I've already said three times in this thread that I do indeed consider it likely that average playtimes in LoTRO likely are lower than WoW. It's demographics appear to be older based on what I've seen in both games, and it's also just generally slower paced and more restrained than WoW. That's not really the kind of game that is going to make a big splash with the super hardcore 17-22 crowd IMO.
As for the drop-off in X-fire numbers, that actually corresponds pretty closely to what I've seen on the ground in game. LoTRO lost many subs in the first month, hardcore 24/7 types left for other games pretty quickly. Since then, populations have been quite steady. X-fire also backs that claim.
My only point is that LoTRO players are not all these super casual log 4 hours a week types. Yes, there are some. Possibly even more than in most MMOs (but there is no data to support that). However, even Open's data above (which need some links or I call BS) show average playtimes of around 18-19 hours per week if you do the math (versus 29 hours per week in WoW, btw).
I don't want to write this, and you don't want to read it. But now it's too late for both of us.
The content in LOTRO becomes something less than desirable, and weeds out those who like to game a lot. As I did a study a while back for most LOTRO players, and the average player who LOVED the game played 1-2 hours at most. LOTRO at this point does not have enough content to keep long term players. People will only play the same thing over before being done. This starts to dry up between level 35-45 in LOTRO. PvP would change that. As to your comment on PvMp. It was NOT fun to me, and I have felt WoW and Guild Wars have much better PvP implemntations, and WAR will be if not as good, better. I never felt LOTRO was a dud either sales wise. It is not as good as it could be. It should really have more. And maybe, as I have said over and over...MoM may fix that.
Just to bring us back to where we started when someone flat out accused Open of 'lieing' with reference to this statement.
When asked the question how many hours a day do you play, this many mmo players responded '1-3' hours:
WoW - 28% (88 out of 316)
LOTRO - 69% (161 out of 232)
That's an enormous difference and I think it's fair for Open to have made the claim he did based on these figures.
He himself has acknowledged that the survey wasn't 'scientifically' conducted. I could spend several paragraphs outlining criticisms of the survey - but at the end of those I would still say the difference (if not its magnitude) is real and probably replicable.
So, if we roll with the idea that people (except for masochists) tend to spend more time doing things they enjoy, it appears that WoW is more enjoyable than LOTRO. These results gel with the fact that WoW has approximately 30-50 times more subscribers than LOTRO.
WoW is more popular than LOTRO.
There's really nothing special about WoW. It's a very good quality game, but doesn't incorporate any even remotely innovative game features.
LOTRO is quite unique, but has limited appeal, even with the LOTR brand.
To get where the OP wants (i.e. more players), LOTRO needs to head back towards standard mmo conventions. And it's quite clear that they're prepared to compromise their original vision.
We've seen at least three examples:
The abandonment of their original plans for "layered instancing" pre-launch
The introduction of the Lore-master class pre-launch
The introduction of the Rune-keeper class in the upcoming MoM
And from what little I've read of the updates, it seems they might be tweaking other things to make them a little more WoW'esque? But I think Open and others in this thread are right. The change that would have some real impact on subscriptions would be pvp.
They'd just need to implement it in such a way that gameplay on non-pvp servers remains exactly as it is now. And that's not difficult. If eg., an entire non-pvp WoW server had everyone playing on one side, that wouldn't be a problem gamewise. It might be a bit boring for some, but not to current LOTRO players who are quite content with that situation.
The big difficulty would be creating additional content for evil players.
It sounds to me like they invested a huge amount of time creating the existing content, so creating comparable content for an evil faction would be a big task. They're already a fair way along in the LOTR story so going this route would only make sense if they had plans to continue operation for some years after the story plays out.
The much cheaper but less certain solution would be to supersize pvmp. They could potentially make this feature much more popular if monsters were more like regular characters - i.e. improved over time with levels, gear or some other system. Then all they'd need to do is create a few servers where monsters aren't restricted to pvmp areas and they'd have something different but at the same time potentially comparable to WoW's pvp.
The content in LOTRO becomes something less than desirable, and weeds out those who like to game a lot. As I did a study a while back for most LOTRO players, and the average player who LOVED the game played 1-2 hours at most. LOTRO at this point does not have enough content to keep long term players. People will only play the same thing over before being done. This starts to dry up between level 35-45 in LOTRO. PvP would change that. As to your comment on PvMp. It was NOT fun to me, and I have felt WoW and Guild Wars have much better PvP implemntations, and WAR will be if not as good, better. I never felt LOTRO was a dud either sales wise. It is not as good as it could be. It should really have more. And maybe, as I have said over and over...MoM may fix that.
Just to bring us back to where we started when someone flat out accused Open of 'lieing' with reference to this statement.
When asked the question how many hours a day do you play, this many mmo players responded '1-3' hours:
WoW - 28% (88 out of 316)
LOTRO - 69% (161 out of 232)
That's an enormous difference and I think it's fair for Open to have made the claim he did based on these figures.
He himself has acknowledged that the survey wasn't 'scientifically' conducted. I could spend several paragraphs outlining criticisms of the survey - but at the end of those I would still say the difference (if not its magnitude) is real and probably replicable.
So, if we roll with the idea that people (except for masochists) tend to spend more time doing things they enjoy, it appears that WoW is more enjoyable than LOTRO. These results gel with the fact that WoW has approximately 30-50 times more subscribers than LOTRO.
WoW is more popular than LOTRO.
There's really nothing special about WoW. It's a very good quality game, but doesn't incorporate any even remotely innovative game features.
LOTRO is quite unique, but has limited appeal, even with the LOTR brand.
To get where the OP wants (i.e. more players), LOTRO needs to head back towards standard mmo conventions. And it's quite clear that they're prepared to compromise their original vision.
We've seen at least three examples:
The abandonment of their original plans for "layered instancing" pre-launch
The introduction of the Lore-master class pre-launch
The introduction of the Rune-keeper class in the upcoming MoM
And from what little I've read of the updates, it seems they might be tweaking other things to make them a little more WoW'esque? But I think Open and others in this thread are right. The change that would have some real impact on subscriptions would be pvp.
They'd just need to implement it in such a way that gameplay on non-pvp servers remains exactly as it is now. And that's not difficult. If eg., an entire non-pvp WoW server had everyone playing on one side, that wouldn't be a problem gamewise. It might be a bit boring for some, but not to current LOTRO players who are quite content with that situation.
The big difficulty would be creating additional content for evil players.
It sounds to me like they invested a huge amount of time creating the existing content, so creating comparable content for an evil faction would be a big task. They're already a fair way along in the LOTR story so going this route would only make sense if they had plans to continue operation for some years after the story plays out.
The much cheaper but less certain solution would be to supersize pvmp. They could potentially make this feature much more popular if monsters were more like regular characters - i.e. improved over time with levels, gear or some other system. Then all they'd need to do is create a few servers where monsters aren't restricted to pvmp areas and they'd have something different but at the same time potentially comparable to WoW's pvp.
