I am starting to think that the handfull of fans who post in these forums are the entire population of Vanguard.
Actually hardly any Vanguard players post here. Most of the people that post there dont even play Vanguard. They play the no-mmo-will-ever-be-good-enough-to-survive-my-constant-trolling MMO. Most of us real Vanguard players have moved on to the official boards, b/c there is no point posting here on a board where the only people you discuss the game with only hate it.
What a pathetic community this has become.
You want to talk about a pathetic community? Long before I posted here, I was part of the official pre-release forums for Vanguard. Day after day after day, people talked about how l33t they were, and how everyone else was a "kiddie" who wanted "everything handed to them" and a "dumbed down game." Every poster was a big deal; everyone else was a little deal. That's the Vanguard community, and that's a big part of why your game crashed and burned and has become a laughingstock in the mmo market.
So if you and the handful of other people who play this game want to take refuge on the SOE boards and comb each other's hair and pretend all is well and that Vanguard has a future, go right ahead. Meanwhile, on this and every other public forum people know what's going on, and many of us who saw this coming more than a year in advance can't help but relish watching the buckets of cold water being splashed in the faces of the so-called "elite" in their "next generation" version of narcissism online.
Wrong
I remember those people on the boards. Everyone had camped a mob for 90 hours in EQ. Everyone was making 10 million bucks a year and everyone was such a big number. You could smell the testosteron over the net :P Like every iron man on the world wanted to play vanguard.
But those arent the community. Those uber gamers left the game on day 30 after release. When it was about paying money to play. Within these 30 days they ruined as much as possible. Why ? Because McQuad didnt give them what they wanted. He refused and told people many times that there is something for everyone. Even for casuals. Not the bugs and the performance drove me away.. it was the community. I roled a new char 2 weeks ago and play the game casual (i know its not finished). And the game is real fun for the first 20 levels. Community (orm what is left of it) isnt so bad anymore. Unfortunately a lot of guilds use TS and so are the chats very quite. Even when players are online.
No those people dont play and are not the community. The remains of the community are good people and standard mmo morons like you can find in any other game
Saying WOW has 8 million customers, makes WOW a better game. Is like saying Online Porn is better than anything on the internet. And yes they have more customers than all the games put together.
Have any one of you trolls even looked at what the max population is on a server? You do know that AO only has 2 worlds. So your argument is for nothing.
And when you launch a game, you have no idea how many people are going to join on. Would you as a business man have too many or not enough?
Your sad attempt at an analogy makes no sense. Understand what a game does. It entertains. If a game is fun, people will play. If its REALLY fun, more and more people will play. If a game sucks or fails to entertain, it will tank and fail. VG failed because to the majority of people who tried it, it was not entertaining (bugs, CTD, unfinished, etc).
Probably the worst thing about it was deep down, Brad and Sigil knew the game would fail. They knew they were shoving an unfinished mess out the door, and they did it anyhow.
That has got to be the biggest pile of horse %^&* I have ever heard. Your telling me that since your C64 can't run Vanguard or runs it badly, its a bad game?
Oh and my analogy was right on the spot. Just because alot of people do it, doesn't make it good,fun,etc. And going by your post, you don't know nothing about Vanguard. I do mean nothing what so ever. Bye Troll
Where did I say anything about performance in my post? I said bugs, CTD, unfinished.
If you are going to troll, try putting your reading comprehension goggles on next time.
No those people dont play and are not the community. The remains of the community are good people and standard mmo morons like you can find in any other game
You contradicted yourself. You start by claiming that the "go back to wow" forum crew is not representative of the Vanguard community, and how it is instead *cough* "good people" like you. Then look how you end your post - by calling me a "standard mmo moron." So you are representative of the so called "Vanguard community". And I am doubled over laughing watching your game go down the toilet and people like you with it!
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Originally posted by Zorgo I have never once said taht population was rising. I have said I haven't had problems finding a group, and I believe I even added the caveat that I was playing a healer which may account for it. Even Healz4u never said anything about populations. He said people were playing the game, and its a big world so they are not always on top of you. The number I am going with right now is from a disgruntled employee who quoted 90k subscribers, logically his bias should lead him toward the low side if he had an axe to grind, and it's dead on if he's being objective. You will also find quotes from me that refer to the 90k vs. 250k that was expected.
That's precisely what I mean. Exactly what issues would you attribute to "low populations" if it isn't difficulty in finding a group or seeing other players? Because the latter issue of seeing no one has been chocked up as being a benefit of the much toted massive world, and the former problem of finding a group is something you yourself have no problem doing, so the problem mustn't exist.
Point being, there's no substance in admitting to low populations if all anyone is going to do is deny the symptoms. It's like going to a doctor complaining about being apart of a flu epidemic but adamantly denying so much as coughing or sneezing; what's the point?
Originally posted by Zorgo
In general, there exists some who'll attempt to sh*t a false darkness on Vanguard's issues no matter how apparent the game is improving, and will blame anyone and anything because they cannot seperate their personal opinion from objective fact; until the actual issues are resolved; only then they come screaming 'I told you so' like a bunch of self-important, self-appointed guru's of the mmo business. *for the record; I have acknowledged Vanguard performance and bugs since beta 2. I have also stated that my patience is finite and I won't wait on Vanguard to be fixed forever.
Is it false darkness when those "haters" get the opportunity to say "I told you so"? It isn't really.
You're attempting to mirror the circumstances of Vanguard's antagonists and it's supporters. I'm sure the supporters of the game would be saying "I told you so" if SOE announced they were tripling the servers due to the difficulty of groups finding a place to camp, and the massive world busting at its seams from overpopulation. There exists no such opportunity for the supporters though, and while I don't condone any parading over Vanguard's sufferings, it's antagonists don't get the opportunity to say "I told you so" over spreading falsehoods.
If you're really perturbed by something such as being told "I told you so" though, you should really consider leaping to the right side of whatever issue is current. Here's a hint of what may be next: real money trade in Vanguard. You should support that it IS going to happen.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Ah your personal problem finally emerges; your real beef with Vanguard has more to do with your ability to play it on your system then anything else. But, just to humor you, are you saying that if SOE did make the 6 series work it wouldn't be a miracle? That card is 2 generations old.....even if they make it work with Vanguard it is still a P.O.S. imho.
I played Vanguard with a GeForce 7950 during beta through early release, and a 8800 up until I subscribed last.
You missed the point, yet at the same time you proved it. It'd be my fault if my PC sucked, and Vanguard would be a "P.O.S" if it supported a PC that sucked. Yet I bet if tomorrow SOE did announce some miraculous support for those lower cards, as their system requirements advertise, you'd champion SOE instead of condemn their game as a "P.O.S".
Originally posted by Zorgo I want a direct quote from someone saying both 'go back to WoW' AND then later saying 'Sigil was the most innovative company ever for the xp increase/double xp weekends. You are so blinded by prejudice you don't even realize you are inventing scenarios to make your case. Just because one person says 'Go Back to WoW' and another says, 'Sigil is innovative' and yet a 3rd says 'I like double xp weekends'....what a sorry excuse for analysis. You have invented a Fanbois monster that doesn't exist.
I invented in my head that Vanguard supporters have ever told anyone to "go back to WoW" when those people gave opinions adverse to "the Vision" of things. Uh huh.
No fan of the game has ever both condemned WoW as being too easy due to it's experience dole out, but at the same time think double experience weekends were a good idea. Yeah I'm making that up.
Sure, buddy.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Earlier you try to nail Fanbois for hypocracy, and you pull the same stunt here. You say, "Vanguard needs server mergers' and now that they have them, you say "Well, they came too late". So you fit the model of the VG Fanbois scenario you invented flip-flopping on the video cards. Way to prove that you are the very type of person you can't stand.
Hate leads to the dark side. It is only an illusion that your hate makes you 'right'.
I'm a video card flip-flopper; what the heck are you talking about?
And of course the server mergers came too late. Isn't merging 3:1 instead of 2:1, destroying rulesets instead of preserving them indicative of that? That aside, Brad mentioned many months ago that low server populations were an issue; several times. I'm a hypocrite for believing the remedy should have come as early as the ailment was realized? Pfft.
Maybe you figure I'm being negative because I'm not teetering at the edge of my seat with excitement about the mergers. Why should I? This isn't some game update or introduced feature; it's SOE choosing between the lesser of two evils; merge suffers and dole out the uncertain fates of some rulesets, houses, guilds and even character names, or keep the servers as desolate as they are now. Amputation or die from gangrene. Oh joy.
Didnt microsoft sign on this deal, but then back out for unknown reasons? Which were thought to be they (microsoft) wanted it a vista only title but the devs (or who ever) said no.
Thats not solid evidence just something i heard, just throwing it out there in case anyone else heard it.
I've heard that too but it doesn't hold any water. Many people posted that Microsoft wanted an early launch, like June 06 if memory serves. And the MS Sigil deal dissolved shortly after that I think.
Vista was supposed to ship in the fall of 06 (and was later pushed back for consumer release into early 07) How can you ship a vista only title before vista ships? Priming the pump of OS sales with a killer MMO? If that were true, why wouldn't MS have still published it during the same time frame Vista was released? The two products came out about the same time anyway.
I chalk that rumor up to wild speculation at best.
Ah I see, thank you for clearing this up for me. I couldnt really decide if this was a true fact or just a rumor. And I dont often have the time to look these things up. So thanks again Vista? Pfft. We're done blaming Vista. I guess you didn't get the memo about Zoo Tycoon and Xbox 360.
Well, I guess some of the VG community is happy about the server merges, but I just checked with my last two friends who have been playing VG since beta and since Varking (team PVP server) is about to be merged into a FFA PVP server they're done with the game.
They said there's quite an uproar over on the official forums about it, and they are still hoping SOE backs down from this decision.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
No those people dont play and are not the community. The remains of the community are good people and standard mmo morons like you can find in any other game
You contradicted yourself. You start by claiming that the "go back to wow" forum crew is not representative of the Vanguard community, and how it is instead *cough* "good people" like you. Then look how you end your post - by calling me a "standard mmo moron." So you are representative of the so called "Vanguard community". And I am doubled over laughing watching your game go down the toilet and people like you with it!
Well, I guess some of the VG community is happy about the server merges, but I just checked with my last two friends who have been playing VG since beta and since Varking (team PVP server) is about to be merged into a FFA PVP server they're done with the game.
They said there's quite an uproar over on the official forums about it, and they are still hoping SOE backs down from this decision.
I reckon SOE will back down from that decision. Not doing so will cause the unhappy "Varkian?" to spill over into the FFA server, cause a heck of trouble there either in complains or anarchic behavior, and then out of SOE grasp into AoC and WAR.
An then Vanguard will be down to 2 PvE servers lol...
You are incorrect. SoE is one of the more profitable and fastest growing divisions that Sony has...according to the article in the New York Times. The SoE division has over $150 million in revenue and growing fast. The article talks about how quickly this division is growing and how SoE has every intention of taking advantage of the lowering costs, rising profits and quckly growing market place the online gaming genere represents. If I had time to find it..I would link it , but you can find the article here in the forums. It's only a few days old.
While SOE might be profitable in comparison to the rest of the Sony Division (which is facing serious competition in the electronics market and is about to be over run by samsung) I highly doubt those numbers and "facts" in the article.
SOE by all accounts has been losing subscribers for several years. It is evident in the server mergers for every title they own.
If that 150 million dollar figure is to be anywhere near true, that would mean they have roughly 835k subscribers. 150million divided by $15 divided by 12 months. Not including any box sales of course. SOE has three major titles: SWG, EQ and EQ2... the math just doesn't add up.
I just don't see anything that says growth in the SOE division. Other than picking up a few failed titles.
If that 150 million dollar figure is to be anywhere near true, that would mean they have roughly 835k subscribers. 150million divided by $15 divided by 12 months. Not including any box sales of course. SOE has three major titles: SWG, EQ and EQ2... the math just doesn't add up.
