And don't forget that the ONLY reason that this type of problem was occurring was because of the phenomonal success of WoW. No one could have predicted the type of success WoW would have, not even Blizzard. If Vanguard was having the type of success that WoW had in it's first couple months of existance, I guarantee that Vanguard would be having this same issue. As soon as Blizzard realized the problem they started adding additional servers and asked people to play on the less populated ones, but unfortunately many did not want to change servers. I can't blame them really, people wanted to play on the server they started with, but what else could Blizzard do? They had to have a way to limit the number of concurrent players on a server once it reached it's max. The only way to do that was thru a queue system where someone would have to leave before someone else could get in. A few servers were really bad, others it was only a minor annoyance. For the majority of servers, a queue was usually a rare occurence and when it did happen it was usually only a few minutes before you were in.
So, how long have you been employed by Blizzard? Are the benefits good?Does that mean you can't refute my comments?
Well I don't know about you but whenever I read the insurance institutes safety ratings on cars I say to myself "Hmm well you never know until you try it." And then I go out and buy the car and purposefully crash into a brick wall. Stangely so far the Insurance institute has been pretty close to what my estimations are, I haven't gotten to the "Extremely unsafe" category yet though so we will have to see. But well you never know until you try it, so I have another 100 cars to go crash.
Please tell me you did not just compare hiway saftey ratings with a buch of disgruntled r-tards on the internet flapping their gums?
And don't forget that the ONLY reason that this type of problem was occurring was because of the phenomonal success of WoW. No one could have predicted the type of success WoW would have, not even Blizzard. If Vanguard was having the type of success that WoW had in it's first couple months of existance, I guarantee that Vanguard would be having this same issue. As soon as Blizzard realized the problem they started adding additional servers and asked people to play on the less populated ones, but unfortunately many did not want to change servers. I can't blame them really, people wanted to play on the server they started with, but what else could Blizzard do? They had to have a way to limit the number of concurrent players on a server once it reached it's max. The only way to do that was thru a queue system where someone would have to leave before someone else could get in. A few servers were really bad, others it was only a minor annoyance. For the majority of servers, a queue was usually a rare occurence and when it did happen it was usually only a few minutes before you were in.
So, how long have you been employed by Blizzard? Are the benefits good?Does that mean you can't refute my comments?
I will...the fact that they got themselves into that kind of pickle speaks to the decisions they made in design, and the hack that they made to 'fix' it were huge mistakes that they are still living with...and lets not even discuss the bass ackwards manner in which they patch....all issues that wow will struggle with long after everyone will be running just fine on VG
Well I don't know about you but whenever I read the insurance institutes safety ratings on cars I say to myself "Hmm well you never know until you try it." And then I go out and buy the car and purposefully crash into a brick wall. Stangely so far the Insurance institute has been pretty close to what my estimations are, I haven't gotten to the "Extremely unsafe" category yet though so we will have to see. But well you never know until you try it, so I have another 100 cars to go crash.
Please tell me you did not just compare hiway saftey ratings with a buch of disgruntled r-tards on the internet flapping their gums? Its all a matter of credibility. There is a reason lawyers try to make opposing witness seem unreliable. You know kinda like you are doing....
"Trying it for yourself" is in point of fact actually sometimes a stupid or inefficient way of doing things. Even given infinite free-time, due to the flow of time, there is always an opportunity cost. Anyone who does not acknowledge that is either a fool or dishonest. Therefore we rely to some extent upon the experiences and evaluations of others so that we can use out time efficiently.
And then its just a matter of figuring out what is credible. The OP says that if 100 posters all report the same problem then it is fairly credible. That seems fairly reasonable.
Just do like I'm doing: I'm gonna buy the game(already ordered it), try it out for a month (wich is free btw) and if it has too much bugs I can wait a couple of months and start it up gain when it's been fixed. And when it comes to complaining about the big bad companies selling bad products to us, all I have to say is: It keeps the market price down.. Imagine if each company were to make a perfect mmo, it would take alot of time and money and they would have to sell it at a high price and the monthly fee would be really high. I'd rather try many games at a resonable price with bugs(that after what I've heard are possible to live with), then a few games that are flawless, expensive games that comes out every 5 years or so...
I usually only play a game for 6 months to a year before I get myself another one, but there are a few games I've been playing for longer.