Actually monsters do get better over time...with ranks, and destiny points which can be used to increase stats and get new skills. You can also play as an elite master as a Troll, which is pretty sweet.
But anyway...Xfire isn't something most casual players would use or even know about. And since a majority of LOTRO's population is casual I don't think it is a good indicator for a game like lotro. But, it is what we have so make of it what you will.
You know none of this argument has anything to do with the OP and really has gone way off track...about 23 pages worth.
****************************** Brandywine Global LFF chan "/joinchannel glff"
But anyway...Xfire isn't something most casual players would use or even know about. And since a majority of LOTRO's population is casual I don't think it is a good indicator for a game like lotro. But, it is what we have so make of it what you will. This I beg to differ with... Why? Because at one point LOTRO was ranked 14 on the charts (not as high as say Age Of Conan when it launched, as it was more PvP and competitive, which most X-Fire games are)...but, it now ranks 29 or 30. What happened to those people? They were most likely the hardcore player who spends more time "competing" in their games. This of course then goes back to the argument that some form of competition in a game creates a larger populated game. PvP is that competition. You know none of this argument has anything to do with the OP and really has gone way off track...about 23 pages worth. "the only problem is population," Per the OP.
We ask the question "How much of a larger population would the game have if a PvP sub game existed".
We asked "How much of the population actually does not play that many hours that some people may see this as a small and unpopulated game".
We asked "Are there issues with how the models look, that some people do not play due to the association of the visual that maybe they would like to look "better" in the game"...i.e: How many people do not play because their avatar is less than satisfactory.
I think we have covered the OP pretty good...and besides a few attempts at derails, we actually, I thought, had a good conversation.
The content in LOTRO becomes something less than desirable, and weeds out those who like to game a lot. As I did a study a while back for most LOTRO players, and the average player who LOVED the game played 1-2 hours at most. LOTRO at this point does not have enough content to keep long term players. People will only play the same thing over before being done. This starts to dry up between level 35-45 in LOTRO. PvP would change that. As to your comment on PvMp. It was NOT fun to me, and I have felt WoW and Guild Wars have much better PvP implemntations, and WAR will be if not as good, better. I never felt LOTRO was a dud either sales wise. It is not as good as it could be. It should really have more. And maybe, as I have said over and over...MoM may fix that.
Just to bring us back to where we started when someone flat out accused Open of 'lieing' with reference to this statement.
When asked the question how many hours a day do you play, this many mmo players responded '1-3' hours:
WoW - 28% (88 out of 316)
LOTRO - 69% (161 out of 232)
That's an enormous difference and I think it's fair for Open to have made the claim he did based on these figures.
He himself has acknowledged that the survey wasn't 'scientifically' conducted. I could spend several paragraphs outlining criticisms of the survey - but at the end of those I would still say the difference (if not its magnitude) is real and probably replicable.
So, if we roll with the idea that people (except for masochists) tend to spend more time doing things they enjoy, it appears that WoW is more enjoyable than LOTRO. These results gel with the fact that WoW has approximately 30-50 times more subscribers than LOTRO.
WoW is more popular than LOTRO.
There's really nothing special about WoW. It's a very good quality game, but doesn't incorporate any even remotely innovative game features.
LOTRO is quite unique, but has limited appeal, even with the LOTR brand.
To get where the OP wants (i.e. more players), LOTRO needs to head back towards standard mmo conventions. And it's quite clear that they're prepared to compromise their original vision.
We've seen at least three examples:
The abandonment of their original plans for "layered instancing" pre-launch
The introduction of the Lore-master class pre-launch
The introduction of the Rune-keeper class in the upcoming MoM
And from what little I've read of the updates, it seems they might be tweaking other things to make them a little more WoW'esque? But I think Open and others in this thread are right. The change that would have some real impact on subscriptions would be pvp.
They'd just need to implement it in such a way that gameplay on non-pvp servers remains exactly as it is now. And that's not difficult. If eg., an entire non-pvp WoW server had everyone playing on one side, that wouldn't be a problem gamewise. It might be a bit boring for some, but not to current LOTRO players who are quite content with that situation.
The big difficulty would be creating additional content for evil players.
It sounds to me like they invested a huge amount of time creating the existing content, so creating comparable content for an evil faction would be a big task. They're already a fair way along in the LOTR story so going this route would only make sense if they had plans to continue operation for some years after the story plays out.
The much cheaper but less certain solution would be to supersize pvmp. They could potentially make this feature much more popular if monsters were more like regular characters - i.e. improved over time with levels, gear or some other system. Then all they'd need to do is create a few servers where monsters aren't restricted to pvmp areas and they'd have something different but at the same time potentially comparable to WoW's pvp.
First off, I think "Open" is capable of defending himself and his findings.
Secondly, you treat the fact that open PvP (or whatever you want to call it) would bring a lot more people to LotRo as some kind of revelation.
Simply put, it isn't. Many of us (who actually play the game) have known this for a long, long time. Thankfully, Turbine have not given in to the whining and bitching of the PvP crowd. The game was never designed to be that type of game and it never will be.
I really enjoy LotROs PvP. It is implemented in a way that allows me to engage in PvP when I want to in a seperate zone. Many others appreciate this as well. We dont have unimmersive "dueling" on the streets of Bree between freeps for example, which would be stupid.
The decision to take the focus off PvP definitely hurt LotROs financial potential. There is no doubt of that. I've said it once, I'll say it again - It will never be as successful as WoW. Conversely, the sensationalist attitude of certain people on this forum is unfounded. Its not going to close down in a couple of months etc etc. SWG is still running 20 servers (that might not be exact, but there are still alot). By all accounts, SWG is empty and it is still going, with no server merges.
LotRo will soldier on. 200 - 250K subs is not a bad number. The worst that will happen in the forseeable future is a server merge. There are MMOs that are much closer to termination than LotRo.
I know some of you just love to hate on LotRo. That is your right I suppose. I still have trouble understanding why you do it. Personally, I wouldn't be here if I didnt like LotRo. No amount of people telling me it "sucks" etc is going to stop me playing.
I dont see myself playing anything else until KotoRo shows up. There is still so much of Middle Earth to come, and I can't wait to explore it.
I know some of you just love to hate on LotRo. That is your right I suppose. I still have trouble understanding why you do it. Personally, I wouldn't be here if I didnt like LotRo. No amount of people telling me it "sucks" etc is going to stop me playing.
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
I know some of you just love to hate on LotRo. That is your right I suppose. I still have trouble understanding why you do it. Personally, I wouldn't be here if I didnt like LotRo. No amount of people telling me it "sucks" etc is going to stop me playing.
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
I know some of you just love to hate on LotRo. That is your right I suppose. I still have trouble understanding why you do it. Personally, I wouldn't be here if I didnt like LotRo. No amount of people telling me it "sucks" etc is going to stop me playing.