I just don't see anything that says growth in the SOE division. Other than picking up a few failed titles.
From the article is 150 million $ taken, that another thread. But in this forum being offtopic is ontopic so anyway...
Those 150M$ is not said that it is only subscription revenue 100%, 90,70 or even 55% of it.
Smed gives if you like to speculate that it is not 100% today he say it is to be no more then 50% in 2 years that could mean that it is not that much more today, only talking about the subscription revenue. Given alot of other interpretations of the article, that could also be a fair guess, so we say that today the sub makes 65% of the revenue. That is a majority and maybe almost all. Gamesales could make up for the rest of the income.
Good points Orphes, I will have to re evaluate my thinking on the growth aspect of SOE. One thing I don't deny is that Smed is creative when it comes to revenue.
The number I"m currently using is 90k subscribers. It is my opinion
LOL
ya thats why they are leaving just 4 servers....
My source is the ex-Sigil employee for 90k.
What is your source for the numbers being lower? Ah that's right, I remember which body part you pulled your numbers from.....
Do you know how many people a server can accomodate? 4 servers doesn't disprove 90k subscribers. And if you had actually read the rest of the post....you'd also see that my opinion is that the number is falling.
If you want to cut me deep, stop using butter knives.
Originally posted by Zorgo I have never once said taht population was rising. I have said I haven't had problems finding a group, and I believe I even added the caveat that I was playing a healer which may account for it. Even Healz4u never said anything about populations. He said people were playing the game, and its a big world so they are not always on top of you. The number I am going with right now is from a disgruntled employee who quoted 90k subscribers, logically his bias should lead him toward the low side if he had an axe to grind, and it's dead on if he's being objective. You will also find quotes from me that refer to the 90k vs. 250k that was expected.
That's precisely what I mean. Exactly what issues would you attribute to "low populations" if it isn't difficulty in finding a group or seeing other players? Because the latter issue of seeing no one has been chocked up as being a benefit of the much toted massive world, and the former problem of finding a group is something you yourself have no problem doing, so the problem mustn't exist.
How many people need to be on a server to find a group of 6? All I am saying is that there are enough people within level range to find groups with. Especially if you network and get in a good guild. There are 8 million people who play WoW. How many people does the average WoW player actually play with? Over the course of a few years, maybe, maybe 1000 different people. I never said that others were not having difficulty, all I said was I didn't. I am fully aware that larger populations would help guilds and pick up groups, but it was not my experience that the population issues were a game stopper for me. Sorry, for relaying what my experience in the game was in a truthful manner. You keep wanting me to say that I thought server mergers weren't necessary and low population isn't an issue. That simply isn't true. That's what you want me to believe. What I actually said was, 'server mergers are a good thing'. Yes, you are blind. You can't even see when we agree.
Point being, there's no substance in admitting to low populations if all anyone is going to do is deny the symptoms. It's like going to a doctor complaining about being apart of a flu epidemic but adamantly denying so much as coughing or sneezing; what's the point?
Again, where is the denial? The majority of players wanted server mergers and now you are pretending that we went on a campaign to stop it. Yes, you are blind with hate.
Originally posted by Zorgo
In general, there exists some who'll attempt to sh*t a false darkness on Vanguard's issues no matter how apparent the game is improving, and will blame anyone and anything because they cannot seperate their personal opinion from objective fact; until the actual issues are resolved; only then they come screaming 'I told you so' like a bunch of self-important, self-appointed guru's of the mmo business. *for the record; I have acknowledged Vanguard performance and bugs since beta 2. I have also stated that my patience is finite and I won't wait on Vanguard to be fixed forever.
Is it false darkness when those "haters" get the opportunity to say "I told you so"? It isn't really.
You're attempting to mirror the circumstances of Vanguard's antagonists and it's supporters. I'm sure the supporters of the game would be saying "I told you so" if SOE announced they were tripling the servers due to the difficulty of groups finding a place to camp, and the massive world busting at its seams from overpopulation. There exists no such opportunity for the supporters though, and while I don't condone any parading over Vanguard's sufferings, it's antagonists don't get the opportunity to say "I told you so" over spreading falsehoods.
You again are starting on a false premise. The majority of players wanted to have server mergers. So when you come saying, "I told you so," you sound like a child. We agreed on the server mergers. You are blind with hate.
If you're really perturbed by something such as being told "I told you so" though, you should really consider leaping to the right side of whatever issue is current. Here's a hint of what may be next: real money trade in Vanguard. You should support that it IS going to happen.
Your hate doesn't mean you are on the 'right' side of any issue. It only clouds your judgement.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Ah your personal problem finally emerges; your real beef with Vanguard has more to do with your ability to play it on your system then anything else. But, just to humor you, are you saying that if SOE did make the 6 series work it wouldn't be a miracle? That card is 2 generations old.....even if they make it work with Vanguard it is still a P.O.S. imho.
I played Vanguard with a GeForce 7950 during beta through early release, and a 8800 up until I subscribed last.
You missed the point, yet at the same time you proved it. It'd be my fault if my PC sucked, and Vanguard would be a "P.O.S" if it supported a PC that sucked. Yet I bet if tomorrow SOE did announce some miraculous support for those lower cards, as their system requirements advertise, you'd champion SOE instead of condemn their game as a "P.O.S".
I think you missed the point. I am saying that Vanguard does not support the lower cards. If somehow that were to become a reality, I would be surprised. So under your scenario, if SOE found a way to support those cards, somehow that would prove that Vanguard is a P.O.S.? Your logic keeps you hating SOE and Vanguard no matter what improvements are made. Blindness. I mean really laughable....re-read what you wrote....If SOE announced a miraculous support for lower cards then I should condemn their game as a P.O.S.....
Originally posted by Zorgo I want a direct quote from someone saying both 'go back to WoW' AND then later saying 'Sigil was the most innovative company ever for the xp increase/double xp weekends. You are so blinded by prejudice you don't even realize you are inventing scenarios to make your case. Just because one person says 'Go Back to WoW' and another says, 'Sigil is innovative' and yet a 3rd says 'I like double xp weekends'....what a sorry excuse for analysis. You have invented a Fanbois monster that doesn't exist.
I invented in my head that Vanguard supporters have ever told anyone to "go back to WoW" when those people gave opinions adverse to "the Vision" of things. Uh huh.
No fan of the game has ever both condemned WoW as being too easy due to it's experience dole out, but at the same time think double experience weekends were a good idea. Yeah I'm making that up.
And I bet you think all black people are lazy and eat watermelon and fried chicken because you saw it happen a couple of times. Yes, you are making it up. You failed to produce any link from a fan who both posted "Go back to WoW" and "Double xp weekends are great".
Sure, buddy.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Earlier you try to nail Fanbois for hypocracy, and you pull the same stunt here. You say, "Vanguard needs server mergers' and now that they have them, you say "Well, they came too late". So you fit the model of the VG Fanbois scenario you invented flip-flopping on the video cards. Way to prove that you are the very type of person you can't stand.
Hate leads to the dark side. It is only an illusion that your hate makes you 'right'.
I'm a video card flip-flopper; what the heck are you talking about?
And of course the server mergers came too late. Isn't merging 3:1 instead of 2:1, destroying rulesets instead of preserving them indicative of that? That aside, Brad mentioned many months ago that low server populations were an issue; several times. I'm a hypocrite for believing the remedy should have come as early as the ailment was realized? Pfft.
You said, a Vanbois would say, 'your PC is junk' and then after SOE supported them, that same fan would say "SOE is great for doing this". You claim this would be wrong and hypocritical.
Yet, you say 'they should merge servers" and then after SOE does, you say, "they merged them too late". It is the same argument formula you were lashing out at Vanbois. I called you on your own hypocracy. It proves to me, that you are not an objective person when it comes to Vanguard. You have total bias. Earlier you were even trying to state that if lower cards suddenly became supported it would somehow prove Vanguard was a POS.....yes you are a blind hater who cannot see any form of reality.
Maybe you figure I'm being negative because I'm not teetering at the edge of my seat with excitement about the mergers. Why should I? This isn't some game update or introduced feature; it's SOE choosing between the lesser of two evils; merge suffers and dole out the uncertain fates of some rulesets, houses, guilds and even character names, or keep the servers as desolate as they are now. Amputation or die from gangrene. Oh joy.
I'm not excited about the mergers. I understand that it is necessary. I hope, but don't know that it will help invigorate the game. But I have my doubts. I am not blind to the fact that Vanguard isn't doing well. I am not blind to the fact that I may have to move on. I think its a crying shame, because I like the game. I have no dilusions about the state of Vanguard. But you folks hating it have created a fantasy world where you cannot see anything objectively. Your hate makes you blind.
The number I"m currently using is 90k subscribers. It is my opinion
LOL
ya thats why they are leaving just 4 servers....
My source is the ex-Sigil employee for 90k.
What is your source for the numbers being lower? Ah that's right, I remember which body part you pulled your numbers from.....
Do you know how many people a server can accomodate? 4 servers doesn't disprove 90k subscribers. And if you had actually read the rest of the post....you'd also see that my opinion is that the number is falling.
If you want to cut me deep, stop using butter knives.
The ex-Sigil employee said 90k stayed after the first free month. The vast majority of first free months ended in March. The interview was in May.
f13.net: How many copies of Vanguard sell between say, release and today?
Ex-Sigil: Around 200k, I think.
f13.net: How many people stayed after the "free" month?
Ex-Sigil: Numbers I heard yesterday were 90k. But I can't be sure. Actual subscription numbers were something management was very reluctant to tell us.
Of course it's now June, and if he was commenting on numbers predominantly from March, of course those subscriber numbers are much lower now. If Vanguard had the same 90k subscribers that it might have had in March, then there wouldn't be a need to merge servers this drastically.
So please, if you insist on posting a thousand times using this as your "source", at least comprehend the question and answers correctly and not to misconstrue it into Vanguard having had 90k subscribers either this month or last month.
Meaning overall population is far lower then I expected, as i don't think they would merge servers into 5 x that will take 5k people, i think its safe to say the estimate is around 2k p/server? so yeah Vanguards population is lower then i expected. So merge is needed, this drastic like i said i was not aware of as i kept seeing enough fresh faces, by far not enough to say wow busy game as i'm sure aware of needing more pieps in the game. But it is safe to say its much lower then most of us expected.
How many people need to be on a server to find a group of 6? All I am saying is that there are enough people within level range to find groups with. Especially if you network and get in a good guild. There are 8 million people who play WoW. How many people does the average WoW player actually play with? Over the course of a few years, maybe, maybe 1000 different people. I never said that others were not having difficulty, all I said was I didn't. I am fully aware that larger populations would help guilds and pick up groups, but it was not my experience that the population issues were a game stopper for me. Sorry, for relaying what my experience in the game was in a truthful manner. You keep wanting me to say that I thought server mergers weren't necessary and low population isn't an issue. That simply isn't true. That's what you want me to believe. What I actually said was, 'server mergers are a good thing'. Yes, you are blind. You can't even see when we agree.
Again, you do nothing but prove my point. There's some people, like you, who can agree that an issue exists, but portray themselves as immune to the symptoms. Yet when a remedy comes around, you praise it despite having apparently been exempt from the detriments caused by the issue in the first place.
Is low server population a problem? No, not if you're able to find a group, stable guild and so on without a hitch. Low server populations in that scenario are a good thing; never any issues about spawn camping, laggy areas and all that sorts of stuff.
Of course that's not the reality of things though; your personal utopia isn't the reality for the masses (or lack thereof).
I mean, do you not see what you're doing? Normalize the issue as something that could occur in WoW too? That's original, just like WoW was buggy at launch too, and how people will have to upgrade their PCs for AoC, right?
Excuse the inability to use the all-important LFG tool with the work-around of networking and finding a good guild? Pffft, that's attempting to fix an issue with the very thing the issue is inhibiting. That'd be convenient.
