TOR has phased instancing to handle crowds in a zone.
why would you not like crowds? Obviously i chose to play an MMO because i like feeling among a cosmos of lives.
You must be new to MMOs. That or you find competing for spawns "fun"
newer mmo's like rift solved this issue with the open group system.. I never had issue in rift and at launch there were tons of people in lower level areas...
A friend showed me 30 minutes of TOR. Its not an MMO. Its multiplayer, but not an MMO.
"People want to play their game without being bothered by the other players in the game."
Lolololol. Are we in the twilight zone here?
The mentality has degenerated into complete insanity. I dont recognize MMOs anymore. People want to play their game without being bothered by other players in the game? Are you serious? Then why play multiplayer?
Unbelievable. This is insanity.
This game sold in the millions. Talk about sending signals to future devs about where the genre is going. I am with you. Too many people...just instance the zones...want to do story...just instance half the game....crafting too hard and you hate working with other people just give people digital friends and have them go do all the work without having to move
Bioware removed the M from MMO and people applauded them for doing it.
It makes me cringe when I see comments here from people who are completely ok with never seeing another player unless they have to group up for an instance. This is what MMORPGs have come to.
You apperently do not know the history then. It started out that way. In EQ, I could and DID go hours without interacting with others. I explored many areas without ever seeing another person. I grouped for certain quests/areas and had fun doing so, but mostly soloed. It wasn't until later that MMO's started being released that were aimed (I would say forced, but that's a bit harsh) at forming groups (EQ2, WOW, LotRO to name a couple). You still didn't have to group, but you had to wait and level before attempting it solo (so why not group ).
Point is, it's not your version of "MMO" that is correct. MMO is just "Massive Multiplayer Online". Nothing more or less to read into it. If it is massive, is multiplayer, and is online...well?
TOR has phased instancing to handle crowds in a zone.
why would you not like crowds? Obviously i chose to play an MMO because i like feeling among a cosmos of lives.
You must be new to MMOs. That or you find competing for spawns "fun"
newer mmo's like rift solved this issue with the open group system.. I never had issue in rift and at launch there were tons of people in lower level areas...
Then go back to Rift?
The game could use some love since it's on it's way out if you read server trends
Originally posted by sanosukex Originally posted by Starpower Originally posted by Gylfi
Originally posted by nyxium
TOR has phased instancing to handle crowds in a zone.
why would you not like crowds? Obviously i chose to play an MMO because i like feeling among a cosmos of lives. You must be new to MMOs. That or you find competing for spawns "fun" newer mmo's like rift solved this issue with the open group system.. I never had issue in rift and at launch there were tons of people in lower level areas...
I actually like Rift's system. It was simple, and it was an obvious (or should have been obvious) solution and it worked. Especially with larger scale dynamic events.
To be honest though, unless there's PvP involved, I'd prefer having fewer people around me in adventure areas. I like having all those people available for heroic quests and flash points, but if I'm just running around killing mobs, I'd prefer those people be in another instance doing their own thing. I like what Bioware has done with their population management and I wouldn't want to change it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It makes me cringe when I see comments here from people who are completely ok with never seeing another player unless they have to group up for an instance. This is what MMORPGs have come to.
You apperently do not know the history then. It started out that way. In EQ, I could and DID go hours without interacting with others. I explored many areas without ever seeing another person. I grouped for certain quests/areas and had fun doing so, but mostly soloed. It wasn't until later that MMO's started being released that were aimed (I would say forced, but that's a bit harsh) at forming groups (EQ2, WOW, LotRO to name a couple). You still didn't have to group, but you had to wait and level before attempting it solo (so why not group ).
Point is, it's not your version of "MMO" that is correct. MMO is just "Massive Multiplayer Online". Nothing more or less to read into it. If it is massive, is multiplayer, and is online...well?
I hope Bioware will remove the need of other players and just give me an option to solo everything with 3 companions.
Bots listen to commands a lot better than people anyways.
Also make the combat pauseable so i can issue orders, it just works better that way.
For example you could still group for flashpoints or sth, but just give me 3 companions.
TOR has phased instancing to handle crowds in a zone.
why would you not like crowds? Obviously i chose to play an MMO because i like feeling among a cosmos of lives.
