Blizzard....It must be humbling for them..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <PRuXd.8103$1S4.856798@news.xtra.co.nz
>, Cataleptic <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>What does that mean exactly?

It means I don't believe you haven't had problems ' logging in _once_
this year ' as you asserted.

>> Anybody spouting the bs you do, is in serious fanboy denial. They
>> credited customer accounts and stopped sales of the game because
>> they had no problems with the servers I guess.
>
>I'm a fanboy because I haven't any problems playing WoW this year? What
>kind of bizarre little world have you constructed for yourself that
>those two things necessarily follow one another?

They don't, of course if you could read, I never suggested they did. You're a
fanboy because you _DENIED_ the extent of the problems they have with
server stability, even going so far to suggest the server problems weren't
even experienced on the majority of the servers.

In addition, you felt a cute little mock was in order to imply server problems
weren't a serious issue at all: " Ok, you got me. It's all just a conspiracy.
The fact is that the WoW servers haven't been up since Decemember.
They're paying the rest of us to keep pretending we've been having weeks
of uninterrupted fun."

Interesting how you deny the posters argument as an isolated opinion, all the
while purporting to speak for everyone else in support of yours.

>I never said that they've had no problems, nor that I hadn't had any
>myself. But then, you already know that.

You sure as heck did, and I quote: " Personally, I haven't had trouble logging
on ONCE [ my caps ] this year. "

Tell you what, you pretend that
>Blizzard's servers in constantly on the verge of meltdown and are barely
>functioning in any kind of remotely acceptable fashion if it makes you
>happy, and I'll keep playing WoW hassle-free, or whatever hallucinatory
>experience it is that I'm having that makes me *think* that's what I'm
>doing.

I think you stretched the truth in order to support your position. For your
information, I have had ALMOST NO PROBLEMS logging in or crashing.
Very isolated instances. But I also know my experience isn't typical
[ primarily because I'm on a relatively new and low pop server ] and wouldn't
think of extending my experience as any sort of indicator on the state of the
game to those not so fortunate.

Jim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"drocket" <drocket@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mibt215qvns4bc0ajr48husnu1q5a6ud5k@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:25:15 -0600, "Jim Vieira"
> <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote:
>
>>And now look where they are.
> The most successful MMORPG ever aside from Lineage 1/2 (and rapidly
> catching up to them)?

Come on you know he didnt mean it in that context. He was refering to the
state of many players being beleagured by intense lag and server issues. And
this is bound to affect the future monthly payments they are going to need
to pay for everything.

Though, to be honest with that many sales they have made a hell of a lot of
money, enough to cover development costs plus a healthy bonus for their
employee's {you'd hope} AS WELL as running the game no worries for months to
come.

*shrugs* The thing is I guess there are just so many people out there who
_need_ a MMORPG. Without one to spend many hours per day on their lives
don't feel complete. Its these people that will continue to pay regardless
of lag, with the never ending hope that "it'll be better tomorrow!".

Ceo-

 

[Eds]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

SO WHAT !!!
Some people here seem to be getting their jollies because Blizzards
new game isn't totally smooth sailing.

What pathetic lives you must live if your only joy in is knocking a
game company.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:33:10 -0500, "Paul2" <emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com>
wrote:

>The server stability and performance on World of Warcraft(WoW) is atrocious
>at best.
>After years of receiving accolades such as, "Blizzard, the best gaming
>producers in the world"..Blizzard the King of online play...etc, etc,..their
>inability to fix the terrible servers of WoW much be frustrating them no
>end.
>
>Phrases like, "Oh how the mighty have fallen" come to mind...Yes, WoW is a
>good mmorpg when its running as intended...trouble is most of the time it
>ISN'T running as intended.
>
>I read somewhere they even put the Ad out looking for a server guru to come
>on board and help fix their problems...
>
>Anyway, WoW is failing in one of the most important aspects of a
>MMORPG.......It server's stability and performance...
>
>

Yes, I can just see how WoW turning out to be more successful than their
wildest dreams will cause them to become humble.


