Halflife 2 question.....

G

Guest

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

A friend was complaining that he and a friend were pissed cause they
bought the game but there's no single player, and it didn't say so on
the box yada blah blah yada.

I haven't bought the game so I have no idea what he's talking about.
I can't believe what he babbling about is true.

Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?

Thanks

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

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:05:25 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:

>A friend was complaining that he and a friend were pissed cause they
>bought the game but there's no single player, and it didn't say so on
>the box yada blah blah yada.
>
>I haven't bought the game so I have no idea what he's talking about.
>I can't believe what he babbling about is true.
>
>Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?
>
>Thanks
>
>Jim

You have to let it connect via Steam (which was/is apparently offline) to
validate the game or something. However there are both single and
multiplayer modes. Single player mode is quite linear but it does have a
plot.

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

foamy wrote:

> A friend was complaining that he and a friend were pissed cause they
> bought the game but there's no single player, and it didn't say so on
> the box yada blah blah yada.

There is single player. You just have to validate your game through
Steam...did you miss the Steam posts foamy? ;-)

> Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?

You've been scooped...
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

foamy wrote:
> A friend was complaining that he and a friend were pissed cause they
> bought the game but there's no single player, and it didn't say so on
> the box yada blah blah yada.
>
> I haven't bought the game so I have no idea what he's talking about.
> I can't believe what he babbling about is true.
>
> Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?

It is a single player game but you need net access to activate it through
steam.

--
Morgan.
----
* ...The funny thing is, on the outside, I was an honest man, straight as an
arrow. I had to come to prison to be a crook.

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Morgan Sales" <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:364pucF4uecrgU1@individual.net...
> foamy wrote:
>> A friend was complaining that he and a friend were pissed cause they
>> bought the game but there's no single player, and it didn't say so on
>> the box yada blah blah yada.
>>
>> I haven't bought the game so I have no idea what he's talking about.
>> I can't believe what he babbling about is true.
>>
>> Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?
>
> It is a single player game but you need net access to activate it through
> steam.
>

Don't pass your CDs through steam, it may damage the plastic and make them
unreadable!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <4gcqv0tc3v8andl542vvtohu5nu3pogjc
4@4ax.com>, macecil@comcast.net wrote:

>You have to let it connect via Steam (which was/is apparently offline) to
>validate the game or something. However there are both single and
>multiplayer modes. Single player mode is quite linear but it does have a
>plot.


Thanks. So a person without internet access couldn't play single player ?
Does the connection have to be active to play it--or is it a one-time activation ?

This sounds nuts to me. Any idea why they dreamt this up ?

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

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:37:42 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:

>In article <4gcqv0tc3v8andl542vvtohu5nu3pogjc
>4@4ax.com>, macecil@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>You have to let it connect via Steam (which was/is apparently offline) to
>>validate the game or something. However there are both single and
>>multiplayer modes. Single player mode is quite linear but it does have a
>>plot.
>
>
>Thanks. So a person without internet access couldn't play single player ?
>Does the connection have to be active to play it--or is it a one-time activation ?

I'm not sure. There are quite a few cracks and Steam emulators running
around that you can use.

>This sounds nuts to me. Any idea why they dreamt this up ?

To make things difficult for paying customers?

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

foamy wrote:

> In article <4gcqv0tc3v8andl542vvtohu5nu3pogjc
> 4@4ax.com>, macecil@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>>You have to let it connect via Steam (which was/is apparently offline) to
>>validate the game or something. However there are both single and
>>multiplayer modes. Single player mode is quite linear but it does have a
>>plot.
>
>
>
> Thanks. So a person without internet access couldn't play single player ?
> Does the connection have to be active to play it--or is it a one-time activation ?

One time activation...it is quite painless and nothing that major.

> This sounds nuts to me. Any idea why they dreamt this up ?

Not nuts...keeps the lamers and l33t ha><0r5 down to a dull roar online...
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <364pucF4uecrgU1@individual.net>,
"Morgan Sales" <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>It is a single player game but you need net access to activate it through
>steam.