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
S
You know what it's about, and if you don't want to hear about, ignore the thread. We've played the game, and have problems with it. We POST HERE because we enjoy the forums. You think the funcom fiasco is hilarious just like some people think that LoTROs "success" isn't much of a success, and we want to discuss that. We've supplied plenty of links and facts for a constructive conversation, and really, the only people to flame this thread are the fanboys who cannot tolerate people talking badly about their beloved game.
I know some of you just love to hate on LotRo. That is your right I suppose. I still have trouble understanding why you do it. Personally, I wouldn't be here if I didnt like LotRo. No amount of people telling me it "sucks" etc is going to stop me playing.
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
I at least try to discuss the games issues and concerns I have. That is what forums are for. No rule exists that says you must be playing this game NOW to post here.
Of course, Fanboi attacks is what I mainly get when any discussion of issues come up in LOTRO though, which is sad.
To you it is ok to just make fun of Funcom no matter where you post.
So, I ask...mockery or discussion. Which would be more conducive to good forum discussions.
I know some of you just love to hate on LotRo. That is your right I suppose. I still have trouble understanding why you do it. Personally, I wouldn't be here if I didnt like LotRo. No amount of people telling me it "sucks" etc is going to stop me playing.
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
S
You know what it's about, and if you don't want to hear about, ignore the thread. We've played the game, and have problems with it. We POST HERE because we enjoy the forums. You think the funcom fiasco is hilarious just like some people think that LoTROs "success" isn't much of a success, and we want to discuss that. We've supplied plenty of links and facts for a constructive conversation, and really, the only people to flame this thread are the fanboys who cannot tolerate people talking badly about their beloved game.
Agreed. This is one hot thread, and has been a very good discussion on why LOTR, one of the most popular Fantasy IP's is not as big of an MMO or even close to WoW in popularity.
I can point to many websites and blogs where the game is ridiculed. Just like WoW of course, but, WoW still retains a HUGE subscribership (and lets just count the USA, where it has a total of 2.5 Million...that is huge! and EU with 2 Million...right now 200 to 250k is the estimate for USA and EU servers for LOTRO)
Why is this? But, instead we still have those who would rather argue about the poster and not the issues. Sad.
Yet, I for one would like to be able to play in Middle Earth, one of my all time favorite worlds in book form (next to Thomas Covenants dream world and the setting of the Jhereg from Steven Brust)
But, with the issues I see, and many others who can also see these problems, why the blindness here?
I know some of you just love to hate on LotRo. That is your right I suppose. I still have trouble understanding why you do it. Personally, I wouldn't be here if I didnt like LotRo. No amount of people telling me it "sucks" etc is going to stop me playing.
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
S
You know what it's about, and if you don't want to hear about, ignore the thread. We've played the game, and have problems with it. We POST HERE because we enjoy the forums. You think the funcom fiasco is hilarious just like some people think that LoTROs "success" isn't much of a success, and we want to discuss that. We've supplied plenty of links and facts for a constructive conversation, and really, the only people to flame this thread are the fanboys who cannot tolerate people talking badly about their beloved game.
Agreed. This is one hot thread, and has been a very good discussion on why LOTR, one of the most popular Fantasy IP's is not as big of an MMO or even close to WoW in popularity.
I can point to many websites and blogs where the game is ridiculed. Just like WoW of course, but, WoW still retains a HUGE subscribership (and lets just count the USA, where it has a total of 2.5 Million...that is huge! and EU with 2 Million...right now 200 to 250k is the estimate for USA and EU servers for LOTRO)
Why is this? But, instead we still have those who would rather argue about the poster and not the issues. Sad.
Yet, I for one would like to be able to play in Middle Earth, one of my all time favorite worlds in book form (next to Thomas Covenants dream world and the setting of the Jhereg from Steven Brust)
But, with the issues I see, and many others who can also see these problems, why the blindness here?
I know some of you just love to hate on LotRo. That is your right I suppose. I still have trouble understanding why you do it. Personally, I wouldn't be here if I didnt like LotRo. No amount of people telling me it "sucks" etc is going to stop me playing.
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
S
You know what it's about, and if you don't want to hear about, ignore the thread. We've played the game, and have problems with it. We POST HERE because we enjoy the forums. You think the funcom fiasco is hilarious just like some people think that LoTROs "success" isn't much of a success, and we want to discuss that. We've supplied plenty of links and facts for a constructive conversation, and really, the only people to flame this thread are the fanboys who cannot tolerate people talking badly about their beloved game.
The game isnt perfect, and I have no problems with people discussing it's faults.
My problem was specifically with Openedge. He is now on permanent ignore so that is that.
I've never maintained LotRo is perfect. In several of my previous posts I even agreed that open PvP would have made it far more financially successful etc.
Talk badly about the game by all means, but there comes a point when the endless and obvious campaign against LotRo that is being waged by certain individuals on here gets tired. There are only so many times you can make the same point.
You know none of this argument has anything to do with the OP and really has gone way off track...about 23 pages worth.
The OP:
loves the game
wants a more WoW-like population.
So, how is discussing ways that Turbine could draw more players, specifically without changing the gaming experience for current subscribers, off topic?
I can't really comprehend why getting WoW numbers ingame is so desired. Turbine seems to be financially well off enough with LotRO, employing 2 devteams for it and being privately held, they have no silly needs forced upon them by exchange market.
What I've had seen, the populations at the servers where people I know who play WoW are pretty much the same as I see around in LotRO. I haven't seen any significant difference between PC's between the games. And in LotRO, you can pretty much get fellowships during the regular playing hours regardless of level.
On the other hand, making the game "unappealing" to the PvP crowd and certain überguilds, Turbine has IMNSHO made really great service for their customers in general. The content might not be mature, but for the most part playerbase is exceedingly so. And that is something that would suffer horrible loss if the floodgates were opened for that group of players. There are enough PvP based games available now for people of that persuasion, we don't need another one.
Funnily enough, many people complaining about linear gameplay seem to be wanting to play the evil side, which in the lore would mean *no own free will whatsoever*. Sauron says, do quest X - player declines, the character goes *poof*...
The much cheaper but less certain solution would be to supersize pvmp. They could potentially make this feature much more popular if monsters were more like regular characters - i.e. improved over time with levels, gear or some other system. Then all they'd need to do is create a few servers where monsters aren't restricted to pvmp areas and they'd have something different but at the same time potentially comparable to WoW's pvp.
First off, I think "Open" is capable of defending himself and his findings.
Secondly, you treat the fact that open PvP (or whatever you want to call it) would bring a lot more people to LotRo as some kind of revelation.
LotRo will soldier on. 200 - 250K subs is not a bad number. The worst that will happen in the forseeable future is a server merge. There are MMOs that are much closer to termination than LotRo.
I know some of you just love to hate on LotRo. That is your right I suppose. I still have trouble understanding why you do it. Personally, I wouldn't be here if I didnt like LotRo. No amount of people telling me it "sucks" etc is going to stop me playing.