--
Hong Ooi | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
hong@zipworld.com.au | STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- RR
Sydney, Australia |

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Hong Ooi" <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ict21hif6sjtm218rh4ji0k6rfrevit5s@4ax.com...
>
> Yes, I can just see how WoW turning out to be more successful than their
> wildest dreams will cause them to become humble.

Thats a fair response. But arnt they limiting the population on servers
anyway? Which really, means no matter how succesful the game sold there
should be no server side issues as each server is at its max population
regardless of how many other servers there are to take the extra people.

Unless they havent limited the server population, I thought that was always
their plan?

Ceo-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:50:44 -0500, EdS <EdS@EdS.com> wrote:

>
>
>SO WHAT !!!
>Some people here seem to be getting their jollies because Blizzards
>new game isn't totally smooth sailing.
>
>What pathetic lives you must live if your only joy in is knocking a
>game company.

Welcome to Usenet! ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:42:23 -0500, "Andrew Fenic" <afenic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Paul2" <emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:dZednRZCb5sWBrDfRVn-sw@rogers.com...
>> The server stability and performance on World of Warcraft(WoW) is
>> atrocious
>> at best.
>
>I played through level 40 with no server problems whatsoever.
>
>That's over 10 minutes of solid non-stop gameplay

Now if you hadn't taken that toilet break.......

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

foamy wrote:
> In article <PRuXd.8103$1S4.856798@news.xtra.co.nz
>>, Cataleptic <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>What does that mean exactly?
>
> It means I don't believe you haven't had problems ' logging in _once_
> this year ' as you asserted.

Well, I haven't. It's as simple as that. If you refuse to believe that,
then you have some serious issues.

>>I'm a fanboy because I haven't any problems playing WoW this year? What
>>kind of bizarre little world have you constructed for yourself that
>>those two things necessarily follow one another?
>
> They don't, of course if you could read, I never suggested they did. You're a
> fanboy because you _DENIED_ the extent of the problems they have with
> server stability, even going so far to suggest the server problems weren't
> even experienced on the majority of the servers.

Technically, this is actually true. But that's only because more than
50% of the currently online servers were only added this year, after the
initial rush had died down.

> Interesting how you deny the posters argument as an isolated opinion, all the
> while purporting to speak for everyone else in support of yours.

I'm not denying that there have never been any problems. In fact, I've
been on since release and distinctly remember a good number of the
servers being erractically available for a while, and a certain four
servers being offline for more than a week. What I dispute is that there
are still significant, ongoing problems across a large majority of the
servers.

>>I never said that they've had no problems, nor that I hadn't had any
>>myself. But then, you already know that.
>
> You sure as heck did, and I quote: " Personally, I haven't had trouble logging
> on ONCE [ my caps ] this year. "

Sorry, I'm living in 2005. I forgot to mention that. My mistake. let me
know when you catch up.

> I think you stretched the truth in order to support your position. For your
> information, I have had ALMOST NO PROBLEMS logging in or crashing.
> Very isolated instances. But I also know my experience isn't typical
> [ primarily because I'm on a relatively new and low pop server ] and wouldn't
> think of extending my experience as any sort of indicator on the state of the
> game to those not so fortunate.

I'm on a high population server that was online since release day, and
my experience, and those I know IRL who play the game, and those in my
guild, has been almost entirely positive since the last content patch. I
*would* think of extending my experience as a sort of indictator on the
state of the game. Especially factoring in the fact that people are much
more likely to vocalise and exaggerate negative claims than positive ones.

--
Remove the mess to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Ceowulf wrote:
> "Hong Ooi" <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ict21hif6sjtm218rh4ji0k6rfrevit5s@4ax.com...
>>
>> Yes, I can just see how WoW turning out to be more successful than their
>> wildest dreams will cause them to become humble.
>
> Thats a fair response. But arnt they limiting the population on servers
> anyway? Which really, means no matter how succesful the game sold there
> should be no server side issues as each server is at its max population
> regardless of how many other servers there are to take the extra people.
>
> Unless they havent limited the server population, I thought that was always
> their plan?