Thanks Morgan.

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

foamy wrote:
> In article <364pucF4uecrgU1@individual.net>,
> "Morgan Sales" <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> It is a single player game but you need net access to activate it
>> through steam.
>
>
> Thanks Morgan.

NP

--
Morgan.
----
* Oh, God, no. Ugh. Did you know that having a hangover is... is not having
enough water in your body to run your krebs cycle? Which is exactly what
happens to you when you are dying of thirst. So, dying of thirst would
probably feel pretty much like the hangover that finally bloody kills you.

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <loiqv05uiomp8fa3a22t5srovlo3e83mjs@4ax.com>,
macecil@comcast.net wrote:

>I'm not sure. There are quite a few cracks and Steam emulators running
>around that you can use.
>
>>This sounds nuts to me. Any idea why they dreamt this up ?
>
>To make things difficult for paying customers?


Heh. Sure sounds like it.

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

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:37:42 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:

>In article <4gcqv0tc3v8andl542vvtohu5nu3pogjc
>4@4ax.com>, macecil@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>You have to let it connect via Steam (which was/is apparently offline) to
>>validate the game or something. However there are both single and
>>multiplayer modes. Single player mode is quite linear but it does have a
>>plot.
>
>
>Thanks. So a person without internet access couldn't play single player ?

I don't think so, unless it's already been cracked. When you install it,
steam downloads a fair bit and then alters your installed files using
what it downloaded.

>Does the connection have to be active to play it--or is it a one-time activation ?

By default, it tries to connect every time you start the game, though it
only transfers much data the first time it's started. There is a setting
available to put it into 'Offline mode', which means that it doesn't
need to connect to play any more.

>This sounds nuts to me. Any idea why they dreamt this up ?

It seems to be a security thing to go along with their plans for
distributing games themselves over the net rather than through a
publisher.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Steam is an online-only content delivery service intended to pretect
the intellectual property rights the creators.

Summary: Allows you to download and install games without ever buying a
physical product

Valve is not the only one to do this...there is a series of war
simulation/games that have been released online only, Stardock is a
different thing that is similar to Steam

Steam has certain peculiarities, however.

The most irritating is that you cannot play a physical game you bought
at a store without an internet connection. Installation requires Steam
to be functional. This means if Valve dies and there is no Steam, you
cannot install the game you bought, period. These are probably the
biggest problems.



Valve has had a particular problem with its HL2/Steam launch in
handling information. When changing formats like this, it is important
to use media to make clear to your customers what is going on, how
things work and so forth.

The fact that people are buying a game, not realizing it is unplayable
and worthless without an internet connection is a HUGE problem. They
will get a lot of angry people. And guess what? These are the people
least likely to communicate with you...because they don't have a
connection, so they don't email or use forums.

Which means a whole sector of potential customers have been/will be
alienated and angry, AND VALVE WON'T EVEN REALIZE IT.

I garauntee you, as a result of this there will be all kinds of wierd
and hostile rumors floating around. Your friends' belief that it was a
multiplayer only game (probably a result of some confusion with Quake)
is one example of this.

This kind of "tone-deafness"/business stupidity is not uncommon in the
PC business.

It should have said, on the top of the front of the box, in giant red
letters: REQUIRES AN INTERNET CONNECTION TO PLAY THE SINGLEPLAYER GAME




Its actually very smart, from their POV.
They are leveraging a Mega-Hit title/license in order to become an
online publisher. Valve intends to compete with EA, with
Sierra/Vivendi (their own publisher), and so on.

The way to make their content distribution system attractive to
potential developers is to demonstrate tight control of the IP, which
is why use is so restrictive. The problem is that HL2 was cracked
within a week, so it didn't really stop pirates.

The fact is, the harder something is to crack, the harder people try to
crack it, because doing so confers status/prestige within the
hacker/warez community.



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

"foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
news:VdaLd.222511$6l.115362@pd7tw2no...

> Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?

Hey Jim, how ya been? I'm playing EverQuest II and World of Warcraft now.
My wife and I are playing them both and having a great time with each. This
is my nightmare come true, TWO MMOGs at once! Damn those guys ...

Sorry, I can't offer much insight into the HL2 question because I stayed
far, far away from it once I read about Steam. It's a bold new idea but then
so was Blizzard's ill-fated attempt to attach spyware to their titles long
ago, before people realized what they were doing. In retrospect, the
Blizzard move seems incredible and they've never gone back to it after their
public apology, but at the time it probably seemed like a good idea. Kind of
like Steam does today, for some. Like most new technologies, it's got some
upside for the user and some downside, and a lot of upside to the
developer-publisher community so don't expect it to go down without a fight.
And the fight is underway. You can read any of the numerous posts here on
the topic of Valve, Steam, etc. There's a guy named difool who is on a
personal crusade to make it a hot topic here, and the flamewars are pretty
active on both sides.

I'm staying on the sidelines for the most part, chiming in with an
occasional comment, but since I have no desire to use it or have it anywhere
near my network, I won't have much to say about the implementation. The
concept was enough to keep me away from HL2.


--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

mike wrote:

> The most irritating is that you cannot play a physical game you bought
> at a store without an internet connection. Installation requires Steam
> to be functional. This means if Valve dies and there is no Steam, you
> cannot install the game you bought, period. These are probably the
> biggest problems.

Once again:
How many gamers DO NOT have an internet connection. Also it says right
on the box under min spec: INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED

> The fact that people are buying a game, not realizing it is unplayable
> and worthless without an internet connection is a HUGE problem. They
> will get a lot of angry people. And guess what? These are the people
> least likely to communicate with you...because they don't have a
> connection, so they don't email or use forums.

????????????? I'd have to see some statistics on this one...I mean come
on...how many people that are GAMERS (you have to have a beefy machine
to play HL2) don't have an internet connection?

> This kind of "tone-deafness"/business stupidity is not uncommon in the
> PC business.

Or any business for that matter ;-)

> It should have said, on the top of the front of the box, in giant red
> letters: REQUIRES AN INTERNET CONNECTION TO PLAY THE SINGLEPLAYER GAME

It says that in the min specs

> Its actually very smart, from their POV.
> They are leveraging a Mega-Hit title/license in order to become an
> online publisher. Valve intends to compete with EA, with
> Sierra/Vivendi (their own publisher), and so on.

IRRC they are moving away from having a publisher as they are going to
be their own publisher.

> The way to make their content distribution system attractive to
> potential developers is to demonstrate tight control of the IP, which
> is why use is so restrictive. The problem is that HL2 was cracked
> within a week, so it didn't really stop pirates.

But it has made online play far more fun and easy to get to. Not only
that, but the games are less laggy and the time to connect is far quicker.

> The fact is, the harder something is to crack, the harder people try to
> crack it, because doing so confers status/prestige within the
> hacker/warez community.

Sure...why not...to an extent this is true, but mostly cracks happen
because "it is there."
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"mike" <seraphic8x@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107204862.905530.306910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Steam is an online-only content delivery service intended to protect
> the intellectual property rights the creators.

If that is the stated purpose, I'd say it failed miserably.
But I've already been over that about a hundered times, so I'll
give it a rest.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <10vt7aeh0u8igcc@news.supernews.com
>, "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:

>Hey Jim, how ya been? I'm playing EverQuest II and World of Warcraft now.
>My wife and I are playing them both and having a great time with each. This
>is my nightmare come true, TWO MMOGs at once! Damn those guys ...


Hi Bob, good to hear from you. 🙂

I was thinking of joining the WOW community, but have been holding off
to see how the probs they are having work out.

A friend who plays told me they have 80 something servers and about
280K players. Is that about right ? An average of 3500 per server ? If that's
so, it doesn't sound like their servers have much of a capacity before being
overloaded.

