Just came from the Pandaria BETA

[the_real_seebs]

There's more people playing Tor than there are Rift.

Just sayin.

Pretty sure there's more people buying Justin Bieber than Billie Holiday, these days. Just sayin'.

[Khelendross]

Geez this thread didn't last long before it descended into chaos. What happened? Oh nevermind, Rayner posted.

Seriously I've been playing and streaming the MOP beta some this week. Its ok. I mean at this point its worth tuning in to check out the new content but the game itself at its core just no longer holds much interest for me. I'm playing my way through Jade Forest. I streamed about 5 hours of it on Wednesday and I had a pretty good time. Suprisingly not many jerks on my server, maybe cause most of the population isn't in yet. Got to talk with some of the GM's (WoW GM's have always been pretty awesome). And had a pretty decent time playing around with a premade 85 monk. But honestly no way in heck I am leveling up a brand new monk on live. Which means I'll probably only max out my hunter, then quit as I did in Cata. So I doubt I'll be resubbing after my annual pass is done. Questing in MOP is a huge step back from cataclysm. Not sure why that is. But aside from some decent questing in the Panda starting area, the Jade Forest zone (the first in Pandaria proper) feels like Wrath questing which is to say boring and lifeless. There is very little interesting questing, little to no cinematic storytelling, and honestly its a bit of a chore. Its only fun on my monk cause the monk itself is pretty well done and fun to play.

I will say this. For a downright ancient game at this point. Blizzard sure can make the most out of what they have to work with from a game engine standpoint. Pandaria looks great, has tons of visual style and the monks attack animations are visceral and fun. So its not all bad or boring. Is it enough to keep me around? No. But WoW is far from a pile of crap. Honestly if any MMO is a total waste of money to me it was SWTOR. All that game really had going for it was the engrossing story, which does not a good MMO make. PVP and combat animations were decent in that game. But it had nothing at all innovative, or interesting from a MMO standpoint. I think its largely because it was rushed and causes the engine is absolutely awful. The game could have been much better.

[Vember]

Pretty sure there's more people buying Justin Bieber than Billie Holiday, these days. Just sayin'.

Yea that's a reasonable comparison Considering they're both still making music! Oh wait...

If you even consider Bieber's crap to be music heh.

[Rayner]

Geez this thread didn't last long before it descended into chaos. What happened? Oh nevermind, Rayner posted.

Yeah, because the inflammatory poster totally isn't the one who posts ignorant things like:

Honestly if any MMO is a total waste of money to me it was SWTOR. All that game really had going for it was the engrossing story, which does not a good MMO make. PVP and combat animations were decent in that game. But it had nothing at all innovative, or interesting from a MMO standpoint. I think its largely because it was rushed and causes the engine is absolutely awful. The game could have been much better.

...but is instead someone who asked a simple question.

[Laeris]

Yeah, because the inflammatory poster totally isn't the one who posts ignorant things like:



...but is instead someone who asked a simple question.

Right... ignorant people and their inferior opinions. For shame.

[Kalitar]

Yeah, because the inflammatory poster totally isn't the one who posts ignorant things like:



...but is instead someone who asked a simple question.

I totaly agree with him in regards to SWTOR, it was my shortist MMO experiance I have had other then some second rate F2P game. I made it through the starter planets (thought it was fun) got to Corasant, thought this place looks cool... Shame about all the walking, cleared that planet and was already over the game. That place felt like such a tedius grind, mostly to do with the dead feeling world. I made it through Taris and had had enough.

That place was fun to explore untill you worked out there was no point really, and almost all the mobs you fight come in threes and stand around waiting to die. The game world felt... Dead? Not alive thats for sure. Allmost all the NPCs in places like Corasant where just scenery and completly uninteractive.

The PVP was decent, thou it seems to have some really bad over the top CCs, and 95% of teams were some for of jedi. I would often be the only smuggler or trooper in a Battle ground. The PVE story was decent but bored me to tears after awhile.

Judging by how fast the oceanic population declined within weeks of its launch here in Australia, a lot of people had the same impresions. Even RIFT did not decline as fast. SWTOR droped like a rock

All that said I wish it luck and want it to be a success. The more competion in the market the better. And games like WOW and GW2 are not really my thing anymore so its nice to have options.