There isn't a per-server population limit. There *is* a per-server
*concurrency* limit (i.e. the infamous queuing system).

IIRC, when you create a character for the first time, WoW 'suggests' a
server for you to create it on. As I understand it, Blizzard was hoping
that that 'suggestion' would be sufficient to keep the player population
sufficiently dispersed across their servers. They had also scheduled the
addition on new servers for early January to take up the post-Christmas
slack. Unforunately, they ended up selling the bulk of their first print
run before those extra servers came online, and the result was that the
existing servers had populations well above what Blizzard intended them
to be at. Which just goes to show that no battle plan survives contact
with the enemy

Their only choices were:

1. Release a smaller initial print run and see just how fast the game
shipped. Leaving a lot angry people unable to buy the game on release day.

2. Put a hard limit on server populations. Leaving a lot of angry people
unable to create a character on the same server as their
guild/friends/the-one-with-the-most-female-NightElfs.

3. Impose a queueing system to keep concurrency within acceptable limit.
Leaving a lot of angry people starting at notoriously erratic ETA.

Not a good position to be in.

Obviously, all this grief could have been avoided if they'd implemented
a managed server-migration scheme like FFXI. They *are* offering a
one-off character migration 'soon', which for some people is too little,
too late. Personally, I think that choosing to walk away from the game
(instead of re-rolling on a low-pop server) because you hate *Blizzard*,
not the *game*, is a little histrionic, but that's just me.

--
Remove the mess to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Cataleptic" <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4tKXd.8251$1S4.883064@news.xtra.co.nz...

> Their only choices were:
>
> 1. Release a smaller initial print run and see just how fast the game
> shipped. Leaving a lot angry people unable to buy the game on release day.
>
> 2. Put a hard limit on server populations. Leaving a lot of angry people
> unable to create a character on the same server as their
> guild/friends/the-one-with-the-most-female-NightElfs.
>
> 3. Impose a queueing system to keep concurrency within acceptable limit.
> Leaving a lot of angry people starting at notoriously erratic ETA.

You forgot one.

4. Use the several millions of dollars of pre-order revenues that arrived in
the fall of 2004 to engineer a solution (whether via HW or SW).

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

foamy wrote:
> In article <icKXd.8248$1S4.878492@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> Cataleptic <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Well, I haven't. It's as simple as that. If you refuse to believe that,
>>then you have some serious issues.
>
> Your server has _never_ been down when you tried to log in ? You
> never had to wait in line ?

Not this year, no.

> Not believing at face value your assertion indicates I have ' serious
> issues ' ? That's funny, don't give up your day job doc. 🙂

Ok then, why don't you believe me? You've yet to submit any kind of
reason, much less a good one, as to why you think I'm 'spouting bs'. And
if you're perfectly willing to call someone a liar for no good reason at
all, then I'd call that a serious issue.

>>Technically, this is actually true. But that's only because more than
>>50% of the currently online servers were only added this year, after the
>>initial rush had died down.
>
> Heh. OK. But you know as well as me, that's a distinction without a
> difference given the context of the exchange.

But pointing it out doesn't make me a fanboy, does it? It just means I'm
aware of the facts. The real indicator of fanboy/panboy tendancies is
exaggeration in the appropriate direction, and I haven't exaggerated.
How about you?

>> What I dispute is that there
>>are still significant, ongoing problems across a large majority of the
>>servers.
>
> I don't know one way or the other-- can you share the information you
> have which supports the above ?

Other than the fact that there *hasn't* been a mass desertion on any of
the high-population servers (I know this because IF is still Lag Central
whenever I go there), and that despite the number of career whiners on
the forums, the number of "I'm sick of waiting in line, I'm quitting"
posts has dwindled to background radiation levels.

>>Sorry, I'm living in 2005. I forgot to mention that. My mistake. let me
>>know when you catch up.
>
> I'd have to slow down to catch up. Where did you say you had problems ?

I only said that I'd had no problems this year. It's not a enormous feat
of logic to deduce how much that says about last year, but for your
benefit, yes, I did experience problems last year, with decreasing
frequency. And yes, for the first few days, the game was almost unplayable.