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

bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) once tried to test me with:

> A friend who plays told me they have 80 something servers and about
> 280K players. Is that about right ? An average of 3500 per server ? If
> that's so, it doesn't sound like their servers have much of a capacity
> before being overloaded.

I'm on a high-pop server. If you put any more than what they have on our
server you'd have issues with crowding, regardless of whether or not the
servers themselves could actually handle more players or not. The game
WORLD really isn't designed for more than what they max out at now.


--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <Xns95EFEC18F98BEknight37m@130.133.1.4
>, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>I'm on a high-pop server. If you put any more than what they have on our
>server you'd have issues with crowding, regardless of whether or not the
>servers themselves could actually handle more players or not. The game
>WORLD really isn't designed for more than what they max out at now.


Ahh, thanks.

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

"foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
news:WnDLd.240700$Xk.206350@pd7tw3no...

> A friend who plays told me they have 80 something servers and about
> 280K players. Is that about right ? An average of 3500 per server ? If
> that's
> so, it doesn't sound like their servers have much of a capacity before
> being
> overloaded.

Yeah I've heard the 80 server number too but I haven't actually counted them
up, there's a *lot* of em. Unfortunately I'm on one of the high pop servers
and it's a nightmare to get on. Every time we log in we wait in a queue of
several hundred to get in, with an average of around 20-30 minutes just to
log in, sometimes an hour or more. Places like the Auction House in
Ironforge are unbearably laggy, but fortuanately you don't spend that much
time there, most of the time is spent out adventuring and lag out in the
game world has been a less problematic issue. Still annoying (like a weapon
switch macro, or a /tell may take a few seconds to happen), but not
crippling.

If the game didn't have these technical problems it would be near perfect.
As it is, the overall experience is still a major positive and if I were
playing on the one of the low pop servers it would probably be near perfect.

One of the problems all these MMOG guys have is the peak factor. Right after
a release of a new game (or server) you get this huge peak of activity while
everyone is trying it out, and then the activity recedes to a point where it
stabilizes and becomes more or less consistent. If you build for the peak,
you wind up overinvesting in overkill for the aftermath, and if you plan on
building to the aftermath you suffer during the peak. Given all the
uncertainties, it's not surprising to me that there's a bias toward
conservative optimism that tries to anticipate a peak. Blizzard's game broke
all records and so demolished any conservative peak expectations and we're
all paying for it now. It's not the first time Blizzard's had to do this,
you'd think they'd have learned the same lesson from the D2 release (where
similar excuses were made about failure to anticipate just how successful
they would be).

I'm also surprised that they didn't architect a system that's more scalable
and dynamic, using virtual server boundaries that could contract and expand
to accommodate load variance. As it is now, they have discrete systems that
are vastly under utilized (low pop servers) and those that are vastly over
utilized (high pop servers). In this era of peer-to-peer loadshare (they
even use bittorrent!) you'd think they'd have a more modern approach to
server architecture. Another indication of their relative inexperience at
MMOG design.

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Hey Bob, how goes it?

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> once tried to
test me with:

>
> "foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
> news:WnDLd.240700$Xk.206350@pd7tw3no...
>
>> A friend who plays told me they have 80 something servers and about
>> 280K players. Is that about right ? An average of 3500 per server ?
>> If that's
>> so, it doesn't sound like their servers have much of a capacity
>> before being
>> overloaded.
>
> Yeah I've heard the 80 server number too but I haven't actually
> counted them up, there's a *lot* of em. Unfortunately I'm on one of
> the high pop servers and it's a nightmare to get on. Every time we log
> in we wait in a queue of several hundred to get in, with an average of
> around 20-30 minutes just to log in, sometimes an hour or more. Places
> like the Auction House in Ironforge are unbearably laggy, but
> fortuanately you don't spend that much time there, most of the time is
> spent out adventuring and lag out in the game world has been a less
> problematic issue. Still annoying (like a weapon switch macro, or a
> /tell may take a few seconds to happen), but not crippling.