First off, why do you care if I defend Open's findings? They've been attacked repeatedly and quite unfairly. It's been a long thread, but wasn't it you who threw the accusation of lieing at him, that started all of that?
Seriously... besides, I haven't been defending them. I've criticised them as well. What I've done is weigh in with a realistic assessment of them amidst a lot of bogus attempts to completely dismiss them.
Second, no I didn't. Would someone claiming to have a revelation credit it other people?
But I think Open and others in this thread are right. The change that would have some real impact on subscriptions would be pvp.
Seriously...
No-one is claiming that 200K subscribers is a bad number. The very worst that has been said along these lines is that it's a disappointing number, given it's LOTR. And it is, even by their own publicly stated goals for the game. Termination? You speak of termination? Who else in this thread has spoken of termination?
Nor is anyone hating LOTRO. In fact, if Turbine hadn't hidden the fact that they'd abandoned layered instancing, chances are I'd have bought a lifetime subscription when they were going. I'm not into pvp at all. I'm less excited about what LOTRO is than what MEO would have been, but... LOTRO looks like the kind of game I'd have enjoyed. And all it had going by way of competition last year was TR - and TR only barely qualifies as more enjoyable than stabbing oneself repeatedly in the eye with a fork.
Certainly no-one is suggesting you should stop playing. I can't imagine that anyone cares. What other people do to get their kicks doesn't affect me. Unless it's TR, in which case they simply must die.
Free advice - take it all a little less personally. Open has been quite honest about his motivations - he's a LOTR fan and would love to see this game improved and made into something he (and others) would enjoy.
Me, I just saw the thread title flash across as a most recent forum post one day and wandered on over to see what was being said. In the process, I've learned Turbine has a mentally deficient turnip in charge of their PR and that all of the reasons I chose not to play LOTRO were quietly abandoned before launch. And even if you don't see it, I can see an answer to the OP's desire. There are ways that LOTRO can remain what it is for current subscribers, and draw in new players.
Do I care? Only a little. It's LOTR, which I have a soft spot for, so it'd be nice if this game was a bit more successful.
First off, why do you care if I defend Open's findings? They've been attacked repeatedly and quite unfairly. It's been a long thread, but wasn't it you who threw the accusation of lieing at him, that started all of that? Seriously... besides, I haven't been defending them. I've criticised them as well. What I've done is weigh in with a realistic assessment of them amidst a lot of bogus attempts to completely dismiss them. Second, no I didn't. Would someone claiming to have a revelation credit it other people? But I think Open and others in this thread are right. The change that would have some real impact on subscriptions would be pvp. Seriously... No-one is claiming that 200K subscribers is a bad number. The very worst that has been said along these lines is that it's a disappointing number, given it's LOTR. And it is, even by their own publicly stated goals for the game. Termination? You speak of termination? Who else in this thread has spoken of termination? Nor is anyone hating LOTRO. In fact, if Turbine hadn't hidden the fact that they'd abandoned layered instancing, chances are I'd have bought a lifetime subscription when they were going. I'm not into pvp at all. I'm less excited about what LOTRO is than what MEO would have been, but... LOTRO looks like the kind of game I'd have enjoyed. And all it had going by way of competition last year was TR - and TR only barely qualifies as more enjoyable than stabbing oneself repeatedly in the eye with a fork. Certainly no-one is suggesting you should stop playing. I can't imagine that anyone cares. What other people do to get their kicks doesn't affect me. Unless it's TR, in which case they simply must die. Free advice - take it all a little less personally. Open has been quite honest about his motivations - he's a LOTR fan and would love to see this game improved and made into something he (and others) would enjoy. Me, I just saw the thread title flash across as a most recent forum post one day and wandered on over to see what was being said. In the process, I've learned Turbine has a mentally deficient turnip in charge of their PR and that all of the reasons I chose not to play LOTRO were quietly abandoned before launch. And even if you don't see it, I can see an answer to the OP's desire. There are ways that LOTRO can remain what it is for current subscribers, and draw in new players. Do I care? Only a little. It's LOTR, which I have a soft spot for, so it'd be nice if this game was a bit more successful.
Well they havent abandoned the Layered instancing.. its not used as much as you thought.. They have also mentioned using it more in Mines of Moria... I imagine it being pretty hard to implement this layered instancing in a good way (like Archet) and therefore its not alot of it going on!
And as I have wrote before (acutally Openedge got this idea from me back when he did his "survey of hate campain") i think lack of (competetive) PvP is the reason for LotrO not being a huge sucess... but its also the reason why LotrO having such a great community and great (storybased) PvE experinece! And they are not going to turn LotrO into a PvP game now beacuse it would just be like SWG NGE all over again!
There are also other reason why LotrO doesnt cater to the masses but the servers are populated well enough and the game is doing very good (highest user rating on this site btw)! Mines of Moria seems to fix most issues I have with the game and Im very excited about it so the future looks really bright for us "Fanboys"
Hope you will have fun in Ryzom, sounds like an interesting game!
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
And as I have wrote before (acutally Openedge got this idea from me back when he did his "survey of hate campain") i think lack of (competetive) PvP is the reason for LotrO not being a huge sucess... but its also the reason why LotrO having such a great community and great (storybased) PvE experinece! And they are not going to turn LotrO into a PvP game now beacuse it would just be like SWG NGE all over again! Survey of hate? Why would you call it that? Because I was interested in the amount of time people played the various MMO's because I felt that people see less issues in a game that they do not play as often? As to the community, yes, LOTRO has this with those who play, even though it may be small (and I even noticed today that it seems to be shrinking on X-Fire as well...wonder why?). As to the Story, I beg to differ in that if you cannot find a group you are out of luck finishing a majority of those storyline quests. Yes, MMO's are suppose to be group oriented, but it is never fun to be shouting LFG in the channels to get to the fun. As to turning LOTRO into a PvP game, this would not be an NGE move, but a radical money making move. Just because you have PvP does not mean ALL servers need to be PvP, as such, the many RP'ers could still keep their RP, and the PvP'ers would have a home, and this would equal a win-win for Turbine. There are also other reason why LotrO doesnt cater to the masses but the servers are populated well enough and the game is doing very good (highest user rating on this site btw)! Mines of Moria seems to fix most issues I have with the game and Im very excited about it so the future looks really bright for us "Fanboys" It may be rated highest, yet the top 10 of MMORPG.com also contains EQ2 and Tabula Rasa in that list. Seems some majorly skewed numbers are there...especially for TR, which has been noted to have a VERY small following. EQ2 is a good game, but being in that list does not mean a game, as you say, is "doing very good". And to think that Turbine does not want to cater to the masses when it has been stated in this thread that they were looking for a million subscribers, goes against your argument totally. To think a company would not want 1 or 2 million players is a silly notion. Hope you will have fun in Ryzom, sounds like an interesting game! Ryzom is quite unique and interesting, which disappoints about LOTRO. It just feels the same but with a new skin. As well, that skin has some issues, and if they can repair those, then LOTRO could be a hot property (which with the license it has, it should be...)