And don't take all of that as something I'm accusing you of having said, just that this conversation is comparable to every other from the type of people I'm accusing you of being one of.
The reason why you warrant those "I told you sos" is because Vanguard is suffering, and has been suffering, and when people complain about any issue no matter what it is, folks like you go on to attempt and sympathize, but at the very same time downplay the issues by saying your own experiences are completely different. It happens ALL the time, and it has been killing the game, and will continue to kill the game. It doesn't matter if it's performance issues, low server population issues, folks crashing, falling through the world, levels being rolled back, duping, etc.; the same folks will check in with the same "It doesn't happen to me" mess. It gets old.
You really don't get it though, it's a cognitive shift you're incapable of. Let's just say that we agree. Yes you do recognize that server mergers are a good idea and that Vanguard has had low server population issues...despite you having been immune to any downsides to low server populations.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Again, where is the denial? The majority of players wanted server mergers and now you are pretending that we went on a campaign to stop it. Yes, you are blind with hate.
Again, I never said that you denied the need for a server merger, just that you denied having personally experienced the reasons the server mergers were needed. You did say you've been able to find groups and keep guilds to play with, right? Then there you go.
Originally posted by Zorgo
You again are starting on a false premise. The majority of players wanted to have server mergers. So when you come saying, "I told you so," you sound like a child. We agreed on the server mergers. You are blind with hate. Your hate doesn't mean you are on the 'right' side of any issue. It only clouds your judgement.
You're insinuating my definition of Vanguard's "supporters" is it's players. No, the vast amount of Vanguard's players complain, and will continue to complain. The need for server mergers was a complaint, and it's a good thing that they're happening.
My definition of a "supporter" in this conversation is those opposite of the "haters" you pointed out on these very forums. The point was, the "haters" get to say "I told you so" because they were RIGHT, whereas you accused them of shedding a "false darkness". Need some examples? Were they wrong about SOE's increasing involvement? Were they wrong about populations bombing?
There's many things the "haters" have said "I told you so" about, but there's never anything that warrants the "supporters" ever saying it. For example, I'd love to hear someone tell me "I told you so" if Vanguard every reached 500k, because I've certainly said that it never will. Instead though, we're hearing "I told you so" over the population being in the pits. Thus the discrepancy.
As for all that blind with hate talk, are you Yoda? Don't scare me, I don't want to be seduced by any dark side.
Originally posted by Zorgo
I think you missed the point. I am saying that Vanguard does not support the lower cards. If somehow that were to become a reality, I would be surprised. So under your scenario, if SOE found a way to support those cards, somehow that would prove that Vanguard is a P.O.S.? Your logic keeps you hating SOE and Vanguard no matter what improvements are made. Blindness. I mean really laughable....re-read what you wrote....If SOE announced a miraculous support for lower cards then I should condemn their game as a P.O.S.....
Nope, just figured you meant the graphics would look like a "P.O.S" if they were run on a "P.O.S" card. If all you were doing was attacking the card I used as an example, then alright. Can't say I have any particular affections for the GeForce 6 series, I was merely using it as an example since it's pretty much the starting point of the system requirements.
The original point was, should Vanguard ever support those cards, you wouldn't call 'em a "P.O.S", or at least you'd go on to champion SOE for finding a way to support the cards and quit with the attacks on others systems.
As for that unnecessary racial analogy, I won't touch it.
Originally posted by Zorgo
You said, a Vanbois would say, 'your PC is junk' and then after SOE supported them, that same fan would say "SOE is great for doing this". You claim this would be wrong and hypocritical.
Definitely hypocritical, of the offending fan, not SOE. Remember what we're talking about, your gripe with the "haters" saying "I told you so". They aren't saying it to SOE, they're saying it to folks like you.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Yet, you say 'they should merge servers" and then after SOE does, you say, "they merged them too late". It is the same argument formula you were lashing out at Vanbois. I called you on your own hypocracy. It proves to me, that you are not an objective person when it comes to Vanguard. You have total bias. Earlier you were even trying to state that if lower cards suddenly became supported it would somehow prove Vanguard was a POS.....yes you are a blind hater who cannot see any form of reality.
You can accuse me of being cynical, but there's no hypocrisy in saying "SOE/Sigil should merge servers." And then months later say "SOE/Sigil should've merged them sooner."
Simply because SOE has done what needed to be done months ago doesn't mean I'm to be delighted. Don't you yourself agree with the fact that Vanguard released with too many servers? Then by that logic, server mergers could've came as early as Day 1. I'm merely saying the mergers shouldn't happened the first time low server populations were deemed a problem.
Exactly how long has "Improved LFG functionality" been on that improvement list? How long has it been since that newsletter admitting difficulty in finding groups was published? Brad's various mentionings of the problems caused by low server populations? It's been a long time, there's no hypocrisy in realizing the mergers would've been better off having come sooner.
So what you have a problem with is that I'm not elated at all. It's too little too late for me. Now there's some hefty cynicism for you. I'm short on hypocrisy though.
Originally posted by Zorgo
I'm not excited about the mergers. I understand that it is necessary. I hope, but don't know that it will help invigorate the game. But I have my
doubts. I am not blind to the fact that Vanguard isn't doing well. I am not blind to the fact that I may have to move on. I think its a crying shame, because I like the game. I have no dilusions about the state of Vanguard. But you folks hating it have created a fantasy world where you cannot see anything objectively. Your hate makes you blind.
Blind to what? The resounding success that Vanguard is? I don't think myself to be a "hater", I don't stomp the game when it's down every chance that I get. But even if I did, what the heck would I be "blind" to in my "hate"?
Server mergers are choosing between the lesser of two evils as I've said before. Despite SOE making the better decision, it's still a decision rack with negative circumstances rooted in other negative circumstances. Forgive me for not smiling for them.
Correct me if i'm wrong A server can holdup to 5k of people? Meaning overall population is far lower then I expected, as i don't think they would merge servers into 5 x that will take 5k people, i think its safe to say the estimate is around 2k p/server? so yeah Vanguards population is lower then i expected. So merge is needed, this drastic like i said i was not aware of as i kept seeing enough fresh faces, by far not enough to say wow busy game as i'm sure aware of needing more pieps in the game. But it is safe to say its much lower then most of us expected.
I think that basically right, although I think the game was said to support 5k players at the same time. Meaning the actualy server population could be higher. On the other hand, those 4 servers include a cronically under-populated PvP server which probelm will have much less. The obviously will not be creating totally full servers but rather populated servers with room to grow a bit.
So my guess then is that max population of all for servers is about 50-60k. But I would guess that the end up with about 5k accounts on the the three PVE servers and something like 1k -3k accounts on the PvP server for a total of around 20k players left in the game.
I would also expect that their numbers will initially decline after the merge. So I would guess we'd be looking at about 15k players after the merge.
Again, you do nothing but prove my point. There's some people, like you, who can agree that an issue exists, but portray themselves as immune to the symptoms. Yet when a remedy comes around, you praise it despite having apparently been exempt from the detriments caused by the issue in the first place.
All I can say is that I don't have a problem finding a group - that's the truth. I can also say issues exist, that's the truth. So if they fix the issues I acknowledge - it should be wrong for me to praise it? Simply because I didn't suffer? I don't know how to make you happy, I guess I should stop getting groups and/or stop acknowledging issues. And btw, I don't think you will find that I personally fit your scenario, look through my posts.
Is low server population a problem? No, not if you're able to find a group, stable guild and so on without a hitch. Low server populations in that scenario are a good thing; never any issues about spawn camping, laggy areas and all that sorts of stuff.
Of course that's not the reality of things though; your personal utopia isn't the reality for the masses (or lack thereof).
I agree with this. Although I have never personally encountered grouping difficulties, I recognize that others do, and therefore acknowledge that server mergers are necessary. I thought I had made that clear. I never meant to say that my personal experience was indicitive of the whole population. But when I see people posting absolutes, "never anyone on", "impossible to find a group", etc. I think it is only fair that I share what my personal experience has been.
I mean, do you not see what you're doing? Normalize the issue as something that could occur in WoW too? That's original, just like WoW was buggy at launch too, and how people will have to upgrade their PCs for AoC, right?
Excuse the inability to use the all-important LFG tool with the work-around of networking and finding a good guild? Pffft, that's attempting to fix an issue with the very thing the issue is inhibiting. That'd be convenient.
And don't take all of that as something I'm accusing you of having said, just that this conversation is comparable to every other from the type of people I'm accusing you of being one of.
See, that's why I used the word prejudice. Because of some of my statements, you are negatively lumping me in a group with a whole.
The reason why you warrant those "I told you sos" is because Vanguard is suffering, and has been suffering, and when people complain about any issue no matter what it is, folks like you go on to attempt and sympathize, but at the very same time downplay the issues by saying your own experiences are completely different. But what if my experience is completely different? Are you really suggesting that I'm simply lying? It happens ALL the time, and it has been killing the game, and will continue to kill the game. It doesn't matter if it's performance issues, low server population issues, folks crashing, falling through the world, levels being rolled back, duping, etc.; the same folks will check in with the same "It doesn't happen to me" mess. It gets old. All of those things do happen to me. I just don't have as big a problem with it. It's a game stopper for some, so I have always acknowledged the very problems you mentioned, but I am still enjoying the game and there are some out there who may as well. I have also said my patience is finite and I will quit Vanguard if improvements stop being made, but they are continuing to improve the game. I see that the haters are doing the very thing you rail against, no matter what improvement is made, you put a negative spin on it, such as the server mergers, when previously the same people were calling for it. If its ok for you to be mad at my positive spin on bad aspects of the game, it is fair for me to be upset about your negative spin on improvements to the game.
You really don't get it though, it's a cognitive shift you're incapable of. Let's just say that we agree. Yes you do recognize that server mergers are a good idea and that Vanguard has had low server population issues...despite you having been immune to any downsides to low server populations.
Yes we agree. Thanks for the insult too.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Again, where is the denial? The majority of players wanted server mergers and now you are pretending that we went on a campaign to stop it. Yes, you are blind with hate.
Again, I never said that you denied the need for a server merger, just that you denied having personally experienced the reasons the server mergers were needed. You did say you've been able to find groups and keep guilds to play with, right? Then there you go. Are you saying I am lying? Is it not possible for one person to have a totally different experience than the majority? Is it impossible to have a different experience then the majority and also acknowledge what they see going on around them?
Originally posted by Zorgo
You again are starting on a false premise. The majority of players wanted to have server mergers. So when you come saying, "I told you so," you sound like a child. We agreed on the server mergers. You are blind with hate. Your hate doesn't mean you are on the 'right' side of any issue. It only clouds your judgement.
You're insinuating my definition of Vanguard's "supporters" is it's players. No, the vast amount of Vanguard's players complain, and will continue to complain. The need for server mergers was a complaint, and it's a good thing that they're happening.
See, I feel I fit the complaining players model rather than the blind supporters.....why I respond to these posts is because I hate when anyone who is playing Vanguard is labeled as a fanbois, vanbois simply for stating their experience in the game, just because it doesn't mirror your experience, doesn't make it untrue.
My definition of a "supporter" in this conversation is those opposite of the "haters" you pointed out on these very forums. The point was, the "haters" get to say "I told you so" because they were RIGHT, whereas you accused them of shedding a "false darkness". Need some examples? Were they wrong about SOE's increasing involvement? Were they wrong about populations bombing?
Then it may be that you are an objective hater and I am an objective supporter of the game. Both of us acknowledge Vanguards issues. Both agree that Vanguard is heading down rather than up. I think the only difference is that I like the game and you don't. I will quit Vanguard if the problems do not continue to be fixed. What is my deadline? When I stop having fun. How about you, will you return to Vanguard if the problems that are your 'game-stopping' issues are resolved?