Wow. I'm on a High pop server also but it is nowhere near that bad. I've
had to wait a TOTAL time of maybe 20 minutes on login queues. That's not
20-minutes per session, that's 20-minutes since i've been playing WoW
(started the Sunday after release). I tend to play in the evenings on week
nites and I play on the weekends off and on all day, especially in the
evenings. The Auction House in Ironforge is pretty laggy during peak hours.
But it's more or less usable most of the time. I rarely put up with it
though to be honest.

About 95% of my WoW time has been very enjoyable. I've had a few real
annoying lag-related problems, a few crashes, a few queues to wait in, and
by far the most annoying thing that has happened are a couple of cases of
"roll-back" where I lost maybe 20 min of progress on my character due to a
server bug that dropped me to the char login screen and when I came back in
it had lost some xp and skill-ups and stuff.

But BY FAR the majority of my time in WoW has been pure pleasure.

> If the game didn't have these technical problems it would be near
> perfect. As it is, the overall experience is still a major positive
> and if I were playing on the one of the low pop servers it would
> probably be near perfect.

No you wouldn't. I have toons on a low-pop server for when my main server
is down (Argent Dawn is my main and Thunderhorn is my alt server). TH is
just plain BORING to play on. There's never anyone around to group with. Of
course unless my real-life friends who also play on TH are there too, I
don't have anyone there I know. Finding a pickup group is extremely
challenging. I am playing Horde there and that might have something to do
with it, I've heard that Horde are like about 25% as popular as Alliance or
something to that effect. That's definitely true on AD.

What would be nice is a server that is maxed out WITHOUT ANY OF THE LAG
PROBLEMS. In other words, a server that has just the right number of
players to where there's no lag during prime time and no login queues but
still easy to find players. Maybe the Medium pop servers are like this, not
sure. My thing is, I go for Argent Dawn since it's an RP server. Plus now
I'm guilded there.

I do agree that if WoW had no technical problems it would be absolute
heaven to play. I'm loving the actual gameplay. There's a few things I
think that need changed but overall I'm very happy with it.

> One of the problems all these MMOG guys have is the peak factor. Right
> after a release of a new game (or server) you get this huge peak of
> activity while everyone is trying it out, and then the activity
> recedes to a point where it stabilizes and becomes more or less
> consistent. If you build for the peak, you wind up overinvesting in
> overkill for the aftermath, and if you plan on building to the
> aftermath you suffer during the peak. Given all the uncertainties,
> it's not surprising to me that there's a bias toward conservative
> optimism that tries to anticipate a peak. Blizzard's game broke all
> records and so demolished any conservative peak expectations and we're
> all paying for it now. It's not the first time Blizzard's had to do
> this, you'd think they'd have learned the same lesson from the D2
> release (where similar excuses were made about failure to anticipate
> just how successful they would be).

There really is no excuse for some of their load balancing problems. They
HAVE enough servers.

> I'm also surprised that they didn't architect a system that's more
> scalable and dynamic, using virtual server boundaries that could
> contract and expand to accommodate load variance. As it is now, they
> have discrete systems that are vastly under utilized (low pop servers)
> and those that are vastly over utilized (high pop servers). In this
> era of peer-to-peer loadshare (they even use bittorrent!) you'd think
> they'd have a more modern approach to server architecture. Another
> indication of their relative inexperience at MMOG design.

All they need to do to fix their problems are:

1. Have a (free) way for a group of players to, as a GROUP, move their
characters from one server to the next. This should only be allowed ONE
TIME. And only to a similar server (i.e. PVP to PVP, RP to RP, etc). They
also need a few extra new RP servers to help balance out the existing ones
(which are pretty rare).

2. Put Auction House in EVERY CITY so that you do not have to congregate in
one area and lag that area out just to participate in the game economy.

They've talked about #1 on the boards already but so far hasn't been done.
And they've said that #2 is coming in a patch.