> Add up the number of people you know and relate that number to the
> game population at large, and you can see the sample size would produce
> a margin of error approaching +/- 100%. All I'm saying is to underplay the
> game-wide problems based upon your own experience is silly.

Margins of error have got nothing to do with the total population. There
are about 20 (ex and current)guild members that are usually on when I
am, and I know another 10 or so players IRL. That makes for a margin of
error of about 20%. Good enough for me. And even *with* a paltry sample
of 30, the fact that not one of them has mentioned having the chronic
levels of unplayability you seem to believe are prevalent means that my
hypothesis is much more likely to be true than yours.

>> Especially factoring in the fact that people are much
>>more likely to vocalise and exaggerate negative claims than positive ones.
>
> Oh really ? I hardly think exaggeration is the purview of negative claims. Just
> ask anyone in your guild how big their dicks are.

On average, their answer would probably be quite a bit less than your
answer, I'm sure.

> Of course individuals having problems are going to speak up, after all, what
> do those not having problems have to bitch about ? But that fact alone in no
> way negates the legitimacy of the complaints.

But it also in no way indicates the prevalence of their problem.
Regardless of which, for you to insist that my claim was 'bs' means that
you believe the problem is not just significant, not even widespread,
but in fact ubiquitous. And you believe so with such conviction that
you're willing to call people who say otherwise a liar. I'm curious as
to why that is...

--
Remove the mess to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <4GPXd.8338$1S4.889296@news.xtra.co.nz
>, Cataleptic <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>Ok then, why don't you believe me? You've yet to submit any kind of
>reason, much less a good one, as to why you think I'm 'spouting bs'. And
>if you're perfectly willing to call someone a liar for no good reason at
>all, then I'd call that a serious issue.

I'd call your twisting of the facts a ' serious issue ' on your part. I never
once called you a liar--I said I didn't didn't believe what you were saying.
The truthfulness of your statements and my beliefs are independent of
each other.

>But pointing it out doesn't make me a fanboy, does it? It just means I'm
>aware of the facts. The real indicator of fanboy/panboy tendancies is
>exaggeration in the appropriate direction, and I haven't exaggerated.
>How about you?

How about you putting up then, instead of feeding at the trough of
generalities and anecdotes. You have a wonderful propensity to
dodge and weave. Give us the facts. How many servers are
experiencing login probs and crashes ? You have no prob saying
it's not an issue--give us the benefit of what you know.

>Margins of error have got nothing to do with the total population.

Heh. Just some friendly advice, don't tread where you know dick.
I said your sample size relative to the total pop determines margin
of error. Quit while you're just thought of as silly as opposed to
sliding into total ignorance.

There
>are about 20 (ex and current)guild members that are usually on when I
>am, and I know another 10 or so players IRL. That makes for a margin of
>error of about 20%. Good enough for me. And even *with* a paltry sample
>of 30, the fact that not one of them has mentioned having the chronic
>levels of unplayability you seem to believe are prevalent means that my
>hypothesis is much more likely to be true than yours.

OK, you've just made a total fool out of yourself. You know absolutely
nothing about probability theory and statistical analysis. No point in
going any further.

>On average, their answer would probably be quite a bit less than your
>answer, I'm sure.

You're a Gnome guild ? That explains it.

>But it also in no way indicates the prevalence of their problem.
>Regardless of which, for you to insist that my claim was 'bs' means that
>you believe the problem is not just significant, not even widespread,
>but in fact ubiquitous. And you believe so with such conviction that
>you're willing to call people who say otherwise a liar. I'm curious as
>to why that is...

Never called you a liar. A fact which repeatedly has escaped you. You're
a phony. I read a post of yours where you used language foreign to I
would guess the majority of gamers, I'd like to know what connection you
have to gaming in general, and Blizzard specifically. When you described
aspects of servers, [ I can't at the moment bring up your server theory ] I
got the distinct impression you are a Blizzard apologist on salary.

