about this thread closure, please feel free to contact us at community@riftgame.com.

Thank you!