First off, why do you care if I defend Open's findings? They've been attacked repeatedly and quite unfairly. It's been a long thread, but wasn't it you who threw the accusation of lieing at him, that started all of that? Seriously... besides, I haven't been defending them. I've criticised them as well. What I've done is weigh in with a realistic assessment of them amidst a lot of bogus attempts to completely dismiss them. Second, no I didn't. Would someone claiming to have a revelation credit it other people? But I think Open and others in this thread are right. The change that would have some real impact on subscriptions would be pvp. Seriously... No-one is claiming that 200K subscribers is a bad number. The very worst that has been said along these lines is that it's a disappointing number, given it's LOTR. And it is, even by their own publicly stated goals for the game. Termination? You speak of termination? Who else in this thread has spoken of termination? Nor is anyone hating LOTRO. In fact, if Turbine hadn't hidden the fact that they'd abandoned layered instancing, chances are I'd have bought a lifetime subscription when they were going. I'm not into pvp at all. I'm less excited about what LOTRO is than what MEO would have been, but... LOTRO looks like the kind of game I'd have enjoyed. And all it had going by way of competition last year was TR - and TR only barely qualifies as more enjoyable than stabbing oneself repeatedly in the eye with a fork. Certainly no-one is suggesting you should stop playing. I can't imagine that anyone cares. What other people do to get their kicks doesn't affect me. Unless it's TR, in which case they simply must die. Free advice - take it all a little less personally. Open has been quite honest about his motivations - he's a LOTR fan and would love to see this game improved and made into something he (and others) would enjoy. Me, I just saw the thread title flash across as a most recent forum post one day and wandered on over to see what was being said. In the process, I've learned Turbine has a mentally deficient turnip in charge of their PR and that all of the reasons I chose not to play LOTRO were quietly abandoned before launch. And even if you don't see it, I can see an answer to the OP's desire. There are ways that LOTRO can remain what it is for current subscribers, and draw in new players. Do I care? Only a little. It's LOTR, which I have a soft spot for, so it'd be nice if this game was a bit more successful.
Well they havent abandoned the Layered instancing.. its not used as much as you thought.. They have also mentioned using it more in Mines of Moria... I imagine it being pretty hard to implement this layered instancing in a good way (like Archet) and therefore its not alot of it going on!
And as I have wrote before (acutally Openedge got this idea from me back when he did his "survey of hate campain") i think lack of (competetive) PvP is the reason for LotrO not being a huge sucess... but its also the reason why LotrO having such a great community and great (storybased) PvE experinece! And they are not going to turn LotrO into a PvP game now beacuse it would just be like SWG NGE all over again!
There are also other reason why LotrO doesnt cater to the masses but the servers are populated well enough and the game is doing very good (highest user rating on this site btw)! Mines of Moria seems to fix most issues I have with the game and Im very excited about it so the future looks really bright for us "Fanboys"
Hope you will have fun in Ryzom, sounds like an interesting game!
Im glad Im not alone in seeing it for what it REALLY is (highlighted text)
Spot on. The community would be destroyed by the griefers and gankers. If we have to suffer a lower subscription level to keep these people out of the game, long live lower subscription levels. TBH, it's never affected me. I was on for 8 hours last night and there were plenty of people about.
This is an awesome game to me, the best way to describe it as I see it is a grown up WoW the only problem is population, I really wish some of AoC marketing would get hired by Turbine this game is too good to be so unpopulated It may just be me but playing it made me long for the population that wow had where as in WoW I found myself if anything longing for more time to solo.
Well, I don't play myself, but I do direct people to this game when they say "I'm going to play World of Warcraft."
I then tell them, "Why bother? Play Lord of the Rings. It's a Warcraft-clone in gameplay, newer, and you can play your own music."
Ryzom is nothing special imo, Its like most any other game, you mash buttons to fire skills/attacks, then sit back and watch stuff happen. Quite boring to me.
Wonder what has been going on that LOTRO on Xfire has seen a steady decline since Sunday? a Little larger than normal. X-Fire Chart Was there some updates done through the week or down time?
Wonder what has been going on that LOTRO on Xfire has seen a steady decline since Sunday? a Little larger than normal. X-Fire Chart Was there some updates done through the week or down time?
Yep.... Patch...
All week? As the drop has been pretty large. When was the patch?
Wonder what has been going on that LOTRO on Xfire has seen a steady decline since Sunday? a Little larger than normal. X-Fire Chart Was there some updates done through the week or down time?
Yep.... Patch...
All week? As the drop has been pretty large. When was the patch?
Wonder what has been going on that LOTRO on Xfire has seen a steady decline since Sunday? a Little larger than normal. X-Fire Chart Was there some updates done through the week or down time?
Yep.... Patch...
All week? As the drop has been pretty large. When was the patch?
Cheers
Just wait until the weekend...
There was an unsual late week patch that forced all of the late night and pacific players to log off early/
I also imagine our normal numbers were a bit inflated by the summer festival and ringlore quests, which were really popular and started around the beginning of that graph. In fact we got the ringlore quests done much faster than Turbine had expected us to by some accounts. As folks get done with book 14 I imagine you'll likely see things start to go back to the normal steady players until MoM launches.
And Open, really man, I'm done. It's perfectly OK for someone to have a different opinion from me, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. But you've been saying pretty much the same things in slightly different ways over and over again on this board mostly every day you weren't banned for more than a year. At this point "conversation" with you seems utterly pointless . You can start posting that the game is Nazi propoganda programmed by Hitler and Satan for all I care. I'm not responding to you on this board again.
I don't want to write this, and you don't want to read it. But now it's too late for both of us.
Comments
I've already said three times in this thread that I do indeed consider it likely that average playtimes in LoTRO likely are lower than WoW. It's demographics appear to be older based on what I've seen in both games, and it's also just generally slower paced and more restrained than WoW. That's not really the kind of game that is going to make a big splash with the super hardcore 17-22 crowd IMO.
As for the drop-off in X-fire numbers, that actually corresponds pretty closely to what I've seen on the ground in game. LoTRO lost many subs in the first month, hardcore 24/7 types left for other games pretty quickly. Since then, populations have been quite steady. X-fire also backs that claim.
My only point is that LoTRO players are not all these super casual log 4 hours a week types. Yes, there are some. Possibly even more than in most MMOs (but there is no data to support that). However, even Open's data above (which need some links or I call BS) show average playtimes of around 18-19 hours per week if you do the math (versus 29 hours per week in WoW, btw).
I don't want to write this, and you don't want to read it. But now it's too late for both of us.
Just to bring us back to where we started when someone flat out accused Open of 'lieing' with reference to this statement.
When asked the question how many hours a day do you play, this many mmo players responded '1-3' hours:
That's an enormous difference and I think it's fair for Open to have made the claim he did based on these figures.