So my guess is this WILL get fixed, the question is, will I already be
tired of WoW before they fix it? :)

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Knight37" <knight37m@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0C7136C5C3knight37m@130.133.1.4...

> Hey Bob, how goes it?

Hey Knight, goes well, long time. ;-) I saw in another post of yours that
you put WoW ahead of Planescape: Torment as the best RPG of all time, that's
some endorsement! I wonder what it's like playing on one of the RP servers
as so far I've only been exposed to the PvP servers (btw, why are these
mutually exclusive, bah!)

>> If the game didn't have these technical problems it would be near
>> perfect. As it is, the overall experience is still a major positive
>> and if I were playing on the one of the low pop servers it would
>> probably be near perfect.
>
> No you wouldn't. I have toons on a low-pop server for when my main server
> is down (Argent Dawn is my main and Thunderhorn is my alt server). TH is
> just plain BORING to play on. There's never anyone around to group with.

Well I only play WoW with my wife and occasionally with my son and his
friends. Our daughter also plays now. So if we were all playing on a low pop
server, I suspect we would indeed be pretty happy but I hear what you're
saying. AC2 was depressing to play because the whole world was always EMPTY.
What's the point to playing an MMOG if it's not M?

> I am playing Horde there and that might have something to do
> with it, I've heard that Horde are like about 25% as popular as Alliance
> or
> something to that effect. That's definitely true on AD.

Yep, I'm sure that's a big contributing factor. Horde is way outnumbered by
Alliance from what I can tell and probably more so on RP servers. PvP
servers might be different (Shamans remain a popular PvP favorite).

> What would be nice is a server that is maxed out WITHOUT ANY OF THE LAG
> PROBLEMS. In other words, a server that has just the right number of
> players to where there's no lag during prime time and no login queues but
> still easy to find players.

LOL me too. But as long as we're making wish lists, I'd ask for a game that
plays like WoW for the most part but has the questing of EQ2, the crafting
system of SWG or Horizons, the player population of EverQuest, the housing
customizability of The Sims Online, and the server stability of DAoC. :)

> I do agree that if WoW had no technical problems it would be absolute
> heaven to play. I'm loving the actual gameplay. There's a few things I
> think that need changed but overall I'm very happy with it.

Me too. It's a stunning accomplishment and really exemplifies the kind of
polish that Blizzard can put on a game, any game. And to think, this is
their 1.0, it's only going to get better. It'll be fun to watch as it
develops.

> So my guess is this WILL get fixed, the question is, will I already be
> tired of WoW before they fix it? :)

No worries, by then Vanguard will be in beta and you'll have another one to
try out. That's the one I've got my eye on for the future, and given the
heritage (Brad McQuaid and crew), the publisher (Microsoft), and the timing
(post WoW-EQ2), it's bound to have some impact. Until then, WoW and EQ2 have
me plenty busy. I don't know when I'll ever play a single player game again
....

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:27:18 -0800, "Bob Perez"
<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:

>
>"foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
>news:WnDLd.240700$Xk.206350@pd7tw3no...
>
>> A friend who plays told me they have 80 something servers and about
>> 280K players. Is that about right ? An average of 3500 per server ? If
>> that's
>> so, it doesn't sound like their servers have much of a capacity before
>> being
>> overloaded.
>
>Yeah I've heard the 80 server number too but I haven't actually counted them
>up, there's a *lot* of em. Unfortunately I'm on one of the high pop servers
>and it's a nightmare to get on. Every time we log in we wait in a queue of
>several hundred to get in, with an average of around 20-30 minutes just to
>log in, sometimes an hour or more. Places like the Auction House in
>Ironforge are unbearably laggy, but fortuanately you don't spend that much
>time there, most of the time is spent out adventuring and lag out in the
>game world has been a less problematic issue.

Blizzard seems to have gotten the problem under control on Icecrown,
which was one of the original and worst servers out there (stability
wise) through about the middle of january. Icecrown was pretty much
unplayable for about 2 weeks after Christmas.