Just do like I'm doing: I'm gonna buy the game(already ordered it), try it out for a month (wich is free btw) and if it has too much bugs I can wait a couple of months and start it up gain when it's been fixed. And when it comes to complaining about the big bad companies selling bad products to us, all I have to say is: It keeps the market price down.. Imagine if each company were to make a perfect mmo, it would take alot of time and money and they would have to sell it at a high price and the monthly fee would be really high. I'd rather try many games at a resonable price with bugs(that after what I've heard are possible to live with), then a few games that are flawless, expensive games that comes out every 5 years or so... I usually only play a game for 6 months to a year before I get myself another one, but there are a few games I've been playing for longer.
I don't think your strategy is a good idea. What if the game is always buggy.? Then you have bought a buggy game and rewarded them and wasted your money. Your strategy would be better executed by delaying the purchase until it is non-buggy. You have an underlying assumtion that everything will be fine in the end. This is generally considered un-founded optimism.
The only people who should buy a game that they currently consider buggy is people who don't really mind the bugs so much or for whom the stuff they like about the game out weighs the bugs. I personally don't mind bugs that much, and as long as Vanguard didn't crash more than once every few hours I would be fine. However most people do not seem to share my tolerance for bugs.
Yeah comparing movies don't help either... People have different taste like I said..I went to movies that people hated and liked them.. Some people hated lord of the rings..some people like them..you can't speak for others, only for yourself.
I wasn’t talking about the content of the film. I was talking about a mechanical malfunction ruining the experience of the film. It’s hard to make a fair evaluation when certain thing impede on the experience. The malfunctions in this game can be related since bugs and such influence current views of this game.
I see a lot of people have been quoting my core of the game is flawed statement. I believe a lot of people stopped there in my post, and they decided to rant. I don’t believe I need to go into this because there are hundreds of posts already about this topic.
I gave the game a fair shot, but I believe the current malfunctions are keeping me from enjoying the game. If I am not having fun playing a game I simply stop playing it. I am not going to play it, and feel like I am being punished for respecting a game that doesn’t respect me “the consumer” back.
And don't forget that the ONLY reason that this type of problem was occurring was because of the phenomonal success of WoW. No one could have predicted the type of success WoW would have, not even Blizzard. If Vanguard was having the type of success that WoW had in it's first couple months of existance, I guarantee that Vanguard would be having this same issue. As soon as Blizzard realized the problem they started adding additional servers and asked people to play on the less populated ones, but unfortunately many did not want to change servers. I can't blame them really, people wanted to play on the server they started with, but what else could Blizzard do? They had to have a way to limit the number of concurrent players on a server once it reached it's max. The only way to do that was thru a queue system where someone would have to leave before someone else could get in. A few servers were really bad, others it was only a minor annoyance. For the majority of servers, a queue was usually a rare occurence and when it did happen it was usually only a few minutes before you were in.
So, how long have you been employed by Blizzard? Are the benefits good?Does that mean you can't refute my comments?
I will...the fact that they got themselves into that kind of pickle speaks to the decisions they made in design, and the hack that they made to 'fix' it were huge mistakes that they are still living with...and lets not even discuss the bass ackwards manner in which they patch....all issues that wow will struggle with long after everyone will be running just fine on VG
What pickle are you referring to? You mean the fact they have millions of paying customers and thousands of people trying to log into the same server at the same time? That pickle? I wouldn't really call that a pickle, I'd call that a huge success, but let's not get hung up on that, let's instead talk about the "hack" they put in to "fix" it. I'll tell you what they did and then you tell me how they should have "fixed" it.
First they immediately started up several brand new servers and started showing the population of a server when you logged in and asked that you select the lower population servers when choosing a server so you could avoid the whole issue yourself if you wanted. That gave instant relief to anyone who hadn't already created a character.
Second, they upgraded many servers to increase the number of players that could be logged into any one server at a time and started putting in a maximum number of accounts on servers so that if you hadn't already started a character on that server you couldn't start a new one. This gave instant relief to those servers who weren't already maxed out, but were getting close to being maxed out.
Finally, they instituted a queue for all servers so that if the maximum number of players on a server was reached, then you were put into a queue to wait your turn onto the server. It showed you not only what position you were in the queue, it also gave you an estimated wait time based on your number in the queue and the average rate at which people in the queue were being allowed in. While this didn't really alleviate anything, it did prevent you from just getting an error while trying to log in and prevented people from trying to login over and over and over again. You knew the exact reason why you weren't getting in and how long before you could reasonably expect to wait before getting in.
And a little while later they started to open up character transfers so if you were one of the unlucky to be stuck on a really crowded server, you could move your characters to a lower population server.
All of these measures contributed to very quickly resolving the problem for most people and continue to prevent the problems from reoccuring.