Jim-

 

[Eds]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 06:00:46 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:

>I'd call your twisting of the facts a ' serious issue ' on your part.
I see you're still stupid Troll
The only guy twisting facts is YOU!

plonk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"EdS" <EdS@EdS.com> wrote in message
news:jq2u21l2js82np127s0lfmi225hlcjh4gi@4ax.com...
>
> SO WHAT !!!
> Some people here seem to be getting their jollies because Blizzards
> new game isn't totally smooth sailing.
>
> What pathetic lives you must live if your only joy in is knocking a
> game company.

Wow, what a great message, so articulate, so to the point, so open and
friendly, you inspire me.

P.s. I don't give a toss either way, I was just making a comment, so shove
ya exclamation marks up your overly abused nether region.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Jim Vieira <WhiplashrAT@widot.rrdot.com> wrote:

> That's when I lost faith in Blizzard. That's when I could see that
> they were not the same company any more. All that beta time and the
> game was only slowly evolving. When they first launched the beta
> only a small portion of the overall characters were available, and
> it stayed that way for 6 weeks. The whole summer the game was only
> half done. Barely half the playable zones.. Several missing chars.
> No skills for many chars (and then they re-did skills bigtime right
> near the end with very little time for testing). No "feats" were
> added till the end. (I forget if they are called feats, so sue me).

Talents.

Speaking as someone who's played the game a lot since release and
still loves it, Jim is absolutely right. The rush-job nature of the
game shows in a lot of places. Paladins were one of the last classes
to be finalized, and the Paladin talent tree contains a lot of odds
and ends. Some talents are bugged and don't work properly. Some
talents are at points on the tree that make absolutely no sense. One
talent is bugged in such a way that it works just fine itself, but if
you acquire it, it breaks a completely unrelated skill. None of this
would be obvious to the casual gamer, but once you've played a bit and
looked at the talent tree you start to wonder what they were thinking.

Another example is the gryphon/wyvern flight routes from town to town.
In some places they're logically organized and make sense. In others
you wonder what the designers were smoking when they came up with the
flight routes. There are several cases where towns A, B, and C are
located in such a way that traveling from A to C on foot requires you
to pass through B, but there's no way to fly from A to B; instead you
have to fly from A to C and then backtrack to B. Even more maddenning
is that the flight route from A to C usually passes directly over B,
so you're teased with a view of the place you want to go, but forced
to take a useless 5-10 minute detour.

> That's why I've been predicting it's over-all failure. I must admit
> I am flabbergasted at the number of people who actually did buy it.
> But I am firmly convinced that they will lose in the long run.
> People won't put up with the half assed job they are doing, and a
> game that get's uber-boring in a matter of 6 months top.

> I never bought it (first Blizzard game I never bought, I own
> multiple copies of every of their other games). And I never will
> buy it. I'm convinced it will fail.

I think it'll succeed. For all its flaws it still has far too much
going for it. It's attracting a lot of new people to the genre,
e.g. me, and we're probably willing to put up with some things that'd
drive an MMO veteran nuts.

--
Adam Smith

 

[Eric]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Uh, I have been on Uther since opening day. The server has to be in the top
5 for going down. Today it went down 4 times until they decided to bring it
down for a hardware upgrade. You basically don't know what you are talkling
about. This downtime has been just as bad as Anarchy Online was during the
first month of release. In the last 24 hours it has been down for 18. Last
weekend it was down for a while and the weekend before that it was down for
24 hours in a row. I am not even counting the less than 4 hour reboots
going on during the day.

My point is this game has never been completely stable. I can stomach a lot
after playing MMORPGs for 7 years but Blizzard communicates very poorly with
their customers. Everquest was nerver this bad, nor was SWG. It really
depends on which server you end up on cause right now its looking like
multiple servers share the same database....since its always the same
servers going down.

I like the game a lot but geeze they are forcing me to move to Vanguard when
it comes out because of stability and missing level 60 content.