He himself has acknowledged that the survey wasn't 'scientifically' conducted. I could spend several paragraphs outlining criticisms of the survey - but at the end of those I would still say the difference (if not its magnitude) is real and probably replicable.
So, if we roll with the idea that people (except for masochists) tend to spend more time doing things they enjoy, it appears that WoW is more enjoyable than LOTRO. These results gel with the fact that WoW has approximately 30-50 times more subscribers than LOTRO.
WoW is more popular than LOTRO.
There's really nothing special about WoW. It's a very good quality game, but doesn't incorporate any even remotely innovative game features.
LOTRO is quite unique, but has limited appeal, even with the LOTR brand.
To get where the OP wants (i.e. more players), LOTRO needs to head back towards standard mmo conventions. And it's quite clear that they're prepared to compromise their original vision.
We've seen at least three examples:
And from what little I've read of the updates, it seems they might be tweaking other things to make them a little more WoW'esque? But I think Open and others in this thread are right. The change that would have some real impact on subscriptions would be pvp.
They'd just need to implement it in such a way that gameplay on non-pvp servers remains exactly as it is now. And that's not difficult. If eg., an entire non-pvp WoW server had everyone playing on one side, that wouldn't be a problem gamewise. It might be a bit boring for some, but not to current LOTRO players who are quite content with that situation.
The big difficulty would be creating additional content for evil players.
It sounds to me like they invested a huge amount of time creating the existing content, so creating comparable content for an evil faction would be a big task. They're already a fair way along in the LOTR story so going this route would only make sense if they had plans to continue operation for some years after the story plays out.
The much cheaper but less certain solution would be to supersize pvmp. They could potentially make this feature much more popular if monsters were more like regular characters - i.e. improved over time with levels, gear or some other system. Then all they'd need to do is create a few servers where monsters aren't restricted to pvmp areas and they'd have something different but at the same time potentially comparable to WoW's pvp.
Just to bring us back to where we started when someone flat out accused Open of 'lieing' with reference to this statement.
When asked the question how many hours a day do you play, this many mmo players responded '1-3' hours:
That's an enormous difference and I think it's fair for Open to have made the claim he did based on these figures.
He himself has acknowledged that the survey wasn't 'scientifically' conducted. I could spend several paragraphs outlining criticisms of the survey - but at the end of those I would still say the difference (if not its magnitude) is real and probably replicable.
So, if we roll with the idea that people (except for masochists) tend to spend more time doing things they enjoy, it appears that WoW is more enjoyable than LOTRO. These results gel with the fact that WoW has approximately 30-50 times more subscribers than LOTRO.
WoW is more popular than LOTRO.
There's really nothing special about WoW. It's a very good quality game, but doesn't incorporate any even remotely innovative game features.
LOTRO is quite unique, but has limited appeal, even with the LOTR brand.
To get where the OP wants (i.e. more players), LOTRO needs to head back towards standard mmo conventions. And it's quite clear that they're prepared to compromise their original vision.
We've seen at least three examples:
And from what little I've read of the updates, it seems they might be tweaking other things to make them a little more WoW'esque? But I think Open and others in this thread are right. The change that would have some real impact on subscriptions would be pvp.
They'd just need to implement it in such a way that gameplay on non-pvp servers remains exactly as it is now. And that's not difficult. If eg., an entire non-pvp WoW server had everyone playing on one side, that wouldn't be a problem gamewise. It might be a bit boring for some, but not to current LOTRO players who are quite content with that situation.
The big difficulty would be creating additional content for evil players.
It sounds to me like they invested a huge amount of time creating the existing content, so creating comparable content for an evil faction would be a big task. They're already a fair way along in the LOTR story so going this route would only make sense if they had plans to continue operation for some years after the story plays out.
The much cheaper but less certain solution would be to supersize pvmp. They could potentially make this feature much more popular if monsters were more like regular characters - i.e. improved over time with levels, gear or some other system. Then all they'd need to do is create a few servers where monsters aren't restricted to pvmp areas and they'd have something different but at the same time potentially comparable to WoW's pvp.
Actually monsters do get better over time...with ranks, and destiny points which can be used to increase stats and get new skills. You can also play as an elite master as a Troll, which is pretty sweet.
But anyway...Xfire isn't something most casual players would use or even know about. And since a majority of LOTRO's population is casual I don't think it is a good indicator for a game like lotro. But, it is what we have so make of it what you will.
You know none of this argument has anything to do with the OP and really has gone way off track...about 23 pages worth.
******************************
Brandywine Global LFF chan "/joinchannel glff"
I think we have covered the OP pretty good...and besides a few attempts at derails, we actually, I thought, had a good conversation.
Been fun, and thanks guys.
Just to bring us back to where we started when someone flat out accused Open of 'lieing' with reference to this statement.
When asked the question how many hours a day do you play, this many mmo players responded '1-3' hours:
That's an enormous difference and I think it's fair for Open to have made the claim he did based on these figures.
He himself has acknowledged that the survey wasn't 'scientifically' conducted. I could spend several paragraphs outlining criticisms of the survey - but at the end of those I would still say the difference (if not its magnitude) is real and probably replicable.
So, if we roll with the idea that people (except for masochists) tend to spend more time doing things they enjoy, it appears that WoW is more enjoyable than LOTRO. These results gel with the fact that WoW has approximately 30-50 times more subscribers than LOTRO.
WoW is more popular than LOTRO.
There's really nothing special about WoW. It's a very good quality game, but doesn't incorporate any even remotely innovative game features.
LOTRO is quite unique, but has limited appeal, even with the LOTR brand.
To get where the OP wants (i.e. more players), LOTRO needs to head back towards standard mmo conventions. And it's quite clear that they're prepared to compromise their original vision.
We've seen at least three examples:
And from what little I've read of the updates, it seems they might be tweaking other things to make them a little more WoW'esque? But I think Open and others in this thread are right. The change that would have some real impact on subscriptions would be pvp.
They'd just need to implement it in such a way that gameplay on non-pvp servers remains exactly as it is now. And that's not difficult. If eg., an entire non-pvp WoW server had everyone playing on one side, that wouldn't be a problem gamewise. It might be a bit boring for some, but not to current LOTRO players who are quite content with that situation.
The big difficulty would be creating additional content for evil players.
It sounds to me like they invested a huge amount of time creating the existing content, so creating comparable content for an evil faction would be a big task. They're already a fair way along in the LOTR story so going this route would only make sense if they had plans to continue operation for some years after the story plays out.
The much cheaper but less certain solution would be to supersize pvmp. They could potentially make this feature much more popular if monsters were more like regular characters - i.e. improved over time with levels, gear or some other system. Then all they'd need to do is create a few servers where monsters aren't restricted to pvmp areas and they'd have something different but at the same time potentially comparable to WoW's pvp.
First off, I think "Open" is capable of defending himself and his findings.
Secondly, you treat the fact that open PvP (or whatever you want to call it) would bring a lot more people to LotRo as some kind of revelation.