Nice hack there. *Slaps Blizzard on the wrist for implementing such lousy fuctionality*
And don't forget that the ONLY reason that this type of problem was occurring was because of the phenomonal success of WoW. No one could have predicted the type of success WoW would have, not even Blizzard. If Vanguard was having the type of success that WoW had in it's first couple months of existance, I guarantee that Vanguard would be having this same issue. As soon as Blizzard realized the problem they started adding additional servers and asked people to play on the less populated ones, but unfortunately many did not want to change servers. I can't blame them really, people wanted to play on the server they started with, but what else could Blizzard do? They had to have a way to limit the number of concurrent players on a server once it reached it's max. The only way to do that was thru a queue system where someone would have to leave before someone else could get in. A few servers were really bad, others it was only a minor annoyance. For the majority of servers, a queue was usually a rare occurence and when it did happen it was usually only a few minutes before you were in.
So, how long have you been employed by Blizzard? Are the benefits good?Does that mean you can't refute my comments?
I will...the fact that they got themselves into that kind of pickle speaks to the decisions they made in design, and the hack that they made to 'fix' it were huge mistakes that they are still living with...and lets not even discuss the bass ackwards manner in which they patch....all issues that wow will struggle with long after everyone will be running just fine on VG
What pickle are you referring to? You mean the fact they have millions of paying customers and thousands of people trying to log into the same server at the same time? That pickle? I wouldn't really call that a pickle, I'd call that a huge success, but let's not get hung up on that, let's instead talk about the "hack" they put in to "fix" it. I'll tell you what they did and then you tell me how they should have "fixed" it.
First they immediately started up several brand new servers and started showing the population of a server when you logged in and asked that you select the lower population servers when choosing a server so you could avoid the whole issue yourself if you wanted. That gave instant relief to anyone who hadn't already created a character.
Second, they upgraded many servers to increase the number of players that could be logged into any one server at a time and started putting in a maximum number of accounts on servers so that if you hadn't already started a character on that server you couldn't start a new one. This gave instant relief to those servers who weren't already maxed out, but were getting close to being maxed out.
Finally, they instituted a queue for all servers so that if the maximum number of players on a server was reached, then you were put into a queue to wait your turn onto the server. It showed you not only what position you were in the queue, it also gave you an estimated wait time based on your number in the queue and the average rate at which people in the queue were being allowed in. While this didn't really alleviate anything, it did prevent you from just getting an error while trying to log in and prevented people from trying to login over and over and over again. You knew the exact reason why you weren't getting in and how long before you could reasonably expect to wait before getting in.
And a little while later they started to open up character transfers so if you were one of the unlucky to be stuck on a really crowded server, you could move your characters to a lower population server.
All of these measures contributed to very quickly resolving the problem for most people and continue to prevent the problems from reoccuring.
Nice hack there. *Slaps Blizzard on the wrist for implementing such lousy fuctionality*
So, what would you have done?
Here is my wild theroy...how about making your system arcutecture flexable enough in the first place to accomadate more hardware so you dont have to hack in a que to make it playable...or, have in place a copy service from the get go so guilds and what not can go en mass without having to reroll...I know, crazy, huh?
If you really dont see an issue with how they 'fixed' the problem, we should just stop talking now...cuz you really are a Blizzard shill.
Did beta on this game, played the end product and can say that I would tell EVERYONE I know to steer clear of this game (yes this means that I bought a copy when it came out and still play)
Here is my wild theroy...how about making your system arcutecture flexable enough in the first place to accomadate more hardware so you dont have to hack in a que to make it playable...or, have in place a copy service from the get go so guilds and what not can go en mass without having to reroll...I know, crazy, huh? If you really dont see an issue with how they 'fixed' the problem, we should just stop talking now...cuz you really are a Blizzard shill.
Sounds good in theory, but in the real world hardware limitations are a fact of life and you can't always just add more hardware if the hardware you have doesn't support it. I don't know of a single motherboard that doesn't tell you exactly how much memory it will support, beyond that you're SOL. Those are the types of issues game makers have to deal with. I know, they should be able to just fix all that with software right? Sorry, it doesn't always work that way. I'm pretty sure that Blizzard was using the best possible servers they could come up with and in fact have stated so numerous times, but it still wasn't enough.
The copy service would have been nice up front, but I don't think Blizzard anticipated the problem would be as large as it was. Honestly, do you think game companies sit around worrying that if their game is so successful that not everyone will be able to log in at once? Actually that's a problem they HOPE they have to worry about after they launch. They dealt with the problem swiftly and their fix has stood the test of time as they have had almost no reoccurence of the problem. The company I work for calls that a successful implementation and so do I.