"Cataleptic" <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:icKXd.8248$1S4.878492@news.xtra.co.nz...
> foamy wrote:
>> In article <PRuXd.8103$1S4.856798@news.xtra.co.nz
>>>, Cataleptic <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>What does that mean exactly?
>>
>> It means I don't believe you haven't had problems ' logging in _once_
>> this year ' as you asserted.
>
> Well, I haven't. It's as simple as that. If you refuse to believe that,
> then you have some serious issues.
>
>>>I'm a fanboy because I haven't any problems playing WoW this year? What
>>>kind of bizarre little world have you constructed for yourself that those
>>>two things necessarily follow one another?
>>
>> They don't, of course if you could read, I never suggested they did.
>> You're a fanboy because you _DENIED_ the extent of the problems they have
>> with
>> server stability, even going so far to suggest the server problems
>> weren't even experienced on the majority of the servers.
>
> Technically, this is actually true. But that's only because more than 50%
> of the currently online servers were only added this year, after the
> initial rush had died down.
>
>> Interesting how you deny the posters argument as an isolated opinion, all
>> the while purporting to speak for everyone else in support of yours.
>
> I'm not denying that there have never been any problems. In fact, I've
> been on since release and distinctly remember a good number of the servers
> being erractically available for a while, and a certain four servers being
> offline for more than a week. What I dispute is that there are still
> significant, ongoing problems across a large majority of the servers.
>
>>>I never said that they've had no problems, nor that I hadn't had any
>>>myself. But then, you already know that.
>>
>> You sure as heck did, and I quote: " Personally, I haven't had trouble
>> logging on ONCE [ my caps ] this year. "
>
> Sorry, I'm living in 2005. I forgot to mention that. My mistake. let me
> know when you catch up.
>
>> I think you stretched the truth in order to support your position. For
>> your information, I have had ALMOST NO PROBLEMS logging in or crashing.
>> Very isolated instances. But I also know my experience isn't typical [
>> primarily because I'm on a relatively new and low pop server ] and
>> wouldn't
>> think of extending my experience as any sort of indicator on the state of
>> the game to those not so fortunate.
>
> I'm on a high population server that was online since release day, and my
> experience, and those I know IRL who play the game, and those in my guild,
> has been almost entirely positive since the last content patch. I *would*
> think of extending my experience as a sort of indictator on the state of
> the game. Especially factoring in the fact that people are much more
> likely to vocalise and exaggerate negative claims than positive ones.
>
> --
> Remove the mess to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:33:10 -0500, "Paul2"
<emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com> wrote:

>The server stability and performance on World of Warcraft(WoW) is atrocious
>at best.
>After years of receiving accolades such as, "Blizzard, the best gaming
>producers in the world"..Blizzard the King of online play...etc, etc,..their
>inability to fix the terrible servers of WoW much be frustrating them no
>end.
>
>Phrases like, "Oh how the mighty have fallen" come to mind...Yes, WoW is a
>good mmorpg when its running as intended...trouble is most of the time it
>ISN'T running as intended.
>
>I read somewhere they even put the Ad out looking for a server guru to come
>on board and help fix their problems...
>

Not all are in your boat.....

Two of my sons got Wow at Christmas, currently play on a PvP server
( "skullcrusher", I believe) and have had zero problems at the times
they have been playing. They log on for about an hour or so most
weekday evenings and up to 4 or 5 hours on Sat and/or Sunday. Maybe
we are lucky here on the west coast of the US. Or maybe it is those
who play it for long continuous periods of time that statistically see
more problems and then show up here very grumpy with withdrawal
symptoms... ?

FYI, our ISP is Verizon (DSL)

It is very much in Blizzard's financial interest "to keep 95% of the
players happy 95% of the time" ( adapted from an old broadcast-TV
adage ). Have patience, things will get better; try another server...
or you have the right to cancel your subscription.....and
revive it later with your characters still intact, afaik.... your
choice...vote with your pocketbook if you are unbearably
unhappy.

If you are endeavoring to seek constructive help such as
suggestions for the most reliable servers, I am sure that some
here will help you.