I'm well aware people don't really care what my opinion on SWTOR is, thats why I enjoy venting stuff like this to my friendly, snugally pillow My pillow says "RIFT is better then SWTOR fool! ANd L2 spell noob".

[Rayner]

Right... ignorant people and their inferior opinions. For shame.

All that game really had going for it was the engrossing story, which does not a good MMO make.

Opinion stated as fact.

But it had nothing at all innovative, or interesting from a MMO standpoint.

Logically false statement stated as if it were true.

I think its largely because it was rushed and causes the engine is absolutely awful.

Unsubstantiated claim of the game being rushed. Uninformed opinion about the game engine.

That place was fun to explore untill you worked out there was no point really, and almost all the mobs you fight come in threes and stand around waiting to die.

Wait, are you listing "the mobs came in threes" as a detriment? Do you have some the-number-23 aversion to "3" or something? Mobs in SWTOR stand around no more or less than the mobs in Rift. Both games have pathing enemies, both games have "spawns." Really, you're just wrong here.

The game world felt... Dead? Not alive thats for sure. Allmost all the NPCs in places like Corasant where just scenery and completly uninteractive.

As opposed to the same scenery NPCs in Sanctum that...stand around and have the same exact type of conversations? I really don't think you've viewed the game objectively.

The PVP was decent, thou it seems to have some really bad over the top CCs

I disagree. CC in SWTOR feels far more sedated than in any other MMO I've ever played, including Rift. Knockbacks in Huttball can get a bit annoying, but I feel like the resolve bar works better than the standard diminishing returns pattern because it's shared across all of the types of CC and I can track it better.

and 95% of teams were some for of jedi. I would often be the only smuggler or trooper in a Battle ground.

95% of teams were Rogues when last I played Rift. Does that mean that Rift is a bad game? Actually, I'd argue that situation is even worse in Rift's case, because there the flood of one class was the result of a yo-yo nerf/buff/FOTM dynamic that Trion seems unable to break out of.

The PVE story was decent but bored me to tears after awhile.

I felt the same way about Rift's story.

Judging by how fast the oceanic population declined within weeks of its launch here in Australia, a lot of people had the same impresions. Even RIFT did not decline as fast. SWTOR droped like a rock

Entirely false. Stop making things up.

[the_real_seebs]

The thing is, it's a pretty disingenuous question. Asking a "simple" question, when it's clearly being used as a rhetorical device, and you have a history of shifting goalposts, and outright lying about the facts presented in previous answers to it, is... not so simple.

Rayner says: Every rift in the game follows the same formula (normal mobs, more normal mobs, solo tougher mob, more normal mobs, extra tough mob).
Reality says: Even back in 1.1, there were a number of rifts which did not follow this pattern, or which had goals that weren't even "kill N of this thing".
Rayner says: Exactly what he said before, because he doesn't care about the truth, only about his rhetorical devices.

It's not as though it's hard to identify these rifts, or to confirm that they exist. But some people have a really, really, hard time admitting that they're wrong.

It's particularly funny because, in one of the threads I first saw him pulling this trick, he was complaining about other people doing it to him about SW:ToR. So it's not that he's unaware that making sweeping overclaims and refusing to back down when confronted with evidence to the contrary is sleazy; it's just that he does it anyway because the rules don't apply to him.

[Lienda]

Can we at least wait till the game is released before we stone it death

Ok.

[Salamol]

Opinion stated as fact.
Logically false statement stated as if it were true.
Unsubstantiated claim of the game being rushed. Uninformed opinion about the game engine.

Wait, are you listing "the mobs came in threes" as a detriment? Do you have some the-number-23 aversion to "3" or something? Mobs in SWTOR stand around no more or less than the mobs in Rift. Both games have pathing enemies, both games have "spawns." Really, you're just wrong here.

As opposed to the same scenery NPCs in Sanctum that...stand around and have the same exact type of conversations? I really don't think you've viewed the game objectively.