I would love to work for Blizzard, but unfortunately C++ is not my strong suit. I'm just a lowly mainframe programmer who tries his best to solve the problems that the client has. I'm not afforded the luxury of snapping my fingers and "fixing" design issues when they come up, so I sympathize with companies like Blizzard who do their best to put out a great product and act quickly to eliminate problems when they occur.
Honestly, if you think that the way that Blizzard handled WoW was incompetent, I can't for the life of me imagine why you would defend Sigil. Their decision to release early was clearly forced on them and I'm sure they would have never done it that way if they didn't have to, but I'd be willing to bet that they would have given a kidney to have the problems that WoW had in the first couple months of existance. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, I don't think they'll ever have to worry about too many simultaneous connections.
Comments
I will...the fact that they got themselves into that kind of pickle speaks to the decisions they made in design, and the hack that they made to 'fix' it were huge mistakes that they are still living with...and lets not even discuss the bass ackwards manner in which they patch....all issues that wow will struggle with long after everyone will be running just fine on VG
"Trying it for yourself" is in point of fact actually sometimes a stupid or inefficient way of doing things. Even given infinite free-time, due to the flow of time, there is always an opportunity cost. Anyone who does not acknowledge that is either a fool or dishonest. Therefore we rely to some extent upon the experiences and evaluations of others so that we can use out time efficiently.
And then its just a matter of figuring out what is credible. The OP says that if 100 posters all report the same problem then it is fairly credible. That seems fairly reasonable.
Just do like I'm doing: I'm gonna buy the game(already ordered it), try it out for a month (wich is free btw) and if it has too much bugs I can wait a couple of months and start it up gain when it's been fixed. And when it comes to complaining about the big bad companies selling bad products to us, all I have to say is: It keeps the market price down.. Imagine if each company were to make a perfect mmo, it would take alot of time and money and they would have to sell it at a high price and the monthly fee would be really high. I'd rather try many games at a resonable price with bugs(that after what I've heard are possible to live with), then a few games that are flawless, expensive games that comes out every 5 years or so...
I usually only play a game for 6 months to a year before I get myself another one, but there are a few games I've been playing for longer.
The only people who should buy a game that they currently consider buggy is people who don't really mind the bugs so much or for whom the stuff they like about the game out weighs the bugs. I personally don't mind bugs that much, and as long as Vanguard didn't crash more than once every few hours I would be fine. However most people do not seem to share my tolerance for bugs.
I wasn’t talking about the content of the film. I was talking about a mechanical malfunction ruining the experience of the film. It’s hard to make a fair evaluation when certain thing impede on the experience. The malfunctions in this game can be related since bugs and such influence current views of this game.
I see a lot of people have been quoting my core of the game is flawed statement. I believe a lot of people stopped there in my post, and they decided to rant. I don’t believe I need to go into this because there are hundreds of posts already about this topic.
I gave the game a fair shot, but I believe the current malfunctions are keeping me from enjoying the game. If I am not having fun playing a game I simply stop playing it. I am not going to play it, and feel like I am being punished for respecting a game that doesn’t respect me “the consumer” back.I will...the fact that they got themselves into that kind of pickle speaks to the decisions they made in design, and the hack that they made to 'fix' it were huge mistakes that they are still living with...and lets not even discuss the bass ackwards manner in which they patch....all issues that wow will struggle with long after everyone will be running just fine on VG
What pickle are you referring to? You mean the fact they have millions of paying customers and thousands of people trying to log into the same server at the same time? That pickle? I wouldn't really call that a pickle, I'd call that a huge success, but let's not get hung up on that, let's instead talk about the "hack" they put in to "fix" it. I'll tell you what they did and then you tell me how they should have "fixed" it.
First they immediately started up several brand new servers and started showing the population of a server when you logged in and asked that you select the lower population servers when choosing a server so you could avoid the whole issue yourself if you wanted. That gave instant relief to anyone who hadn't already created a character.
Second, they upgraded many servers to increase the number of players that could be logged into any one server at a time and started putting in a maximum number of accounts on servers so that if you hadn't already started a character on that server you couldn't start a new one. This gave instant relief to those servers who weren't already maxed out, but were getting close to being maxed out.