John Lewis



>Anyway, WoW is failing in one of the most important aspects of a
>MMORPG.......It server's stability and performance...
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

foamy wrote:
> In article <jA2Yd.8507$1S4.912128@news.xtra.co.nz
>>, Cataleptic <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Ok, you're getting tiresome now. I have only ever said the following:
>>
>>1. I haven't had any problems this year.
>>2. Those I know IRL and in game have had almost no problems this year.
>>3. It's not unreasonable to extrapolate those two facts to infer that
>>Blizzard's server issues are not as prevalent as you seem to think.
>
> It is a totally unreasonable process. No more valid than another person
> posting they've had nothing but problems and use that to suggest
> all the servers have gone to hell.

It an totally unreasonable process if the sample size has a margin of
error larger than 50%. In fact, as we have both stated, the margin of
error is about 20%, and therefore it *is* a reasonable process. Not
exactly rigorous, but also not totally unreasonable.

> lol. Out of a population of 20 you collect data from 20, what's the margin of
> error ? Out of a population of 2,000,000 you collect data from 20, what's the
> margin of error ? [ fyi it's 0 and approx. 21.91 respectively ]. Now tell me
> again how the margin of error is determined SOLELY by sample size and
> doesn't have anything to do with total pop.

I was talking in the context of WoW, where the population size is known
to large, and for all intents and purposes *is* irrelevant.

> Sample size becomes less
> important in determining the margin of error as the population size
> increases.

Indeed. But you said yourself:

"Add up the number of people you know and relate that number to the
game population at large, and you can see the sample size would produce
a margin of error approaching +/- 100%"

Which is patently untrue... as you pointed out. Thankyou for saving me
the effort.

> Thanks, I majored in statistical analysis as an undergrad. I can lend you a
> few texts if you like.

If it's the one that says that the margin of error of a sample size of
30 out of a population of serveral hundred thousand is approaching +/-
100%, I'm not interested.

>>So I'm a phony who's spouting bullshit, but I'm not a liar.
>
> Yes. But you don't know why I called you a phony. Not because of
> what you said specifically with respect to the servers, but how you
> respond in debate. You constantly, intentionally misrepresent what
> I actually said, and then shoot down your creation. The old strawman.

Ok, you said I was spouting bullshit when I said I'd had no problems
logging in this year. I took that to mean you thought I was a liar. In
the absence of any justification for calling that particular statement a
lie (which you have *still* yet to produce), the only good reason for
for you not believing it *is* if you thought I was a liar.

You said outright that you don't believe me. Now, that's either because:

1. You think I'm lying (i.e. you have good reason to believe that that
statement is false).
2. You think I'm a liar (i.e. you have good reason to believe that I
make false statements in general).
3. You think I'm telling the truth, but you refuse to believe it.

What did I miss?

> How about if I assign a number to: " Never said you were lying ",
> say #23. Then each time you say this, I can respond #23 and won't
> have to type it all out ?
>
> Since you don't apparently like the answers I've given you

You've never given me an answer. You have never once stated *why* you
thought my initial statement was bullshit (which is apparently
semantically distinct from thinking my that that statement was a lie).

> I'll give you
> another. OK, I believe you, You've never had a problem logging in this year.
> How's that ?

You believe something you yourself call bullshit?

Then that brings me right back to my first question... what exactly did
you mean when you said "I call BS"? If you don't think I'm a liar, and
don't think that that statement was a lie, then what, exactly, do you
mean by calling it bullshit?

--
Remove the mess to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Paul2 wrote:
>
[snip]
> After years of receiving accolades such as, "Blizzard, the best
> gaming producers in the world"..Blizzard the King of online
> play...etc, etc,..their inability to fix the terrible servers of WoW
> much be frustrating them no end.