There's many things the "haters" have said "I told you so" about, but there's never anything that warrants the "supporters" ever saying it. For example, I'd love to hear someone tell me "I told you so" if Vanguard every reached 500k, because I've certainly said that it never will. Instead though, we're hearing "I told you so" over the population being in the pits. Thus the discrepancy.
this was the very thing that got in my craw....Players and Haters alike acknowledged the need for server mergers, and once it happened haters said "I told you so" and I'm sitting here thinking... but we agreed.... why the hate?
As for all that blind with hate talk, are you Yoda? Don't scare me, I don't want to be seduced by any dark side.
Yes I am Yodaand if you don't believe it, that is why you fail.
Originally posted by Zorgo
I think you missed the point. I am saying that Vanguard does not support the lower cards. If somehow that were to become a reality, I would be surprised. So under your scenario, if SOE found a way to support those cards, somehow that would prove that Vanguard is a P.O.S.? Your logic keeps you hating SOE and Vanguard no matter what improvements are made. Blindness. I mean really laughable....re-read what you wrote....If SOE announced a miraculous support for lower cards then I should condemn their game as a P.O.S.....
Nope, just figured you meant the graphics would look like a "P.O.S" if they were run on a "P.O.S" card. If all you were doing was attacking the card I used as an example, then alright. Can't say I have any particular affections for the GeForce 6 series, I was merely using it as an example since it's pretty much the starting point of the system requirements.
The original point was, should Vanguard ever support those cards, you wouldn't call 'em a "P.O.S", or at least you'd go on to champion SOE for finding a way to support the cards and quit with the attacks on others systems.
yeah, see I would still call em a POS even if the game did support em. I'm on the 7950 atm, and don't plan on ever having a 6 series again. If they are able to support them, I'd be surprised, and say 'goody for 6 series owners, you still should get a new vid card'.
As for that unnecessary racial analogy, I won't touch it.
It was simply for emphasis. Even though I acknowledge game problems, but because I still like the game, I am labeled a 'vanbois'. I'm tired of it. In my experience, there are very few supporters who do not acknowledge the problems with Vanguard. There are just a few who blindly support the game seeing no problems. There are definately a few in these forums; but it seems anyone who likes the game is labelled, and I think that is prejudice. It also seems blind haters outnumber the blind supporters about 10 to 1. Yet everyone who likes the game is labeled negatively, while everyone who hates the game is 'right'. Again, that seems like prejudice. I am sure there are those out there that have felt they have been mislabeled a blind hater. Can't we acknowledge there is another side to that coin?
Originally posted by Zorgo
You said, a Vanbois would say, 'your PC is junk' and then after SOE supported them, that same fan would say "SOE is great for doing this". You claim this would be wrong and hypocritical.
Definitely hypocritical, of the offending fan, not SOE. Remember what we're talking about, your gripe with the "haters" saying "I told you so". They aren't saying it to SOE, they're saying it to folks like you.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Yet, you say 'they should merge servers" and then after SOE does, you say, "they merged them too late". It is the same argument formula you were lashing out at Vanbois. I called you on your own hypocracy. It proves to me, that you are not an objective person when it comes to Vanguard. You have total bias. Earlier you were even trying to state that if lower cards suddenly became supported it would somehow prove Vanguard was a POS.....yes you are a blind hater who cannot see any form of reality.
You can accuse me of being cynical, but there's no hypocrisy in saying "SOE/Sigil should merge servers." And then months later say "SOE/Sigil should've merged them sooner."
I think by the same respects, you can see how I can think the 6 series or older video cards are POS's whether a game supports them or not. But you have labelled me because of what I might possibly do in the future in a hypothetical situation. If that isn't prejudice, I"m not sure what is. At least my scenario has already happened in reality, haters are lashing out at players over an issue the majority agreed upon. Perhaps hypocracy wasn't the right word, but this reaction to server mergers certainly shows prejudice.
I will be amazed if they do end up supporting those cards, but I won't come to the forums shouting, "I told you so". Mostly, because I don't think it will happen, so I never told anyone 'so'. I'll still encourage people to upgrade their card, just as I have from the beginning. So...I don't think I am being hypocritical.
Simply because SOE has done what needed to be done months ago doesn't mean I'm to be delighted. Don't you yourself agree with the fact that Vanguard released with too many servers? Then by that logic, server mergers could've came as early as Day 1. I'm merely saying the mergers shouldn't happened the first time low server populations were deemed a problem.
Probably not Day 1 - maybe 1st month or so, clear out the newbie zones before the mergers. Yeah, you are right, they came to late, but I understand why....Sigil dropped the ball and SOE has had some transition issues; I am not delighted, but I do recognize that the mergers are a high priority and that SOE is doing them asap. More than we can say about Sigil...they were too busy trying to sell their assets rather than fix their game.
Exactly how long has "Improved LFG functionality" been on that improvement list? How long has it been since that newsletter admitting difficulty in finding groups was published? Brad's various mentionings of the problems caused by low server populations? It's been a long time, there's no hypocrisy in realizing the mergers would've been better off having come sooner.
I chalk this up to the acquisition. About 2 more months and I expect to see some effective patching. I'm not holding my breath though.
So what you have a problem with is that I'm not elated at all. It's too little too late for me. Now there's some hefty cynicism for you. I'm short on hypocrisy though.
I think it is hypocritical to say 'Vanguard fans will blindly support the game no matter what the issues' at the same time saying, 'I will never give it a second look even if they address all the issues'. However, I can see someone being so let down by Vanguard that they will never look at it again, but no one seems think it is ok to admit subjectiveness. For example, I believe it is perfectly reasonable for someone to say, "I cannot objectively look at Vanguard, it pissed me off too much initially". But that's not what I'm hearing, I'm hearing, "When will Vanguard fans acknowledge the TRUTH".
Originally posted by Zorgo
I'm not excited about the mergers. I understand that it is necessary. I hope, but don't know that it will help invigorate the game. But I have my
doubts. I am not blind to the fact that Vanguard isn't doing well. I am not blind to the fact that I may have to move on. I think its a crying shame, because I like the game. I have no dilusions about the state of Vanguard. But you folks hating it have created a fantasy world where you cannot see anything objectively. Your hate makes you blind.
Blind to what? The resounding success that Vanguard is? Blind to the fact that improvements are being made to the game. This thread spun an improvement, server mergers, into a negative "I told you so". I don't think myself to be a "hater", I don't stomp the game when it's down every chance that I get. But even if I did, what the heck would I be "blind" to in my "hate"? Same as earlier, when one takes a needed improvement and spins it into a negative.
Server mergers are choosing between the lesser of two evils as I've said before. Despite SOE making the better decision, it's still a decision rack with negative circumstances rooted in other negative circumstances. Forgive me for not smiling for them.
I agree with this completely. I think the 'I told you so's' in this situation, is just like you said in the last paragraph, people, 'stomp the game when it's down every chance' . We all knew it was needed, we all understand the negative implications of server mergers, I was just taught that kicking people when they are down is wrong. And to never say, "I told you so".
The number I"m currently using is 90k subscribers. It is my opinion
LOL
ya thats why they are leaving just 4 servers....
My source is the ex-Sigil employee for 90k.
What is your source for the numbers being lower? Ah that's right, I remember which body part you pulled your numbers from.....
Do you know how many people a server can accomodate? 4 servers doesn't disprove 90k subscribers. And if you had actually read the rest of the post....you'd also see that my opinion is that the number is falling.
If you want to cut me deep, stop using butter knives.
The ex-Sigil employee said 90k stayed after the first free month. The vast majority of first free months ended in March. The interview was in May.
f13.net: How many copies of Vanguard sell between say, release and today?
Ex-Sigil: Around 200k, I think.
f13.net: How many people stayed after the "free" month?
Ex-Sigil: Numbers I heard yesterday were 90k. But I can't be sure. Actual subscription numbers were something management was very reluctant to tell us.
Of course it's now June, and if he was commenting on numbers predominantly from March, of course those subscriber numbers are much lower now. If Vanguard had the same 90k subscribers that it might have had in March, then there wouldn't be a need to merge servers this drastically.
So please, if you insist on posting a thousand times using this as your "source", at least comprehend the question and answers correctly and not to misconstrue it into Vanguard having had 90k subscribers either this month or last month.
My full post quoted above acknowledged that I believed the numbers were dropping. In fact, that is the rest of the 'in my opinion....' sentence (In my opinion the numbers are dropping). I simply didn't have it in this reply and I apologize. So if you had read the whole post quoted, you would have seen that I acknowledged the numbers were likely less than 90k. My point was that I at least had a reference, while others claims are simply unfounded.
Correct me if i'm wrong A server can holdup to 5k of people? Meaning overall population is far lower then I expected, as i don't think they would merge servers into 5 x that will take 5k people, i think its safe to say the estimate is around 2k p/server? so yeah Vanguards population is lower then i expected. So merge is needed, this drastic like i said i was not aware of as i kept seeing enough fresh faces, by far not enough to say wow busy game as i'm sure aware of needing more pieps in the game. But it is safe to say its much lower then most of us expected.
Brainstorming here:
If a server has 20k active subscribers how many of those are on in any given night?
I think 25% is a fair guess.
That would put 5k on a server each night.
Which happens to be the number the servers can accomodate.
Seems like active subscribers might be between 75k and 90k, pretty close to my predictions.
Of course I will acknowledge that the '25%' is simply a guess. If 50% or more of the active subscribers are playing each night, we'd drop down to 45k or so...but I can't imagine any game has a 50% active subscription playing each night.
I don't think the 2k per server would make good business practice, I think they want these servers overloaded, close to the 5k to produce a 'full' illusion. That way, if game turns around they can use server releases as a psychological advertising. Is that shady? Or is that good business? Dunno, guess I'll have to see after they merge.
All I can say is that I don't have a problem finding a group - that's the truth. I can also say issues exist, that's the truth. So if they fix the issues I acknowledge - it should be wrong for me to praise it? Simply because I didn't suffer? I don't know how to make you happy, I guess I should stop getting groups and/or stop acknowledging issues. And btw, I don't think you will find that I personally fit your scenario, look through my posts.
You're really derailing towards something way too personal. Do keep your original post in mind and what you insinuated, that "haters" parade around with "I told you so" while supporters say "I knew all along".
All I'm doing is attempting to explain why the "haters" do that, which is that you've had people denying low server population issues, which was the same as denying the need for server mergers.
Do I believe you're lying for saying you've never had difficulty grouping? Nah, at the very most I believe your patience threshold is much higher than the average MMO player when it comes to finding and maintaining groups.
All I'm saying is, you sound no different than folks who come off as immune to EVERY problem Vanguard has, so if you're ever attacked with an "I told you so", that's why; you're similar to a sect of supporters who deny any issues of the game ever effecting them. You also do things like attempt to normalize issues by trying to say whatever issue is the same in other MMOs, and other atypical behaviors of the kind of people who hear those "I told you sos".
I'm speaking broadly, don't take anything personal. There's nothing I want you to do to make me happy, 'less you can speed WAR or AoC up.
Originally posted by Zorgo
I agree with this. Although I have never personally encountered grouping difficulties, I recognize that others do, and therefore acknowledge that server mergers are necessary. I thought I had made that clear. I never meant to say that my personal experience was indicitive of the whole population. But when I see people posting absolutes, "never anyone on", "impossible to find a group", etc. I think it is only fair that I share what my personal experience has been.
Sure, but again, you come off as being apart of a demeaning sect that has been killing this game all along.
Originally posted by Zorgo
See, that's why I used the word prejudice. Because of some of my statements, you are negatively lumping me in a group with a whole.
Well you exhibit all the behavioral patterns of those I lump you in with. You've pawned off a serious Vanguard issue as something that exists in WoW as well with no consideration towards severity or finer differences. You've suggested that issues might not be with Vanguard, but with the players not doing enough for themselves. You've become defensive of the game against the "haters".
So yeah, I am lumping you in with the "fans" of the game. Just as you've labeled me a person filled with hate, which I guess means I'm a "hater". We know our two sides, why try and walk the line? There's no ad libbing here, just stick to the script.