You must be new to MMOs. That or you find competing for spawns "fun"
newer mmo's like rift solved this issue with the open group system.. I never had issue in rift and at launch there were tons of people in lower level areas...
Then go back to Rift?
The game could use some love since it's on it's way out if you read server trends
why would I go back to rift I can wield a lightsaber here
A friend showed me 30 minutes of TOR. Its not an MMO. Its multiplayer, but not an MMO.
"People want to play their game without being bothered by the other players in the game."
Lolololol. Are we in the twilight zone here?
The mentality has degenerated into complete insanity. I dont recognize MMOs anymore. People want to play their game without being bothered by other players in the game? Are you serious? Then why play multiplayer?
Unbelievable. This is insanity.
This game sold in the millions. Talk about sending signals to future devs about where the genre is going. I am with you. Too many people...just instance the zones...want to do story...just instance half the game....crafting too hard and you hate working with other people just give people digital friends and have them go do all the work without having to move
Bioware removed the M from MMO and people applauded them for doing it.
Oh give me a break. How could you, as a Rift fan, ever be taken seriously when you say that Bioware hasn't made an MMO, considering that Rift has turned into a glorified lobby game in which you can basically queue your way to level cap without ever having to take a step out into the world and meet people from your own shard? Queing up for warfronts, dungeons, and now quests? Really?
It's obvious you haven't played TOR very extensively if you think that they've instanced half the game. That's nothing but misinformation on your part, and you know it. And crafting in TOR is no different from any other MMO, aside from the fact that you don't actually have to sit there and watch your toon hammer out a piece of armor at a forge. You still have to manage the crafting just as much as any other game...you just get to be out adventuring while you do it.
As far as instancing the zones, I play on one of the most populated servers in the game, Jung Ma. Always a queue time of at least a half hour so far. And the most instances I've ever noticed in a particular zone is two. That's it...just two. And I've yet to see any zone instancing beyond the starter zone and the capital planet.
So again...so much misinformation about this game spread by people who have a vested interest in other games.
TOR has phased instancing to handle crowds in a zone.
why would you not like crowds? Obviously i chose to play an MMO because i like feeling among a cosmos of lives.
You must be new to MMOs. That or you find competing for spawns "fun"
newer mmo's like rift solved this issue with the open group system.. I never had issue in rift and at launch there were tons of people in lower level areas...
I actually like Rift's system. It was simple, and it was an obvious (or should have been obvious) solution and it worked. Especially with larger scale dynamic events.
To be honest though, unless there's PvP involved, I'd prefer having fewer people around me in adventure areas. I like having all those people available for heroic quests and flash points, but if I'm just running around killing mobs, I'd prefer those people be in another instance doing their own thing. I like what Bioware has done with their population management and I wouldn't want to change it.
I never played Rift, but I was always a huge fan of the open group system in WAR for PQs, Keep raids, etcetera. I don't know why it isn't a standard feature by now. Ah well.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
I am enjoying the game but i think teh instancing Bioware implemented is way over the top i mean i feel like im playing GW
Playing: PO, EVE Waiting for: WoD Favourite MMOs: VG, EVE, FE and DDO Any person who expresses rage and loathing for an MMO is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae.
It makes me cringe when I see comments here from people who are completely ok with never seeing another player unless they have to group up for an instance. This is what MMORPGs have come to.
You apperently do not know the history then. It started out that way. In EQ, I could and DID go hours without interacting with others. I explored many areas without ever seeing another person. I grouped for certain quests/areas and had fun doing so, but mostly soloed. It wasn't until later that MMO's started being released that were aimed (I would say forced, but that's a bit harsh) at forming groups (EQ2, WOW, LotRO to name a couple). You still didn't have to group, but you had to wait and level before attempting it solo (so why not group ).
Point is, it's not your version of "MMO" that is correct. MMO is just "Massive Multiplayer Online". Nothing more or less to read into it. If it is massive, is multiplayer, and is online...well?
Yes, it may not be "our" or "your" version of MMO. But the problem is....
THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO PAY FOR FEATURES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY FREE OF CHARGE, CLAIMING IT TO BE "MASSIVE"
One of the original reasons why companies charged you for access to the MMO is for the server upkeep and maintenence, because keeping 1000+ players in one, persistant world is not an easy job.
TOR, whether you like it or not, is a LOBBY GAME WITH MOVING AVATARS IN INSTANCES. Guess what? INSTANCES ALREADY EXISTED IN PREVIOUS MULTIPLAYER GAMES?
Like I said before, Diablo II anyone? TOR is just DII with moving avatars. Except in DII, YOU DIDNT HAVE TO PAY TO PLAY!!!
It makes me cringe when I see comments here from people who are completely ok with never seeing another player unless they have to group up for an instance. This is what MMORPGs have come to.
You apperently do not know the history then. It started out that way. In EQ, I could and DID go hours without interacting with others. I explored many areas without ever seeing another person. I grouped for certain quests/areas and had fun doing so, but mostly soloed. It wasn't until later that MMO's started being released that were aimed (I would say forced, but that's a bit harsh) at forming groups (EQ2, WOW, LotRO to name a couple). You still didn't have to group, but you had to wait and level before attempting it solo (so why not group ).
Point is, it's not your version of "MMO" that is correct. MMO is just "Massive Multiplayer Online". Nothing more or less to read into it. If it is massive, is multiplayer, and is online...well?
Yeah, I've only been gaming online for about 17 years now, and offline for a lot longer. I have no idea about the history of the genre....
The difference between the older MMOs, the ones that were built for interactivity and interdependence of players, and the ones built now is that going solo was an interesting gameplay choice that went against the grain of the design. One of my favorite characters in Star Wars Galaxies was a Ranger for this very reason. Now we have games that are focused on solo players, and include a few reasons to group here and there, if you want to. The current MMO game design is almost a complete 180 degree turn in core values and design. This is why I believe they deserve their own genre rather than being lumped in with MMORPG games. Yes, your genre may be more popular, but then so is FARMVILLE.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
It makes me cringe when I see comments here from people who are completely ok with never seeing another player unless they have to group up for an instance. This is what MMORPGs have come to.
You apperently do not know the history then. It started out that way. In EQ, I could and DID go hours without interacting with others. I explored many areas without ever seeing another person. I grouped for certain quests/areas and had fun doing so, but mostly soloed. It wasn't until later that MMO's started being released that were aimed (I would say forced, but that's a bit harsh) at forming groups (EQ2, WOW, LotRO to name a couple). You still didn't have to group, but you had to wait and level before attempting it solo (so why not group ).
Point is, it's not your version of "MMO" that is correct. MMO is just "Massive Multiplayer Online". Nothing more or less to read into it. If it is massive, is multiplayer, and is online...well?
Yes, it may not be "our" or "your" version of MMO. But the problem is....
THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO PAY FOR FEATURES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY FREE OF CHARGE, CLAIMING IT TO BE "MASSIVE"
One of the original reasons why companies charged you for access to the MMO is for the server upkeep and maintenence, because keeping 1000+ players in one, persistant world is not an easy job.
TOR, whether you like it or not, is a LOBBY GAME WITH MOVING AVATARS IN INSTANCES. Guess what? INSTANCES ALREADY EXISTED IN PREVIOUS MULTIPLAYER GAMES?
Like I said before, Diablo II anyone? TOR is just DII with moving avatars. Except in DII, YOU DIDNT HAVE TO PAY TO PLAY!!!
This, this right here is the latest way of scamming us gamers to pay more for the same.
Can someone post a video of an starting area that doesn't look deserted?!?!? it's very hard showing my friend videos when he is wanting to see how lively the Sith's starting areas is.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Those of you who have no desire to play a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER game need to go buy Skyrim or some other single player game and stop tainting this genre.
This genre is supposed to be about playing with thousands of other players on the same server/shard. If the game's design or engine fail to take this into consideration, then it is a failure on the developer's part. Instancing the hell out of zones because you create such a tiny gameplay areas is pathetic.
One of the most thrilling things about a game launch are the crowds of people. It's exciting and social. This was the most boring MMO launch of all time, IMO. That boredom continues as you play through the game and only see a handfull of other players here and there.