I disagree. CC in SWTOR feels far more sedated than in any other MMO I've ever played, including Rift. Knockbacks in Huttball can get a bit annoying, but I feel like the resolve bar works better than the standard diminishing returns pattern because it's shared across all of the types of CC and I can track it better.

95% of teams were Rogues when last I played Rift. Does that mean that Rift is a bad game? Actually, I'd argue that situation is even worse in Rift's case, because there the flood of one class was the result of a yo-yo nerf/buff/FOTM dynamic that Trion seems unable to break out of.

I felt the same way about Rift's story.

Entirely false. Stop making things up.

Does anyone else find that when people cut up quotes and respond to each part, it gets really confusing? Or is it just confusing to me because I'm tired D: But regardless, one class/spec is always going to be on top for a period, what is important is that it does get changed frequently.

GW1 was a prime example of this, but again because it was balanced regularly, the FotM specs didn't stay for too long. Anything that is hugely over the top/unbalanced is addressed quickly as it was in GW and is usually in Rift.

[the_real_seebs]

I generally like it when people snip quotes to small bits so you can see what they're responding to, but I got used to it 20+ years ago.

[Galibier]

Long story short with SWOTR, when the boss has to say "75-90% of the players who left will come back" there is a problem. If the game was not grossly missing recurring subscription expectations such a statement would not be needed. As a publically traded company they were forced to make such a statement because of the massive over reach they did when they set goals of 500k subscriptions for the end of the first year.

So people can make baseless statements regarding which game has more players or less. The point is due to the massive amount of money invested not only does SWOTR NEED more subs than Rift it needs more subs than it has now or else you would not see statements being made claiming completely unreasonable subscription returns to keep the stockholders from having a stroke.

[Rayner]

The thing is, it's a pretty disingenuous question. Asking a "simple" question, when it's clearly being used as a rhetorical device, and you have a history of shifting goalposts, and outright lying about the facts presented in previous answers to it, is... not so simple.

I have never lied here. I'm not sure what happened to you, Seebs. You used to be so civil and post intelligent things. Lately you're just trolling, though.

Rayner says: Every rift in the game follows the same formula (normal mobs, more normal mobs, solo tougher mob, more normal mobs, extra tough mob).
Reality says: Even back in 1.1, there were a number of rifts which did not follow this pattern, or which had goals that weren't even "kill N of this thing".
Rayner says: Exactly what he said before, because he doesn't care about the truth, only about his rhetorical devices.

You've been singing this tune for months now. You gave me an example of other rifts once, but I have since forgotten it.

It's not as though it's hard to identify these rifts, or to confirm that they exist. But some people have a really, really, hard time admitting that they're wrong.

And some people have a really, really hard time supporting their arguments. Remind me of what these amazingly different rift types are. I seceded the point way back when that other types existed (but, again, I cannot remember what they are anymore, because I never recalled encountering them very often in game), but I still remain unconvinced that rifts are as varied as advertised. Then again, I don't think any "dynamic" content is ever as varied as advertised. I doubt GW2's will be. If SWTOR announced a "dynamic" PvE feature, I'd call ******** on that, too.

It's particularly funny because, in one of the threads I first saw him pulling this trick, he was complaining about other people doing it to him about SW:ToR. So it's not that he's unaware that making sweeping overclaims and refusing to back down when confronted with evidence to the contrary is sleazy; it's just that he does it anyway because the rules don't apply to him.

I pulled no such trick. Your entire diatribe is based on the assumption that I lied, rather than was mistaken, and that I have refused to back down because I am stubborn, rather than still disagreeing with you. Since that is entirely false, most of your post is meaningless.

Long story short with SWOTR, when the boss has to say "75-90% of the players who left will come back" there is a problem. If the game was not grossly missing recurring subscription expectations such a statement would not be needed. As a publically traded company they were forced to make such a statement because of the massive over reach they did when they set goals of 500k subscriptions for the end of the first year.

Can you please cite this quote so I can more easily prove you wrong? Thanks.

So people can make baseless statements regarding which game has more players or less. The point is due to the massive amount of money invested not only does SWOTR NEED more subs than Rift it needs more subs than it has now or else you would not see statements being made claiming completely unreasonable subscription returns to keep the stockholders from having a stroke.