No really, do keep in mind I'm still pretty much commenting on your first post, in which you yourself pointed out two sides in your history lesson. I'm merely responding within the contexts you yourself presented, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to generalize yourself as being on the side you deemed morons, so you must be on the others, and its the others I'm criticizing.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Originally posted by sepher But what if my experience is completely different? Are you really suggesting that I'm simply lying?
It's not about lying so much as it's about manipulating the truth. Example, saying whether or not a game is "buggy" is open to personal opinion. A game with only one bug can be considered buggy, even if that one bug was a missing tree root on one particular tree.
In your case, you're saying you've never had any difficulties in finding a group. Is that not an absolute akin to "it's impossible to find a group"? It is. You hate the haters' absolutes, they hate yours. It'd be much better if everyone just admitted finding a group in Vanguard was a lot more difficult than it should be. Our MMORPG.com civil war won't allow that to happen though.
Originally posted by Zorgo
All of those things do happen to me. I just don't have as big a problem with it. It's a game stopper for some, so I have always acknowledged the very problems you mentioned, but I am still enjoying the game and there are some out there who may as well. I have also said my patience is finite and I will quit Vanguard if improvements stop being made, but they are continuing to improve the game. I see that the haters are doing the very thing you rail against, no matter what improvement is made, you put a negative spin on it, such as the server mergers, when previously the same people were calling for it. If its ok for you to be mad at my positive spin on bad aspects of the game, it is fair for me to be upset about your negative spin on improvements to the game.
Sure, again, I'm not attempting to argue whether anyone is deserving of antagonistic behavior, I'm just explaining why there is that kind of behavior.
Also, that's a good way to put it "I just don't have as big a problem with it." Like I said above, MMORPG.com would be a lot better if people admitted we all have the same issues, just some of us have problems with it and some of us don't. When no one admits that though, we start speaking in absolutes. If matraque says the game is fun for him so everyone else should shut up, someone else is going to tell him relentlessly how much the game sucks and why. There's really no room for expressing optimism when you're on the opposing end, since the optimists leap into totally disavowing any issues they themselves are having.
Example, if Sigil were polling the community to decide whether or not server mergers should happen, what good would it do a "hater" to say "yeah I find groups sometimes" while you're saying "I never have any difficulty finding groups". No one meets anyone halfway, so might aswell deal in absolutes to equal things out. Of course this all leads to the "I told you so" scenarios, due to the "haters" always being closer to the truth.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Yes we agree. Thanks for the insult too.
I'd feel much better about it if you called me a hate-filled imperialist verging on the dark side. Now I just feel like apologizing, I'm sorry.
Originally posted by Zorgo
yeah, see I would still call em a POS even if the game did support em. I'm on the 7950 atm, and don't plan on ever having a 6 series again. If they are able to support them, I'd be surprised, and say 'goody for 6 series owners, you still should get a new vid card'.
Alrighty.
Originally posted by Zorgo
It was simply for emphasis. Even though I acknowledge game problems, because I still like the game, I am labeled a 'vanbois'. I'm tired of it. I acknowledge the issues but still like the game, is that so difficult to understand? In my mind, there are very few supporters who do not acknowledge the problems with Vanguard. There are definately a few in these forums; but it seems anyone who likes the game is labelled. I am sure there are those out there that have felt they have been mislabeled a blind hater. Can't we acknowledge there is another side to that coin?
I've yet to call you a "vanboi". You can search my post history and I've never called anyone a "vanboi". You've certainly called me hate-filled and all that, but I personally don't believe in labelling others that way no matter how much I joke. I have generalized you, and stick to the generalizations I've made, but at the same time I've merely said you're "like" that particular sect of Vanguard players I don't like. I won't dislike you until you get into the whole ageism, WoW-prejudice, older PC lambasting type of behavior they get into.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Then it may be that you are an objective hater and I am an objective supporter of the game. Both of us acknowledge Vanguards issues. Both agree that Vanguard is heading down rather than up. I think the only difference is that I like the game and you don't. I will quit Vanguard if the problems do not continue to be fixed. What is my deadline? When I stop having fun. How about you, will you return to Vanguard if the problems that are your 'game-stopping' issues are resolved?
Sure...that's a long list of game-stopping issues though.
Originally posted by Zorgo
this was the very thing that got in my craw....Players and Haters alike acknowledged the need for server mergers, and once it happened haters said "I told you so" and I'm sitting here thinking... but we agreed.... why the hate?
Again, there are indeed usually two sides to any issue here on these boards, but it's not "players" and "haters". That implies all haters aren't players of the game. You'll find the vast majority of "haters" have their behavior rooted in what used to be compassion for the game's then present and future well-being. There still exists "haters" who maintain those sentiments towards Vanguard. Unfortunately, the ones you deemed morons in your posts are the ones who only enjoy stomping on Vanguard while its down nowadays.
Anyway, it's not as simple as what you're making it out to be. If you're personally defending yourself, do that; that isn't what you did though. You yourself decided that the "haters" were saying "I told you so" to every single person playing the game. It's neither right to condemn the "haters" as a whole for saying it, or believe the "players" as a whole were to be offended collectively.
What is true is that some folks did indeed disagree that mergers were needed, and that there weren't any low population issues. Take this awesome classic thread for example about Vanguard's overpopulation issues: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/126198/page/1
Originally posted by Zorgo
I think it is hypocritical to say 'Vanguard fans will blindly support the game no matter what the issues' at the same time saying, 'I will never give it a second look even if they address all the issues'. However, I can see someone being so let down by Vanguard that they will never look at it again, but no one seems think it is ok to admit subjectiveness. For example, I believe it is perfectly reasonable for someone to say, "I cannot objectively look at Vanguard, it pissed me off too much initially". But that's not what I'm hearing, I'm hearing, "When will Vanguard fans acknowledge the TRUTH".
Like I said, a "sect" of Vanguard's fans; not every single one of them.
Originally posted by Zorgo
Blind to the fact that improvements are being made to the game. This thread spun an improvement, server mergers, into a negative "I told you so".
Same as earlier, when one takes a needed improvement and spins it into a negative.
I'm not blind to any improvements to the game, they're just improvements I don't care about. For example, why would I care about client hitching being "improved" if client hitching still exists? I'll be impressed when that Top Ten Bugs list actually changes rather than everything on it being "improved" upon endlessly.
Within context of the server mergers, like I said, it's difficult being positive about one evil being chose over another, it's a lot easier to be cynical.
Originally posted by Zorgo
I agree with this completely. I think the 'I told you so's' in this situation, is just like you said in the last paragraph, people, 'stomp the game when it's down every chance' . We all knew it was needed, we all understand the negative implications of server mergers, I was just taught that kicking people when they are down is wrong. And to never say, "I told you so".
Well again, you chose to take the "I told you so" as an affront to every "player" of the game, and blamed all the "haters" of being morons for having said it.
If you understand there's only a few people who kick the game when it's down for no reason, then don't take so much offense to it.
Correct me if i'm wrong A server can holdup to 5k of people? Meaning overall population is far lower then I expected, as i don't think they would merge servers into 5 x that will take 5k people, i think its safe to say the estimate is around 2k p/server? so yeah Vanguards population is lower then i expected. So merge is needed, this drastic like i said i was not aware of as i kept seeing enough fresh faces, by far not enough to say wow busy game as i'm sure aware of needing more pieps in the game. But it is safe to say its much lower then most of us expected.
Brainstorming here:
If a server has 20k active subscribers how many of those are on in any given night?
I think 25% is a fair guess.
That would put 5k on a server each night.
Which happens to be the number the servers can accomodate.
Seems like active subscribers might be between 75k and 90k, pretty close to my predictions.
Of course I will acknowledge that the '25%' is simply a guess. If 50% or more of the active subscribers are playing each night, we'd drop down to 45k or so...but I can't imagine any game has a 50% active subscription playing each night.
I don't think the 2k per server would make good business practice, I think they want these servers overloaded, close to the 5k to produce a 'full' illusion. That way, if game turns around they can use server releases as a psychological advertising. Is that shady? Or is that good business? Dunno, guess I'll have to see after they merge.
25% per server is a good guess, sure. Example, I remember during WoW's first holiday season when it had 600k subscribers, it also set a record for 200k concurrent users throughout the holidays. So that's 33% as an old record to use as an example.
Anyway, it's one thing to figure out the percentage ratio of concurrent users to active subscribers, it's another to then plug in server capacity numbers in attempting to figure out what the subscriber count is. It's a good way for figuring out what the subscriber cap might be before new servers have to be added, but there's not a whole lot of reason to believe the servers will be operating at capacity after the mergers, especially for PvP.
Brainstorming here: If a server has 20k active subscribers how many of those are on in any given night? I think 25% is a fair guess. That would put 5k on a server each night. Which happens to be the number the servers can accomodate. Seems like active subscribers might be between 75k and 90k, pretty close to my predictions. Of course I will acknowledge that the '25%' is simply a guess. If 50% or more of the active subscribers are playing each night, we'd drop down to 45k or so...but I can't imagine any game has a 50% active subscription playing each night. I don't think the 2k per server would make good business practice, I think they want these servers overloaded, close to the 5k to produce a 'full' illusion. That way, if game turns around they can use server releases as a psychological advertising. Is that shady? Or is that good business? Dunno, guess I'll have to see after they merge.
Had a nice long post with examples made up, and hit cancel instead of submit. I'm an idiot.
At any rate, there are several studies out at fan sites, for different servers, different days, different times. The commonly found average per server at prime playing hours is about 750-800. Unless only one in eight players are logged in, that makes the 75-90K number completely unbelievable- and points at a much more realistic 40K or so. Even go look around the affiliate sites, where traffic and interest have dropped 70-80% since release. That's a great indicator.
Even the official forum peaks at around 1800-2000 people. I'd guess a 1 of 20 figure would be fair for forum visits, and that again puts us around 40K -ish. Just too many things pointing that way to make any figure above 40,000 look or feel true.
Brainstorming here: If a server has 20k active subscribers how many of those are on in any given night? I think 25% is a fair guess. That would put 5k on a server each night. Which happens to be the number the servers can accomodate. Seems like active subscribers might be between 75k and 90k, pretty close to my predictions. Of course I will acknowledge that the '25%' is simply a guess. If 50% or more of the active subscribers are playing each night, we'd drop down to 45k or so...but I can't imagine any game has a 50% active subscription playing each night. I don't think the 2k per server would make good business practice, I think they want these servers overloaded, close to the 5k to produce a 'full' illusion. That way, if game turns around they can use server releases as a psychological advertising. Is that shady? Or is that good business? Dunno, guess I'll have to see after they merge.
Had a nice long post with examples made up, and hit cancel instead of submit. I'm an idiot.
At any rate, there are several studies out at fan sites, for different servers, different days, different times. The commonly found average per server at prime playing hours is about 750-800. Unless only one in eight players are logged in, that makes the 75-90K number completely unbelievable- and points at a much more realistic 40K or so. Even go look around the affiliate sites, where traffic and interest have dropped 70-80% since release. That's a great indicator.
Even the official forum peaks at around 1800-2000 people. I'd guess a 1 of 20 figure would be fair for forum visits, and that again puts us around 40K -ish. Just too many things pointing that way to make any figure above 40,000 look or feel true.
If the 750 to 800 per night is accurate, then I capitulate and am willing to say I was wrong by almost 80k.
Not that I'm doubting you, but I have looked thru the fan sites and haven't found that info, if you can re-post a link, that'd be sweet.
Comments
Actually hardly any Vanguard players post here. Most of the people that post there dont even play Vanguard. They play the no-mmo-will-ever-be-good-enough-to-survive-my-constant-trolling MMO. Most of us real Vanguard players have moved on to the official boards, b/c there is no point posting here on a board where the only people you discuss the game with only hate it.
What a pathetic community this has become.