Simply put, it isn't. Many of us (who actually play the game) have known this for a long, long time. Thankfully, Turbine have not given in to the whining and bitching of the PvP crowd. The game was never designed to be that type of game and it never will be.
I really enjoy LotROs PvP. It is implemented in a way that allows me to engage in PvP when I want to in a seperate zone. Many others appreciate this as well. We dont have unimmersive "dueling" on the streets of Bree between freeps for example, which would be stupid.
The decision to take the focus off PvP definitely hurt LotROs financial potential. There is no doubt of that. I've said it once, I'll say it again - It will never be as successful as WoW. Conversely, the sensationalist attitude of certain people on this forum is unfounded. Its not going to close down in a couple of months etc etc. SWG is still running 20 servers (that might not be exact, but there are still alot). By all accounts, SWG is empty and it is still going, with no server merges.
LotRo will soldier on. 200 - 250K subs is not a bad number. The worst that will happen in the forseeable future is a server merge. There are MMOs that are much closer to termination than LotRo.
I know some of you just love to hate on LotRo. That is your right I suppose. I still have trouble understanding why you do it. Personally, I wouldn't be here if I didnt like LotRo. No amount of people telling me it "sucks" etc is going to stop me playing.
I dont see myself playing anything else until KotoRo shows up. There is still so much of Middle Earth to come, and I can't wait to explore it.
S
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
S
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
S
You know what it's about, and if you don't want to hear about, ignore the thread. We've played the game, and have problems with it. We POST HERE because we enjoy the forums. You think the funcom fiasco is hilarious just like some people think that LoTROs "success" isn't much of a success, and we want to discuss that. We've supplied plenty of links and facts for a constructive conversation, and really, the only people to flame this thread are the fanboys who cannot tolerate people talking badly about their beloved game.
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
S
Already did, cannot help that you ignored it.
Reasons
Big difference indeed...
Every time you post you mock Funcom.
I at least try to discuss the games issues and concerns I have. That is what forums are for. No rule exists that says you must be playing this game NOW to post here.
Of course, Fanboi attacks is what I mainly get when any discussion of issues come up in LOTRO though, which is sad.
To you it is ok to just make fun of Funcom no matter where you post.
So, I ask...mockery or discussion. Which would be more conducive to good forum discussions.
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
S
You know what it's about, and if you don't want to hear about, ignore the thread. We've played the game, and have problems with it. We POST HERE because we enjoy the forums. You think the funcom fiasco is hilarious just like some people think that LoTROs "success" isn't much of a success, and we want to discuss that. We've supplied plenty of links and facts for a constructive conversation, and really, the only people to flame this thread are the fanboys who cannot tolerate people talking badly about their beloved game.
Agreed. This is one hot thread, and has been a very good discussion on why LOTR, one of the most popular Fantasy IP's is not as big of an MMO or even close to WoW in popularity.
I can point to many websites and blogs where the game is ridiculed. Just like WoW of course, but, WoW still retains a HUGE subscribership (and lets just count the USA, where it has a total of 2.5 Million...that is huge! and EU with 2 Million...right now 200 to 250k is the estimate for USA and EU servers for LOTRO)
Why is this? But, instead we still have those who would rather argue about the poster and not the issues. Sad.
Yet, I for one would like to be able to play in Middle Earth, one of my all time favorite worlds in book form (next to Thomas Covenants dream world and the setting of the Jhereg from Steven Brust)
But, with the issues I see, and many others who can also see these problems, why the blindness here?
Discuss why, but keep the hate out...
Thanks
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
S
You know what it's about, and if you don't want to hear about, ignore the thread. We've played the game, and have problems with it. We POST HERE because we enjoy the forums. You think the funcom fiasco is hilarious just like some people think that LoTROs "success" isn't much of a success, and we want to discuss that. We've supplied plenty of links and facts for a constructive conversation, and really, the only people to flame this thread are the fanboys who cannot tolerate people talking badly about their beloved game.
Agreed. This is one hot thread, and has been a very good discussion on why LOTR, one of the most popular Fantasy IP's is not as big of an MMO or even close to WoW in popularity.
I can point to many websites and blogs where the game is ridiculed. Just like WoW of course, but, WoW still retains a HUGE subscribership (and lets just count the USA, where it has a total of 2.5 Million...that is huge! and EU with 2 Million...right now 200 to 250k is the estimate for USA and EU servers for LOTRO)
Why is this? But, instead we still have those who would rather argue about the poster and not the issues. Sad.
Yet, I for one would like to be able to play in Middle Earth, one of my all time favorite worlds in book form (next to Thomas Covenants dream world and the setting of the Jhereg from Steven Brust)
But, with the issues I see, and many others who can also see these problems, why the blindness here?
Discuss why, but keep the hate out...
Thanks
Take your own advice.
/ignore.
S
Why the "Failcom" logo again? Let me see if I understand the difference here.
thanks
There is a fundamental difference, I think the logo is funny and I think that whole AoC fiasco is funny. I dont spend my time hating on the AoC forums (I made a few posts there when I was trying it out). When I decided to quit, I STOPPED POSTING.
Your statement is very telling. You demand facts, but you rarely supply them. You spend your time posting negativity on a forum for a game that you :
A - Dont play
B - By your own repeated admission, don't like.
I am on the Lotro forum because I play the game, and I enjoy the game. I ask you again (and maybe this time, you won't sidstep the question by pointing out the Failcom logo) WHY ARE YOU HERE?
S
You know what it's about, and if you don't want to hear about, ignore the thread. We've played the game, and have problems with it. We POST HERE because we enjoy the forums. You think the funcom fiasco is hilarious just like some people think that LoTROs "success" isn't much of a success, and we want to discuss that. We've supplied plenty of links and facts for a constructive conversation, and really, the only people to flame this thread are the fanboys who cannot tolerate people talking badly about their beloved game.
The game isnt perfect, and I have no problems with people discussing it's faults.
My problem was specifically with Openedge. He is now on permanent ignore so that is that.
I've never maintained LotRo is perfect. In several of my previous posts I even agreed that open PvP would have made it far more financially successful etc.
Talk badly about the game by all means, but there comes a point when the endless and obvious campaign against LotRo that is being waged by certain individuals on here gets tired. There are only so many times you can make the same point.
Regards
S
The OP:
So, how is discussing ways that Turbine could draw more players, specifically without changing the gaming experience for current subscribers, off topic?
I can't really comprehend why getting WoW numbers ingame is so desired. Turbine seems to be financially well off enough with LotRO, employing 2 devteams for it and being privately held, they have no silly needs forced upon them by exchange market.
What I've had seen, the populations at the servers where people I know who play WoW are pretty much the same as I see around in LotRO. I haven't seen any significant difference between PC's between the games. And in LotRO, you can pretty much get fellowships during the regular playing hours regardless of level.