I'm sure they take breaks from counting their huge stacks of cash and
say to themselves, "Wow, we used to be one of the best gaming producers
in the world, what happened?" Then they see their massive subscriber
base, WoW awards, and number of users online...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"i own a yacht" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:39b08vF5tp567U4@individual.net...
> Paul2 <emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com> wrote:
>> Just to add to my post for those who think its just my problem...Please
>> visit the Blizzard Forums, for that matter any WoW fan site......the
>> server
>> outages over the last few days have the peons in a near state of
>> revolt...silly little peons its all their ISP's fault...ah, ignorance,
>> tis
>> bliss...
>
> all the people trotting out their standard "i don't have any problem"
> reponses look pretty silly in light of tonight's, coming up on 12hr+
> downtime of many servers.
>

It's not that hard to stop playing if you uninstall the game and go find
something else to do. They should all try it, works wonders, let me tell
you. I don't even know or care what Blizzard's servers are doing anymore,
nor does it have any effect on my life. I think I'll wait for Guild Wars,
which is just around the corner...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) Spake Unto All:

>I never ONCE used anecdotal evidence in support of anything.

Please, speak English! You of course mean that in a statistically
significant number of cases you did not use non-stringent methodology
to support indeterminate propositions.

>In fact if you
>actually read the thread, you'd discover my raison d'être in the thread was
>to point out exactly that--that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily
>reflective of the state of the game.

Ah, much better. Keep up the good work!

>I'll accept your apology.

No, no, no!
I suggest: "After careful evaluation of available evidence, we are at
a loss to explain the contradictory hypotheses brought forth by Ooi et
al, 2005."

>Jim



"We also found that for university students, total time spent in the recent past
on video games has a potential detrimental effect on grades."
-- Anderson & Dill makes a Discovery, in 'Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts,
Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life'. 2004.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <i71431tdt5tk2tsbg4mqrcju3udrobh39l@4ax.
com>, Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Thusly bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) Spake Unto All:
>
>>I never ONCE used anecdotal evidence in support of anything.
>
>Please, speak English! You of course mean that in a statistically
>significant number of cases you did not use non-stringent methodology
>to support indeterminate propositions.

<snipped >


Heh. I stand corrected. 🙂

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Cataleptic <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> once tried to test me with:

> Sure, I'll admit that *technically* I was wrong about my statement
> regarding the relevance of population size vs. sample size. But that's
> no more relevant than the fact that *technically* 'the majority' of
> servers have had no problems.
>
> Will you admit that you were wrong about a sample size of 30 being
> meaningless? Actually, you don't need to, you already have... although
> it looks like it was accidental. I suppose the ensuing hissy fit was
> inevitable.

Sample size isn't the relevant issue. What's relevant is is the sample a
RANDOM sample of WoW players, or is there some bias in the sampling? Are
all of your friends playing on the same servers? Do they all pick similar
types of servers (that would be less prone to problems)? Etc. Etc.

Without making sure your sample is unbiased, there's no point in doing the
analysis.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

EdS <EdS@EdS.com> once tried to test me with:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:30:34 +1300, Cataleptic
><cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Paul2 wrote:
>>> Strange, if there isn't problems for MOST, why did Blizzard tack on
>>> a bunch of free days because of all the down time?
>>
>>Because they're... *not* a pack of bastards... maybe?
>>
>>Personally, I haven't had trouble logging on once this year.
>>
>>...
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>Ok, you got me. It's all just a conspiracy. The fact is that the WoW
>>servers haven't been up since Decemember. They're paying the rest of
>>us to keep pretending we've been having weeks of uninterrupted fun.
>
> Did you get your check yet ? I didn't get mine.
>

I got mine.


But it bounced.


Greedy bastards.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

i own a yacht wrote:
> John Lewis <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Have patience, things will get better; try another server...
>
> "try another server" still remains an invalid response. first,
> people shouldn't be expected to give up on all the work they put into
> their existing characters. second, the same thing could eventually
> happen, or turn out to happen, on the new server you pick. and then
> what?

As a result of being in the "my server is broken" situation a number of
times in the past, and heeding the cries to "try another server", I now
have serious or semi-serious characters spread across three different
servers.

Guess what? All three of them (Blackrock, Spinebreaker and Proudmoore)
are in the set of twenty that have had basically 0 uptime for the last
48 hours.

Oh well, another 5 free days to add to the week or two they've already
given me..

Cheers!
David...