You want to talk about a pathetic community? Long before I posted here, I was part of the official pre-release forums for Vanguard. Day after day after day, people talked about how l33t they were, and how everyone else was a "kiddie" who wanted "everything handed to them" and a "dumbed down game." Every poster was a big deal; everyone else was a little deal. That's the Vanguard community, and that's a big part of why your game crashed and burned and has become a laughingstock in the mmo market.
So if you and the handful of other people who play this game want to take refuge on the SOE boards and comb each other's hair and pretend all is well and that Vanguard has a future, go right ahead.
Meanwhile, on this and every other public forum people know what's going on, and many of us who saw this coming more than a year in advance can't help but relish watching the buckets of cold water being splashed in the faces of the so-called "elite" in their "next generation" version of narcissism online.
WrongI remember those people on the boards. Everyone had camped a mob for 90 hours in EQ. Everyone was making 10 million bucks a year and everyone was such a big number. You could smell the testosteron over the net :P Like every iron man on the world wanted to play vanguard.
But those arent the community. Those uber gamers left the game on day 30 after release. When it was about paying money to play. Within these 30 days they ruined as much as possible. Why ? Because McQuad didnt give them what they wanted. He refused and told people many times that there is something for everyone. Even for casuals. Not the bugs and the performance drove me away.. it was the community. I roled a new char 2 weeks ago and play the game casual (i know its not finished). And the game is real fun for the first 20 levels. Community (orm what is left of it) isnt so bad anymore. Unfortunately a lot of guilds use TS and so are the chats very quite. Even when players are online.
No those people dont play and are not the community. The remains of the community are good people and standard mmo morons like you can find in any other game
Probably the worst thing about it was deep down, Brad and Sigil knew the game would fail. They knew they were shoving an unfinished mess out the door, and they did it anyhow.
That has got to be the biggest pile of horse %^&* I have ever heard. Your telling me that since your C64 can't run Vanguard or runs it badly, its a bad game?
Oh and my analogy was right on the spot. Just because alot of people do it, doesn't make it good,fun,etc. And going by your post, you don't know nothing about Vanguard. I do mean nothing what so ever. Bye Troll
Where did I say anything about performance in my post? I said bugs, CTD, unfinished.
If you are going to troll, try putting your reading comprehension goggles on next time.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Point being, there's no substance in admitting to low populations if all anyone is going to do is deny the symptoms. It's like going to a doctor complaining about being apart of a flu epidemic but adamantly denying so much as coughing or sneezing; what's the point?
Is it false darkness when those "haters" get the opportunity to say "I told you so"? It isn't really.
You're attempting to mirror the circumstances of Vanguard's antagonists and it's supporters. I'm sure the supporters of the game would be saying "I told you so" if SOE announced they were tripling the servers due to the difficulty of groups finding a place to camp, and the massive world busting at its seams from overpopulation. There exists no such opportunity for the supporters though, and while I don't condone any parading over Vanguard's sufferings, it's antagonists don't get the opportunity to say "I told you so" over spreading falsehoods.
If you're really perturbed by something such as being told "I told you so" though, you should really consider leaping to the right side of whatever issue is current. Here's a hint of what may be next: real money trade in Vanguard. You should support that it IS going to happen.
I played Vanguard with a GeForce 7950 during beta through early release, and a 8800 up until I subscribed last.
You missed the point, yet at the same time you proved it. It'd be my fault if my PC sucked, and Vanguard would be a "P.O.S" if it supported a PC that sucked. Yet I bet if tomorrow SOE did announce some miraculous support for those lower cards, as their system requirements advertise, you'd champion SOE instead of condemn their game as a "P.O.S".
I invented in my head that Vanguard supporters have ever told anyone to "go back to WoW" when those people gave opinions adverse to "the Vision" of things. Uh huh.
No fan of the game has ever both condemned WoW as being too easy due to it's experience dole out, but at the same time think double experience weekends were a good idea. Yeah I'm making that up.
Sure, buddy.
I'm a video card flip-flopper; what the heck are you talking about?
And of course the server mergers came too late. Isn't merging 3:1 instead of 2:1, destroying rulesets instead of preserving them indicative of that? That aside, Brad mentioned many months ago that low server populations were an issue; several times. I'm a hypocrite for believing the remedy should have come as early as the ailment was realized? Pfft.
Maybe you figure I'm being negative because I'm not teetering at the edge of my seat with excitement about the mergers. Why should I? This isn't some game update or introduced feature; it's SOE choosing between the lesser of two evils; merge suffers and dole out the uncertain fates of some rulesets, houses, guilds and even character names, or keep the servers as desolate as they are now. Amputation or die from gangrene. Oh joy.
I've heard that too but it doesn't hold any water. Many people posted that Microsoft wanted an early launch, like June 06 if memory serves. And the MS Sigil deal dissolved shortly after that I think.
Vista was supposed to ship in the fall of 06 (and was later pushed back for consumer release into early 07) How can you ship a vista only title before vista ships? Priming the pump of OS sales with a killer MMO? If that were true, why wouldn't MS have still published it during the same time frame Vista was released? The two products came out about the same time anyway.
I chalk that rumor up to wild speculation at best.
Ah I see, thank you for clearing this up for me. I couldnt really decide if this was a true fact or just a rumor. And I dont often have the time to look these things up. So thanks againhttp://www.f13.net/index.php?itemid=561#more
http://www.f13.net/index.php?itemid=562#more
They said there's quite an uproar over on the official forums about it, and they are still hoping SOE backs down from this decision.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Reading comprehension E-.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I reckon SOE will back down from that decision. Not doing so will cause the unhappy "Varkian?" to spill over into the FFA server, cause a heck of trouble there either in complains or anarchic behavior, and then out of SOE grasp into AoC and WAR.
An then Vanguard will be down to 2 PvE servers lol...
SOE by all accounts has been losing subscribers for several years. It is evident in the server mergers for every title they own.
If that 150 million dollar figure is to be anywhere near true, that would mean they have roughly 835k subscribers. 150million divided by $15 divided by 12 months. Not including any box sales of course. SOE has three major titles: SWG, EQ and EQ2... the math just doesn't add up.
I just don't see anything that says growth in the SOE division. Other than picking up a few failed titles.
From the article is 150 million $ taken, that another thread. But in this forum being offtopic is ontopic so anyway...
Those 150M$ is not said that it is only subscription revenue 100%, 90,70 or even 55% of it.
Smed gives if you like to speculate that it is not 100% today he say it is to be no more then 50% in 2 years that could mean that it is not that much more today, only talking about the subscription revenue. Given alot of other interpretations of the article, that could also be a fair guess, so we say that today the sub makes 65% of the revenue. That is a majority and maybe almost all. Gamesales could make up for the rest of the income.
Games like on:
http://www.station.sony.com/
So there is alot of games with those 3 you listed as the largest ones, but not all products that gives SOE an income.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
LOL
ya thats why they are leaving just 4 servers....
My source is the ex-Sigil employee for 90k.
What is your source for the numbers being lower? Ah that's right, I remember which body part you pulled your numbers from.....
Do you know how many people a server can accomodate? 4 servers doesn't disprove 90k subscribers. And if you had actually read the rest of the post....you'd also see that my opinion is that the number is falling.
If you want to cut me deep, stop using butter knives.
That's precisely what I mean. Exactly what issues would you attribute to "low populations" if it isn't difficulty in finding a group or seeing other players? Because the latter issue of seeing no one has been chocked up as being a benefit of the much toted massive world, and the former problem of finding a group is something you yourself have no problem doing, so the problem mustn't exist.
How many people need to be on a server to find a group of 6? All I am saying is that there are enough people within level range to find groups with. Especially if you network and get in a good guild. There are 8 million people who play WoW. How many people does the average WoW player actually play with? Over the course of a few years, maybe, maybe 1000 different people. I never said that others were not having difficulty, all I said was I didn't. I am fully aware that larger populations would help guilds and pick up groups, but it was not my experience that the population issues were a game stopper for me. Sorry, for relaying what my experience in the game was in a truthful manner. You keep wanting me to say that I thought server mergers weren't necessary and low population isn't an issue. That simply isn't true. That's what you want me to believe. What I actually said was, 'server mergers are a good thing'. Yes, you are blind. You can't even see when we agree.
Point being, there's no substance in admitting to low populations if all anyone is going to do is deny the symptoms. It's like going to a doctor complaining about being apart of a flu epidemic but adamantly denying so much as coughing or sneezing; what's the point?
Again, where is the denial? The majority of players wanted server mergers and now you are pretending that we went on a campaign to stop it. Yes, you are blind with hate.
Is it false darkness when those "haters" get the opportunity to say "I told you so"? It isn't really.
You're attempting to mirror the circumstances of Vanguard's antagonists and it's supporters. I'm sure the supporters of the game would be saying "I told you so" if SOE announced they were tripling the servers due to the difficulty of groups finding a place to camp, and the massive world busting at its seams from overpopulation. There exists no such opportunity for the supporters though, and while I don't condone any parading over Vanguard's sufferings, it's antagonists don't get the opportunity to say "I told you so" over spreading falsehoods.
You again are starting on a false premise. The majority of players wanted to have server mergers. So when you come saying, "I told you so," you sound like a child. We agreed on the server mergers. You are blind with hate.
If you're really perturbed by something such as being told "I told you so" though, you should really consider leaping to the right side of whatever issue is current. Here's a hint of what may be next: real money trade in Vanguard. You should support that it IS going to happen.
Your hate doesn't mean you are on the 'right' side of any issue. It only clouds your judgement.
I played Vanguard with a GeForce 7950 during beta through early release, and a 8800 up until I subscribed last.
You missed the point, yet at the same time you proved it. It'd be my fault if my PC sucked, and Vanguard would be a "P.O.S" if it supported a PC that sucked. Yet I bet if tomorrow SOE did announce some miraculous support for those lower cards, as their system requirements advertise, you'd champion SOE instead of condemn their game as a "P.O.S".
I think you missed the point. I am saying that Vanguard does not support the lower cards. If somehow that were to become a reality, I would be surprised. So under your scenario, if SOE found a way to support those cards, somehow that would prove that Vanguard is a P.O.S.? Your logic keeps you hating SOE and Vanguard no matter what improvements are made. Blindness. I mean really laughable....re-read what you wrote....If SOE announced a miraculous support for lower cards then I should condemn their game as a P.O.S.....
I invented in my head that Vanguard supporters have ever told anyone to "go back to WoW" when those people gave opinions adverse to "the Vision" of things. Uh huh.
No fan of the game has ever both condemned WoW as being too easy due to it's experience dole out, but at the same time think double experience weekends were a good idea. Yeah I'm making that up.
And I bet you think all black people are lazy and eat watermelon and fried chicken because you saw it happen a couple of times. Yes, you are making it up. You failed to produce any link from a fan who both posted "Go back to WoW" and "Double xp weekends are great".
Sure, buddy.
I'm a video card flip-flopper; what the heck are you talking about?
And of course the server mergers came too late. Isn't merging 3:1 instead of 2:1, destroying rulesets instead of preserving them indicative of that? That aside, Brad mentioned many months ago that low server populations were an issue; several times. I'm a hypocrite for believing the remedy should have come as early as the ailment was realized? Pfft.
You said, a Vanbois would say, 'your PC is junk' and then after SOE supported them, that same fan would say "SOE is great for doing this". You claim this would be wrong and hypocritical.
Yet, you say 'they should merge servers" and then after SOE does, you say, "they merged them too late". It is the same argument formula you were lashing out at Vanbois. I called you on your own hypocracy. It proves to me, that you are not an objective person when it comes to Vanguard. You have total bias. Earlier you were even trying to state that if lower cards suddenly became supported it would somehow prove Vanguard was a POS.....yes you are a blind hater who cannot see any form of reality.
Maybe you figure I'm being negative because I'm not teetering at the edge of my seat with excitement about the mergers. Why should I? This isn't some game update or introduced feature; it's SOE choosing between the lesser of two evils; merge suffers and dole out the uncertain fates of some rulesets, houses, guilds and even character names, or keep the servers as desolate as they are now. Amputation or die from gangrene. Oh joy.