On the other hand, making the game "unappealing" to the PvP crowd and certain überguilds, Turbine has IMNSHO made really great service for their customers in general. The content might not be mature, but for the most part playerbase is exceedingly so. And that is something that would suffer horrible loss if the floodgates were opened for that group of players. There are enough PvP based games available now for people of that persuasion, we don't need another one.
Funnily enough, many people complaining about linear gameplay seem to be wanting to play the evil side, which in the lore would mean *no own free will whatsoever*. Sauron says, do quest X - player declines, the character goes *poof*...
Playing: AC2
Played: UO, DaoC, Horizons, Ryzom, WAR, LotRO, Eve, VG...
First off, I think "Open" is capable of defending himself and his findings.
Secondly, you treat the fact that open PvP (or whatever you want to call it) would bring a lot more people to LotRo as some kind of revelation.
LotRo will soldier on. 200 - 250K subs is not a bad number. The worst that will happen in the forseeable future is a server merge. There are MMOs that are much closer to termination than LotRo.
I know some of you just love to hate on LotRo. That is your right I suppose. I still have trouble understanding why you do it. Personally, I wouldn't be here if I didnt like LotRo. No amount of people telling me it "sucks" etc is going to stop me playing.
First off, why do you care if I defend Open's findings? They've been attacked repeatedly and quite unfairly. It's been a long thread, but wasn't it you who threw the accusation of lieing at him, that started all of that?
Seriously... besides, I haven't been defending them. I've criticised them as well. What I've done is weigh in with a realistic assessment of them amidst a lot of bogus attempts to completely dismiss them.
Second, no I didn't. Would someone claiming to have a revelation credit it other people?
But I think Open and others in this thread are right. The change that would have some real impact on subscriptions would be pvp.
Seriously...
No-one is claiming that 200K subscribers is a bad number. The very worst that has been said along these lines is that it's a disappointing number, given it's LOTR. And it is, even by their own publicly stated goals for the game. Termination? You speak of termination? Who else in this thread has spoken of termination?
Nor is anyone hating LOTRO. In fact, if Turbine hadn't hidden the fact that they'd abandoned layered instancing, chances are I'd have bought a lifetime subscription when they were going. I'm not into pvp at all. I'm less excited about what LOTRO is than what MEO would have been, but... LOTRO looks like the kind of game I'd have enjoyed. And all it had going by way of competition last year was TR - and TR only barely qualifies as more enjoyable than stabbing oneself repeatedly in the eye with a fork.
Certainly no-one is suggesting you should stop playing. I can't imagine that anyone cares. What other people do to get their kicks doesn't affect me. Unless it's TR, in which case they simply must die.
Free advice - take it all a little less personally. Open has been quite honest about his motivations - he's a LOTR fan and would love to see this game improved and made into something he (and others) would enjoy.
Me, I just saw the thread title flash across as a most recent forum post one day and wandered on over to see what was being said. In the process, I've learned Turbine has a mentally deficient turnip in charge of their PR and that all of the reasons I chose not to play LOTRO were quietly abandoned before launch. And even if you don't see it, I can see an answer to the OP's desire. There are ways that LOTRO can remain what it is for current subscribers, and draw in new players.
Do I care? Only a little. It's LOTR, which I have a soft spot for, so it'd be nice if this game was a bit more successful.
Well they havent abandoned the Layered instancing.. its not used as much as you thought.. They have also mentioned using it more in Mines of Moria... I imagine it being pretty hard to implement this layered instancing in a good way (like Archet) and therefore its not alot of it going on!
And as I have wrote before (acutally Openedge got this idea from me back when he did his "survey of hate campain") i think lack of (competetive) PvP is the reason for LotrO not being a huge sucess... but its also the reason why LotrO having such a great community and great (storybased) PvE experinece! And they are not going to turn LotrO into a PvP game now beacuse it would just be like SWG NGE all over again!
There are also other reason why LotrO doesnt cater to the masses but the servers are populated well enough and the game is doing very good (highest user rating on this site btw)! Mines of Moria seems to fix most issues I have with the game and Im very excited about it so the future looks really bright for us "Fanboys"
Hope you will have fun in Ryzom, sounds like an interesting game!
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Well they havent abandoned the Layered instancing.. its not used as much as you thought.. They have also mentioned using it more in Mines of Moria... I imagine it being pretty hard to implement this layered instancing in a good way (like Archet) and therefore its not alot of it going on!
And as I have wrote before (acutally Openedge got this idea from me back when he did his "survey of hate campain") i think lack of (competetive) PvP is the reason for LotrO not being a huge sucess... but its also the reason why LotrO having such a great community and great (storybased) PvE experinece! And they are not going to turn LotrO into a PvP game now beacuse it would just be like SWG NGE all over again!
There are also other reason why LotrO doesnt cater to the masses but the servers are populated well enough and the game is doing very good (highest user rating on this site btw)! Mines of Moria seems to fix most issues I have with the game and Im very excited about it so the future looks really bright for us "Fanboys"
Hope you will have fun in Ryzom, sounds like an interesting game!
Im glad Im not alone in seeing it for what it REALLY is (highlighted text)
Spot on. The community would be destroyed by the griefers and gankers. If we have to suffer a lower subscription level to keep these people out of the game, long live lower subscription levels. TBH, it's never affected me. I was on for 8 hours last night and there were plenty of people about.
Regards,
S
Wonder what has been going on that LOTRO on Xfire has seen a steady decline since Sunday? a Little larger than normal.
X-Fire Chart
Was there some updates done through the week or down time?
Well, I don't play myself, but I do direct people to this game when they say "I'm going to play World of Warcraft."
I then tell them, "Why bother? Play Lord of the Rings. It's a Warcraft-clone in gameplay, newer, and you can play your own music."
Ryzom is nothing special imo, Its like most any other game, you mash buttons to fire skills/attacks, then sit back and watch stuff happen. Quite boring to me.
Yep.... Patch...
Yep.... Patch...
All week? As the drop has been pretty large. When was the patch?
Cheers
Yep.... Patch...
All week? As the drop has been pretty large. When was the patch?
Cheers
Just wait until the weekend...
Yep.... Patch...
All week? As the drop has been pretty large. When was the patch?
Cheers
Just wait until the weekend...
There was an unsual late week patch that forced all of the late night and pacific players to log off early/
I also imagine our normal numbers were a bit inflated by the summer festival and ringlore quests, which were really popular and started around the beginning of that graph. In fact we got the ringlore quests done much faster than Turbine had expected us to by some accounts. As folks get done with book 14 I imagine you'll likely see things start to go back to the normal steady players until MoM launches.
And Open, really man, I'm done. It's perfectly OK for someone to have a different opinion from me, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. But you've been saying pretty much the same things in slightly different ways over and over again on this board mostly every day you weren't banned for more than a year. At this point "conversation" with you seems utterly pointless . You can start posting that the game is Nazi propoganda programmed by Hitler and Satan for all I care. I'm not responding to you on this board again.
I don't want to write this, and you don't want to read it. But now it's too late for both of us.