Finally, they instituted a queue for all servers so that if the maximum number of players on a server was reached, then you were put into a queue to wait your turn onto the server. It showed you not only what position you were in the queue, it also gave you an estimated wait time based on your number in the queue and the average rate at which people in the queue were being allowed in. While this didn't really alleviate anything, it did prevent you from just getting an error while trying to log in and prevented people from trying to login over and over and over again. You knew the exact reason why you weren't getting in and how long before you could reasonably expect to wait before getting in.
And a little while later they started to open up character transfers so if you were one of the unlucky to be stuck on a really crowded server, you could move your characters to a lower population server.
All of these measures contributed to very quickly resolving the problem for most people and continue to prevent the problems from reoccuring.
Nice hack there. *Slaps Blizzard on the wrist for implementing such lousy fuctionality*
So, what would you have done?
I will...the fact that they got themselves into that kind of pickle speaks to the decisions they made in design, and the hack that they made to 'fix' it were huge mistakes that they are still living with...and lets not even discuss the bass ackwards manner in which they patch....all issues that wow will struggle with long after everyone will be running just fine on VG
What pickle are you referring to? You mean the fact they have millions of paying customers and thousands of people trying to log into the same server at the same time? That pickle? I wouldn't really call that a pickle, I'd call that a huge success, but let's not get hung up on that, let's instead talk about the "hack" they put in to "fix" it. I'll tell you what they did and then you tell me how they should have "fixed" it.
First they immediately started up several brand new servers and started showing the population of a server when you logged in and asked that you select the lower population servers when choosing a server so you could avoid the whole issue yourself if you wanted. That gave instant relief to anyone who hadn't already created a character.
Second, they upgraded many servers to increase the number of players that could be logged into any one server at a time and started putting in a maximum number of accounts on servers so that if you hadn't already started a character on that server you couldn't start a new one. This gave instant relief to those servers who weren't already maxed out, but were getting close to being maxed out.
Finally, they instituted a queue for all servers so that if the maximum number of players on a server was reached, then you were put into a queue to wait your turn onto the server. It showed you not only what position you were in the queue, it also gave you an estimated wait time based on your number in the queue and the average rate at which people in the queue were being allowed in. While this didn't really alleviate anything, it did prevent you from just getting an error while trying to log in and prevented people from trying to login over and over and over again. You knew the exact reason why you weren't getting in and how long before you could reasonably expect to wait before getting in.
And a little while later they started to open up character transfers so if you were one of the unlucky to be stuck on a really crowded server, you could move your characters to a lower population server.
All of these measures contributed to very quickly resolving the problem for most people and continue to prevent the problems from reoccuring.
Nice hack there. *Slaps Blizzard on the wrist for implementing such lousy fuctionality*
So, what would you have done?
Here is my wild theroy...how about making your system arcutecture flexable enough in the first place to accomadate more hardware so you dont have to hack in a que to make it playable...or, have in place a copy service from the get go so guilds and what not can go en mass without having to reroll...I know, crazy, huh?
If you really dont see an issue with how they 'fixed' the problem, we should just stop talking now...cuz you really are a Blizzard shill.
Sounds good in theory, but in the real world hardware limitations are a fact of life and you can't always just add more hardware if the hardware you have doesn't support it. I don't know of a single motherboard that doesn't tell you exactly how much memory it will support, beyond that you're SOL. Those are the types of issues game makers have to deal with. I know, they should be able to just fix all that with software right? Sorry, it doesn't always work that way. I'm pretty sure that Blizzard was using the best possible servers they could come up with and in fact have stated so numerous times, but it still wasn't enough.
The copy service would have been nice up front, but I don't think Blizzard anticipated the problem would be as large as it was. Honestly, do you think game companies sit around worrying that if their game is so successful that not everyone will be able to log in at once? Actually that's a problem they HOPE they have to worry about after they launch. They dealt with the problem swiftly and their fix has stood the test of time as they have had almost no reoccurence of the problem. The company I work for calls that a successful implementation and so do I.
I would love to work for Blizzard, but unfortunately C++ is not my strong suit. I'm just a lowly mainframe programmer who tries his best to solve the problems that the client has. I'm not afforded the luxury of snapping my fingers and "fixing" design issues when they come up, so I sympathize with companies like Blizzard who do their best to put out a great product and act quickly to eliminate problems when they occur.
Honestly, if you think that the way that Blizzard handled WoW was incompetent, I can't for the life of me imagine why you would defend Sigil. Their decision to release early was clearly forced on them and I'm sure they would have never done it that way if they didn't have to, but I'd be willing to bet that they would have given a kidney to have the problems that WoW had in the first couple months of existance. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, I don't think they'll ever have to worry about too many simultaneous connections.