I'm not excited about the mergers. I understand that it is necessary. I hope, but don't know that it will help invigorate the game. But I have my doubts. I am not blind to the fact that Vanguard isn't doing well. I am not blind to the fact that I may have to move on. I think its a crying shame, because I like the game. I have no dilusions about the state of Vanguard. But you folks hating it have created a fantasy world where you cannot see anything objectively. Your hate makes you blind.
LOL
ya thats why they are leaving just 4 servers....
My source is the ex-Sigil employee for 90k.
What is your source for the numbers being lower? Ah that's right, I remember which body part you pulled your numbers from.....
Do you know how many people a server can accomodate? 4 servers doesn't disprove 90k subscribers. And if you had actually read the rest of the post....you'd also see that my opinion is that the number is falling.
If you want to cut me deep, stop using butter knives.
The ex-Sigil employee said 90k stayed after the first free month. The vast majority of first free months ended in March. The interview was in May.f13.net: How many copies of Vanguard sell between say, release and today?
Ex-Sigil: Around 200k, I think.
f13.net: How many people stayed after the "free" month?
Ex-Sigil: Numbers I heard yesterday were 90k. But I can't be sure. Actual subscription numbers were something management was very reluctant to tell us.
Of course it's now June, and if he was commenting on numbers predominantly from March, of course those subscriber numbers are much lower now. If Vanguard had the same 90k subscribers that it might have had in March, then there wouldn't be a need to merge servers this drastically.
So please, if you insist on posting a thousand times using this as your "source", at least comprehend the question and answers correctly and not to misconstrue it into Vanguard having had 90k subscribers either this month or last month.
Correct me if i'm wrong
A server can holdup to 5k of people?
Meaning overall population is far lower then I expected, as i don't think they would merge servers into 5 x that will take 5k people, i think its safe to say the estimate is around 2k p/server? so yeah Vanguards population is lower then i expected. So merge is needed, this drastic like i said i was not aware of as i kept seeing enough fresh faces, by far not enough to say wow busy game as i'm sure aware of needing more pieps in the game. But it is safe to say its much lower then most of us expected.
Is low server population a problem? No, not if you're able to find a group, stable guild and so on without a hitch. Low server populations in that scenario are a good thing; never any issues about spawn camping, laggy areas and all that sorts of stuff.
Of course that's not the reality of things though; your personal utopia isn't the reality for the masses (or lack thereof).
I mean, do you not see what you're doing? Normalize the issue as something that could occur in WoW too? That's original, just like WoW was buggy at launch too, and how people will have to upgrade their PCs for AoC, right?
Excuse the inability to use the all-important LFG tool with the work-around of networking and finding a good guild? Pffft, that's attempting to fix an issue with the very thing the issue is inhibiting. That'd be convenient.
And don't take all of that as something I'm accusing you of having said, just that this conversation is comparable to every other from the type of people I'm accusing you of being one of.
The reason why you warrant those "I told you sos" is because Vanguard is suffering, and has been suffering, and when people complain about any issue no matter what it is, folks like you go on to attempt and sympathize, but at the very same time downplay the issues by saying your own experiences are completely different. It happens ALL the time, and it has been killing the game, and will continue to kill the game. It doesn't matter if it's performance issues, low server population issues, folks crashing, falling through the world, levels being rolled back, duping, etc.; the same folks will check in with the same "It doesn't happen to me" mess. It gets old.
You really don't get it though, it's a cognitive shift you're incapable of. Let's just say that we agree. Yes you do recognize that server mergers are a good idea and that Vanguard has had low server population issues...despite you having been immune to any downsides to low server populations.
Again, I never said that you denied the need for a server merger, just that you denied having personally experienced the reasons the server mergers were needed. You did say you've been able to find groups and keep guilds to play with, right? Then there you go.
You're insinuating my definition of Vanguard's "supporters" is it's players. No, the vast amount of Vanguard's players complain, and will continue to complain. The need for server mergers was a complaint, and it's a good thing that they're happening.
My definition of a "supporter" in this conversation is those opposite of the "haters" you pointed out on these very forums. The point was, the "haters" get to say "I told you so" because they were RIGHT, whereas you accused them of shedding a "false darkness". Need some examples? Were they wrong about SOE's increasing involvement? Were they wrong about populations bombing?
There's many things the "haters" have said "I told you so" about, but there's never anything that warrants the "supporters" ever saying it. For example, I'd love to hear someone tell me "I told you so" if Vanguard every reached 500k, because I've certainly said that it never will. Instead though, we're hearing "I told you so" over the population being in the pits. Thus the discrepancy.
As for all that blind with hate talk, are you Yoda? Don't scare me, I don't want to be seduced by any dark side.
Nope, just figured you meant the graphics would look like a "P.O.S" if they were run on a "P.O.S" card. If all you were doing was attacking the card I used as an example, then alright. Can't say I have any particular affections for the GeForce 6 series, I was merely using it as an example since it's pretty much the starting point of the system requirements.
The original point was, should Vanguard ever support those cards, you wouldn't call 'em a "P.O.S", or at least you'd go on to champion SOE for finding a way to support the cards and quit with the attacks on others systems.
As for that unnecessary racial analogy, I won't touch it.
Definitely hypocritical, of the offending fan, not SOE. Remember what we're talking about, your gripe with the "haters" saying "I told you so". They aren't saying it to SOE, they're saying it to folks like you.
You can accuse me of being cynical, but there's no hypocrisy in saying "SOE/Sigil should merge servers." And then months later say "SOE/Sigil should've merged them sooner."
Simply because SOE has done what needed to be done months ago doesn't mean I'm to be delighted. Don't you yourself agree with the fact that Vanguard released with too many servers? Then by that logic, server mergers could've came as early as Day 1. I'm merely saying the mergers shouldn't happened the first time low server populations were deemed a problem.
Exactly how long has "Improved LFG functionality" been on that improvement list? How long has it been since that newsletter admitting difficulty in finding groups was published? Brad's various mentionings of the problems caused by low server populations? It's been a long time, there's no hypocrisy in realizing the mergers would've been better off having come sooner.
So what you have a problem with is that I'm not elated at all. It's too little too late for me. Now there's some hefty cynicism for you. I'm short on hypocrisy though.
Blind to what? The resounding success that Vanguard is? I don't think myself to be a "hater", I don't stomp the game when it's down every chance that I get. But even if I did, what the heck would I be "blind" to in my "hate"?
Server mergers are choosing between the lesser of two evils as I've said before. Despite SOE making the better decision, it's still a decision rack with negative circumstances rooted in other negative circumstances. Forgive me for not smiling for them.
I think that basically right, although I think the game was said to support 5k players at the same time. Meaning the actualy server population could be higher. On the other hand, those 4 servers include a cronically under-populated PvP server which probelm will have much less. The obviously will not be creating totally full servers but rather populated servers with room to grow a bit.
So my guess then is that max population of all for servers is about 50-60k. But I would guess that the end up with about 5k accounts on the the three PVE servers and something like 1k -3k accounts on the PvP server for a total of around 20k players left in the game.
I would also expect that their numbers will initially decline after the merge. So I would guess we'd be looking at about 15k players after the merge.
You're insinuating my definition of Vanguard's "supporters" is it's players. No, the vast amount of Vanguard's players complain, and will continue to complain. The need for server mergers was a complaint, and it's a good thing that they're happening.
See, I feel I fit the complaining players model rather than the blind supporters.....why I respond to these posts is because I hate when anyone who is playing Vanguard is labeled as a fanbois, vanbois simply for stating their experience in the game, just because it doesn't mirror your experience, doesn't make it untrue.
My definition of a "supporter" in this conversation is those opposite of the "haters" you pointed out on these very forums. The point was, the "haters" get to say "I told you so" because they were RIGHT, whereas you accused them of shedding a "false darkness". Need some examples? Were they wrong about SOE's increasing involvement? Were they wrong about populations bombing?
Then it may be that you are an objective hater and I am an objective supporter of the game. Both of us acknowledge Vanguards issues. Both agree that Vanguard is heading down rather than up. I think the only difference is that I like the game and you don't. I will quit Vanguard if the problems do not continue to be fixed. What is my deadline? When I stop having fun. How about you, will you return to Vanguard if the problems that are your 'game-stopping' issues are resolved?
There's many things the "haters" have said "I told you so" about, but there's never anything that warrants the "supporters" ever saying it. For example, I'd love to hear someone tell me "I told you so" if Vanguard every reached 500k, because I've certainly said that it never will. Instead though, we're hearing "I told you so" over the population being in the pits. Thus the discrepancy.
this was the very thing that got in my craw....Players and Haters alike acknowledged the need for server mergers, and once it happened haters said "I told you so" and I'm sitting here thinking... but we agreed.... why the hate?
As for all that blind with hate talk, are you Yoda? Don't scare me, I don't want to be seduced by any dark side.
Yes I am Yoda and if you don't believe it, that is why you fail.
Nope, just figured you meant the graphics would look like a "P.O.S" if they were run on a "P.O.S" card. If all you were doing was attacking the card I used as an example, then alright. Can't say I have any particular affections for the GeForce 6 series, I was merely using it as an example since it's pretty much the starting point of the system requirements.
The original point was, should Vanguard ever support those cards, you wouldn't call 'em a "P.O.S", or at least you'd go on to champion SOE for finding a way to support the cards and quit with the attacks on others systems.
yeah, see I would still call em a POS even if the game did support em. I'm on the 7950 atm, and don't plan on ever having a 6 series again. If they are able to support them, I'd be surprised, and say 'goody for 6 series owners, you still should get a new vid card'.
As for that unnecessary racial analogy, I won't touch it.
It was simply for emphasis. Even though I acknowledge game problems, but because I still like the game, I am labeled a 'vanbois'. I'm tired of it. In my experience, there are very few supporters who do not acknowledge the problems with Vanguard. There are just a few who blindly support the game seeing no problems. There are definately a few in these forums; but it seems anyone who likes the game is labelled, and I think that is prejudice. It also seems blind haters outnumber the blind supporters about 10 to 1. Yet everyone who likes the game is labeled negatively, while everyone who hates the game is 'right'. Again, that seems like prejudice. I am sure there are those out there that have felt they have been mislabeled a blind hater. Can't we acknowledge there is another side to that coin?
Definitely hypocritical, of the offending fan, not SOE. Remember what we're talking about, your gripe with the "haters" saying "I told you so". They aren't saying it to SOE, they're saying it to folks like you.You can accuse me of being cynical, but there's no hypocrisy in saying "SOE/Sigil should merge servers." And then months later say "SOE/Sigil should've merged them sooner."
I think by the same respects, you can see how I can think the 6 series or older video cards are POS's whether a game supports them or not. But you have labelled me because of what I might possibly do in the future in a hypothetical situation. If that isn't prejudice, I"m not sure what is. At least my scenario has already happened in reality, haters are lashing out at players over an issue the majority agreed upon. Perhaps hypocracy wasn't the right word, but this reaction to server mergers certainly shows prejudice.
I will be amazed if they do end up supporting those cards, but I won't come to the forums shouting, "I told you so". Mostly, because I don't think it will happen, so I never told anyone 'so'. I'll still encourage people to upgrade their card, just as I have from the beginning. So...I don't think I am being hypocritical.
Simply because SOE has done what needed to be done months ago doesn't mean I'm to be delighted. Don't you yourself agree with the fact that Vanguard released with too many servers? Then by that logic, server mergers could've came as early as Day 1. I'm merely saying the mergers shouldn't happened the first time low server populations were deemed a problem.
Probably not Day 1 - maybe 1st month or so, clear out the newbie zones before the mergers. Yeah, you are right, they came to late, but I understand why....Sigil dropped the ball and SOE has had some transition issues; I am not delighted, but I do recognize that the mergers are a high priority and that SOE is doing them asap. More than we can say about Sigil...they were too busy trying to sell their assets rather than fix their game.