"So people can make baseless statements regarding which game has more players or less...to prove this, I will now make a baseless statement regarding which game has more players or less."

[Galibier]

Well as to the 500K number that comes from the beginning of last year. I can not find the original quote form the 12/2010 1/2011 press conference but here is one from a bit later...

here are the relevant quotes

EA declined to comment but has said previously that the game would become profitable if it reaches 500,000 subscribers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AR1ZY20111129

and

Frank Gibeau, head of EA's studios, said the company would be "approaching profitability" if "Star Wars" reaches 500,000 subscribers. One million subscribers would make it a "good investment," he said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...034370542.html


I am picking this one for this quote for a VERY important reason. I do not trust MMO fan sites and "game review" sites. They are far too influenced by the money they get from the same companies they review for advertising. Reuters and the WSJ however are VERY well respected and reliable sources of news. So if they say EA said for the game to become profitable it needs 500K subs, then that is what they said.

I WELCOME you to prove me wrong on this. Thank you.

I do have to confess to one error. When re-researching the 75% to 90% number that is from an independant gaming analyst, Michael Pachter and the context was in determining how many players who bought the game would become subscribers. So no need to prove me wrong there.

The main point though that I was making is still valid. For the game to be a success they need at least 500k subs (arguably 1 million if you are a glass half empty kind of guy). These kind of numbers are unheard of as a requirment of success though understandable with the insane budget the game had. As such people can say "SWOTR has more players than Rift" and whether that is true or not is not the measure of success.

Lets say Rift has 200k subscribers and SWOTR had 450k. For the amount invested in Rift 200K is definitely a success. They invested an estmated 50 million. By June of last year they had sold 1 million units. Add in that subscription total and investment paid back, and A LOT of gross profit. According to EA's own statement though 450k would not be a success, likely because of the massive amount of money invested in the game (around 200 million according to the LA Times) and 6 years of production. Stock Holders want to see a long term profit from that kind of cash/time investment. I could also go into using torstatus.net to illustrate how the game is failing the same way many people did Riftstatus.net but I will refrain. The one thing I will say though is this. As long as "Rift is going down hill" conversations stayed civil they were not locked and did not result in bans. This is happening on the SWOTR website though. It at least makes you wonder.

All this aside, even trying to compare the two games is simply stupid imo. Rift and SWOTR were developed in totally different mind sets. Rift is a much different game on many levels. It was designed with the old school attitude in terms of decent and steady subscription numbers mean stable long term profits, end game being the main focus/target, an older (on average) player base etc. EA out of the gate put ACtivision/Blizzard in their cross hairs and was looking for 7 digit subs. They want the game accessible primarily to non-traditional MMO players, end game (PVE wise) is almost an after thought, grouping is basically optional etc. Both types of products have their place in the market. 200k subscribers would be a nice and profitable number for Rift based on their investment, it would be see as an utter failure by EA's own statements. This shows you how different they are.

Neither in the end will be "better or worse." It's like trying to compare Wynton Marsalis with U2. Few people would say Marsalis is not a success or an excellent musician BUT U2 makes more money and has more fans.

[Galibier]

There's more people playing Tor than there are Rift.

Just sayin.

Well lets see....

http://www.riftstatus.net/shards/na/trends

http://www.torstatus.net/shards/us/trends

I see alot more servers in NA than Rift BUT a MUCH lower % of that time being in the "heavy/high" population (it never seems to get above 1-2% in TOR but will hit 10% in Rift). Now one rightfully say with out knowing where the cut off numbers are from reach heavy/high it is hard to judge AND that if Bioware just did a server merge (which they probably should do) the numbers would change BUT take this with the anecedotal statements from all over the web (the graphic bugs annoyed me too much and I bailed in Feb) of people talking about ghost towns on servers I think it is FAR from safe to say that more people are currently playing SWOTR than Rift atm. Not saying it isn't true but the evidence we can get our hands on surely doesn't support it. We would either need to know the population cut offs OR SWOTR would need to do a server merge to concentrate their populations in order to make a truly accurate assessment.