Since they took it down about 2 weeks ago for a hardware upgrade and
replaced one of the boats with a teleporter, all the problems seem to
have gone away.

I agree that it's frustrating as hell when it happens to your server,
I'd actually cancelled my WoW subscription at one point because I just
wasn't willing to put up with it any more. But the good news is that
Blizzard does seem to be getting a handle on things. I dunno why they
haven't applied the fixes to all the servers yet

>One of the problems all these MMOG guys have is the peak factor. Right after
>a release of a new game (or server) you get this huge peak of activity while
>everyone is trying it out, and then the activity recedes to a point where it
>stabilizes and becomes more or less consistent. If you build for the peak,
>you wind up overinvesting in overkill for the aftermath, and if you plan on
>building to the aftermath you suffer during the peak. Given all the
>uncertainties, it's not surprising to me that there's a bias toward
>conservative optimism that tries to anticipate a peak. Blizzard's game broke
>all records and so demolished any conservative peak expectations and we're
>all paying for it now.

I don't buy it. Blizzard knew how many copies of WoW they were gonna
print so they knew ahead of time exactly how many players to expect.

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

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> writes:

> LOL me too. But as long as we're making wish lists, I'd ask for a game that
> plays like WoW for the most part but has the questing of EQ2, the crafting
> system of SWG or Horizons, the player population of EverQuest, the housing
> customizability of The Sims Online, and the server stability of DAoC. :)

I've never played Horizons, but crafting-wise I'd like to see sort of
a combination of the EQ2 and SWG crafting.

I like the way different resources in SWG have different qualities,
but I also like the way resource nodes work in EQ2 and WoW - it's more
fun to go out looking for those little nodes out in the world than to
run around surveying and following the concentrations. Rare resources
in EQ2 are also a nice thing.

I like that there is a little crafting minigame in EQ2, though they
could have made it more interesting with a specific minigame for each
craft where e.g. you heat, hammer and quench your sword while
smithing.

SWG experimentation is a nice idea, so you can focus on the qualities
that you care for in an item, as long as it doesn't end up where there
is an optimal build for everything (I don't know if SWG has this
problem, as I've only played for a week). This could be integrated
into the crafting minigame, instead of being a design-stage thing.

Oh, and the harvesting from Saga of Ryzom, where there is a tradeoff
between (if I understood correctly, I didn't play much) how much you
harvest and how well you treat the resource node - if you harvest
aggressively, you get more resources but might die, gently you get
less resources but run significantly lower risk.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

<patrik@nordebo.com> wrote in message
news:87y8e7dyea.fsf@pluto.elizium.org...

> I've never played Horizons, but crafting-wise I'd like to see sort of
> a combination of the EQ2 and SWG crafting.

Yes, that would approach the ideal for me, too.

> I like the way different resources in SWG have different qualities,
> but I also like the way resource nodes work in EQ2 and WoW - it's more
> fun to go out looking for those little nodes out in the world than to
> run around surveying and following the concentrations.

I *liked* surveying, but what I didn't like about it was the apparent
irrelevance of location to the spawn. In UO, EQ2 and WoW, you could usually
determine where the best locations were to hunt for harvests by the nature
of the terrain. That was logical and satisfying. In SWG it was purely
random, and anything could spawn anywhere (even in the middle of town!) and
for me that diluted the immersion factor considerably.

> Rare resources
> in EQ2 are also a nice thing.

Yeah, I agree about random rarity as a factor. Anything that gives me the
ability to make something different and better than the next guy based on my
resourcefulness and industry as a crafter, is good. In general, the more
effort you put into harvesting the better chance you have of coming away
with a rare.

> SWG experimentation is a nice idea, so you can focus on the qualities
> that you care for in an item

Yes, experimentation was a great idea, and one of the things that set one
crafter apart from another. The other thing that made it even more succesful
was the whole system of schematics and factories that allowed you to capture
your successful experiments into something that was enduring for a period of
time (while the current resource spawns were still available). That was
brilliant.

--
Bob Perez

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