Exactly how long has "Improved LFG functionality" been on that improvement list? How long has it been since that newsletter admitting difficulty in finding groups was published? Brad's various mentionings of the problems caused by low server populations? It's been a long time, there's no hypocrisy in realizing the mergers would've been better off having come sooner.
I chalk this up to the acquisition. About 2 more months and I expect to see some effective patching. I'm not holding my breath though.
So what you have a problem with is that I'm not elated at all. It's too little too late for me. Now there's some hefty cynicism for you. I'm short on hypocrisy though.
I think it is hypocritical to say 'Vanguard fans will blindly support the game no matter what the issues' at the same time saying, 'I will never give it a second look even if they address all the issues'. However, I can see someone being so let down by Vanguard that they will never look at it again, but no one seems think it is ok to admit subjectiveness. For example, I believe it is perfectly reasonable for someone to say, "I cannot objectively look at Vanguard, it pissed me off too much initially". But that's not what I'm hearing, I'm hearing, "When will Vanguard fans acknowledge the TRUTH".
Blind to what? The resounding success that Vanguard is? Blind to the fact that improvements are being made to the game. This thread spun an improvement, server mergers, into a negative "I told you so". I don't think myself to be a "hater", I don't stomp the game when it's down every chance that I get. But even if I did, what the heck would I be "blind" to in my "hate"? Same as earlier, when one takes a needed improvement and spins it into a negative.
Server mergers are choosing between the lesser of two evils as I've said before. Despite SOE making the better decision, it's still a decision rack with negative circumstances rooted in other negative circumstances. Forgive me for not smiling for them.
I agree with this completely. I think the 'I told you so's' in this situation, is just like you said in the last paragraph, people, 'stomp the game when it's down every chance' . We all knew it was needed, we all understand the negative implications of server mergers, I was just taught that kicking people when they are down is wrong. And to never say, "I told you so".
LOL
ya thats why they are leaving just 4 servers....
My source is the ex-Sigil employee for 90k.
What is your source for the numbers being lower? Ah that's right, I remember which body part you pulled your numbers from.....
Do you know how many people a server can accomodate? 4 servers doesn't disprove 90k subscribers. And if you had actually read the rest of the post....you'd also see that my opinion is that the number is falling.
If you want to cut me deep, stop using butter knives.
The ex-Sigil employee said 90k stayed after the first free month. The vast majority of first free months ended in March. The interview was in May.f13.net: How many copies of Vanguard sell between say, release and today?
Ex-Sigil: Around 200k, I think.
f13.net: How many people stayed after the "free" month?
Ex-Sigil: Numbers I heard yesterday were 90k. But I can't be sure. Actual subscription numbers were something management was very reluctant to tell us.
Of course it's now June, and if he was commenting on numbers predominantly from March, of course those subscriber numbers are much lower now. If Vanguard had the same 90k subscribers that it might have had in March, then there wouldn't be a need to merge servers this drastically.
So please, if you insist on posting a thousand times using this as your "source", at least comprehend the question and answers correctly and not to misconstrue it into Vanguard having had 90k subscribers either this month or last month.
My full post quoted above acknowledged that I believed the numbers were dropping. In fact, that is the rest of the 'in my opinion....' sentence (In my opinion the numbers are dropping). I simply didn't have it in this reply and I apologize. So if you had read the whole post quoted, you would have seen that I acknowledged the numbers were likely less than 90k. My point was that I at least had a reference, while others claims are simply unfounded.
Brainstorming here:
If a server has 20k active subscribers how many of those are on in any given night?
I think 25% is a fair guess.
That would put 5k on a server each night.
Which happens to be the number the servers can accomodate.
Seems like active subscribers might be between 75k and 90k, pretty close to my predictions.
Of course I will acknowledge that the '25%' is simply a guess. If 50% or more of the active subscribers are playing each night, we'd drop down to 45k or so...but I can't imagine any game has a 50% active subscription playing each night.
I don't think the 2k per server would make good business practice, I think they want these servers overloaded, close to the 5k to produce a 'full' illusion. That way, if game turns around they can use server releases as a psychological advertising. Is that shady? Or is that good business? Dunno, guess I'll have to see after they merge.
All I'm doing is attempting to explain why the "haters" do that, which is that you've had people denying low server population issues, which was the same as denying the need for server mergers.
Do I believe you're lying for saying you've never had difficulty grouping? Nah, at the very most I believe your patience threshold is much higher than the average MMO player when it comes to finding and maintaining groups.
All I'm saying is, you sound no different than folks who come off as immune to EVERY problem Vanguard has, so if you're ever attacked with an "I told you so", that's why; you're similar to a sect of supporters who deny any issues of the game ever effecting them. You also do things like attempt to normalize issues by trying to say whatever issue is the same in other MMOs, and other atypical behaviors of the kind of people who hear those "I told you sos".
I'm speaking broadly, don't take anything personal. There's nothing I want you to do to make me happy, 'less you can speed WAR or AoC up.
Sure, but again, you come off as being apart of a demeaning sect that has been killing this game all along.
Well you exhibit all the behavioral patterns of those I lump you in with. You've pawned off a serious Vanguard issue as something that exists in WoW as well with no consideration towards severity or finer differences. You've suggested that issues might not be with Vanguard, but with the players not doing enough for themselves. You've become defensive of the game against the "haters".
So yeah, I am lumping you in with the "fans" of the game. Just as you've labeled me a person filled with hate, which I guess means I'm a "hater". We know our two sides, why try and walk the line? There's no ad libbing here, just stick to the script.
No really, do keep in mind I'm still pretty much commenting on your first post, in which you yourself pointed out two sides in your history lesson. I'm merely responding within the contexts you yourself presented, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to generalize yourself as being on the side you deemed morons, so you must be on the others, and its the others I'm criticizing.
It's not about lying so much as it's about manipulating the truth. Example, saying whether or not a game is "buggy" is open to personal opinion. A game with only one bug can be considered buggy, even if that one bug was a missing tree root on one particular tree.
In your case, you're saying you've never had any difficulties in finding a group. Is that not an absolute akin to "it's impossible to find a group"? It is. You hate the haters' absolutes, they hate yours. It'd be much better if everyone just admitted finding a group in Vanguard was a lot more difficult than it should be. Our MMORPG.com civil war won't allow that to happen though.
Sure, again, I'm not attempting to argue whether anyone is deserving of antagonistic behavior, I'm just explaining why there is that kind of behavior.
Also, that's a good way to put it "I just don't have as big a problem with it." Like I said above, MMORPG.com would be a lot better if people admitted we all have the same issues, just some of us have problems with it and some of us don't. When no one admits that though, we start speaking in absolutes. If matraque says the game is fun for him so everyone else should shut up, someone else is going to tell him relentlessly how much the game sucks and why. There's really no room for expressing optimism when you're on the opposing end, since the optimists leap into totally disavowing any issues they themselves are having.
Example, if Sigil were polling the community to decide whether or not server mergers should happen, what good would it do a "hater" to say "yeah I find groups sometimes" while you're saying "I never have any difficulty finding groups". No one meets anyone halfway, so might aswell deal in absolutes to equal things out. Of course this all leads to the "I told you so" scenarios, due to the "haters" always being closer to the truth.
I'd feel much better about it if you called me a hate-filled imperialist verging on the dark side. Now I just feel like apologizing, I'm sorry.
Alrighty.
I've yet to call you a "vanboi". You can search my post history and I've never called anyone a "vanboi". You've certainly called me hate-filled and all that, but I personally don't believe in labelling others that way no matter how much I joke. I have generalized you, and stick to the generalizations I've made, but at the same time I've merely said you're "like" that particular sect of Vanguard players I don't like. I won't dislike you until you get into the whole ageism, WoW-prejudice, older PC lambasting type of behavior they get into.
Sure...that's a long list of game-stopping issues though.
Again, there are indeed usually two sides to any issue here on these boards, but it's not "players" and "haters". That implies all haters aren't players of the game. You'll find the vast majority of "haters" have their behavior rooted in what used to be compassion for the game's then present and future well-being. There still exists "haters" who maintain those sentiments towards Vanguard. Unfortunately, the ones you deemed morons in your posts are the ones who only enjoy stomping on Vanguard while its down nowadays.
Anyway, it's not as simple as what you're making it out to be. If you're personally defending yourself, do that; that isn't what you did though. You yourself decided that the "haters" were saying "I told you so" to every single person playing the game. It's neither right to condemn the "haters" as a whole for saying it, or believe the "players" as a whole were to be offended collectively.
What is true is that some folks did indeed disagree that mergers were needed, and that there weren't any low population issues. Take this awesome classic thread for example about Vanguard's overpopulation issues: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/126198/page/1
Like I said, a "sect" of Vanguard's fans; not every single one of them.
I'm not blind to any improvements to the game, they're just improvements I don't care about. For example, why would I care about client hitching being "improved" if client hitching still exists? I'll be impressed when that Top Ten Bugs list actually changes rather than everything on it being "improved" upon endlessly.
Within context of the server mergers, like I said, it's difficult being positive about one evil being chose over another, it's a lot easier to be cynical.
Well again, you chose to take the "I told you so" as an affront to every "player" of the game, and blamed all the "haters" of being morons for having said it.
If you understand there's only a few people who kick the game when it's down for no reason, then don't take so much offense to it.
Brainstorming here:
If a server has 20k active subscribers how many of those are on in any given night?
I think 25% is a fair guess.
That would put 5k on a server each night.
Which happens to be the number the servers can accomodate.
Seems like active subscribers might be between 75k and 90k, pretty close to my predictions.
Of course I will acknowledge that the '25%' is simply a guess. If 50% or more of the active subscribers are playing each night, we'd drop down to 45k or so...but I can't imagine any game has a 50% active subscription playing each night.
I don't think the 2k per server would make good business practice, I think they want these servers overloaded, close to the 5k to produce a 'full' illusion. That way, if game turns around they can use server releases as a psychological advertising. Is that shady? Or is that good business? Dunno, guess I'll have to see after they merge.
25% per server is a good guess, sure. Example, I remember during WoW's first holiday season when it had 600k subscribers, it also set a record for 200k concurrent users throughout the holidays. So that's 33% as an old record to use as an example.Anyway, it's one thing to figure out the percentage ratio of concurrent users to active subscribers, it's another to then plug in server capacity numbers in attempting to figure out what the subscriber count is. It's a good way for figuring out what the subscriber cap might be before new servers have to be added, but there's not a whole lot of reason to believe the servers will be operating at capacity after the mergers, especially for PvP.
At any rate, there are several studies out at fan sites, for different servers, different days, different times. The commonly found average per server at prime playing hours is about 750-800. Unless only one in eight players are logged in, that makes the 75-90K number completely unbelievable- and points at a much more realistic 40K or so. Even go look around the affiliate sites, where traffic and interest have dropped 70-80% since release. That's a great indicator.
Even the official forum peaks at around 1800-2000 people. I'd guess a 1 of 20 figure would be fair for forum visits, and that again puts us around 40K -ish. Just too many things pointing that way to make any figure above 40,000 look or feel true.
Bite me, Turbine.
At any rate, there are several studies out at fan sites, for different servers, different days, different times. The commonly found average per server at prime playing hours is about 750-800. Unless only one in eight players are logged in, that makes the 75-90K number completely unbelievable- and points at a much more realistic 40K or so. Even go look around the affiliate sites, where traffic and interest have dropped 70-80% since release. That's a great indicator.
Even the official forum peaks at around 1800-2000 people. I'd guess a 1 of 20 figure would be fair for forum visits, and that again puts us around 40K -ish. Just too many things pointing that way to make any figure above 40,000 look or feel true.
If the 750 to 800 per night is accurate, then I capitulate and am willing to say I was wrong by almost 80k.
Not that I'm doubting you, but I have looked thru the fan sites and haven't found that info, if you can re-post a link, that'd be sweet.