It makes me cringe when I see comments here from people who are completely ok with never seeing another player unless they have to group up for an instance. This is what MMORPGs have come to.
What does what you said have to do with what others have said? I have plenty of massive-multi-player at my disposal with TOR, it's called my guild and our alliances, not to mention our and their adversaries.
When I say I like to be able to explore an area that is not overrun with players, what does that have to do with not wanting to play a massively multi-player game? When there are thousands of people in an area that is supposed to be secluded and dangerous, it ruins the immersion for me. It's as simple as that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It makes me cringe when I see comments here from people who are completely ok with never seeing another player unless they have to group up for an instance. This is what MMORPGs have come to.
You apperently do not know the history then. It started out that way. In EQ, I could and DID go hours without interacting with others. I explored many areas without ever seeing another person. I grouped for certain quests/areas and had fun doing so, but mostly soloed. It wasn't until later that MMO's started being released that were aimed (I would say forced, but that's a bit harsh) at forming groups (EQ2, WOW, LotRO to name a couple). You still didn't have to group, but you had to wait and level before attempting it solo (so why not group ).
Point is, it's not your version of "MMO" that is correct. MMO is just "Massive Multiplayer Online". Nothing more or less to read into it. If it is massive, is multiplayer, and is online...well?
If you were soloing in original EQ1 you were doing it wrong even if you didn't realize it at the time. Or you were a Druid. These games were originally designed for people willing to play well with each other but I realize that's not the case today.
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
It makes me cringe when I see comments here from people who are completely ok with never seeing another player unless they have to group up for an instance. This is what MMORPGs have come to.
You apperently do not know the history then. It started out that way. In EQ, I could and DID go hours without interacting with others. I explored many areas without ever seeing another person. I grouped for certain quests/areas and had fun doing so, but mostly soloed. It wasn't until later that MMO's started being released that were aimed (I would say forced, but that's a bit harsh) at forming groups (EQ2, WOW, LotRO to name a couple). You still didn't have to group, but you had to wait and level before attempting it solo (so why not group ).
Point is, it's not your version of "MMO" that is correct. MMO is just "Massive Multiplayer Online". Nothing more or less to read into it. If it is massive, is multiplayer, and is online...well?
I hope Bioware will remove the need of other players and just give me an option to solo everything with 3 companions.
Bots listen to commands a lot better than people anyways.
Also make the combat pauseable so i can issue orders, it just works better that way.
For example you could still group for flashpoints or sth, but just give me 3 companions.
And... here you go. This poster WANTS an RPG with a chat room. He is clearly playing in the wrong genre, and it's people like him that are ruining what MMORPG games are supposed to be. It's nothing personal against him or anyone else who thinks like him, but the fact that people like him are hanging out on the MMORPG site and believe they are in the right place just shows how far these games are straying away from their original intent ~ virtual worlds.
I was pretty sure he was being sarcastic, lol
If he is, then his comment still represents what a lot of people who like SWTOR are saying. They couldn't care less if other people were in the game with them. Joining a guild represents very occasional grouping and a chat window to them. (in other words, co-op gameplay).
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Originally posted by MindTrigger Originally posted by Kinchyle
Originally posted by MindTrigger
It makes me cringe when I see comments here from people who are completely ok with never seeing another player unless they have to group up for an instance. This is what MMORPGs have come to.
You apperently do not know the history then. It started out that way. In EQ, I could and DID go hours without interacting with others. I explored many areas without ever seeing another person. I grouped for certain quests/areas and had fun doing so, but mostly soloed. It wasn't until later that MMO's started being released that were aimed (I would say forced, but that's a bit harsh) at forming groups (EQ2, WOW, LotRO to name a couple). You still didn't have to group, but you had to wait and level before attempting it solo (so why not group ).
Point is, it's not your version of "MMO" that is correct. MMO is just "Massive Multiplayer Online". Nothing more or less to read into it. If it is massive, is multiplayer, and is online...well? Yeah, I've only been gaming online for about 17 years now, and offline for a lot longer. I have no idea about the history of the genre.... The difference between the older MMOs, the ones that were built for interactivity and interdependence of players, and the ones built now is that going solo was an interesting gameplay choice that went against the grain of the design. One of my favorite characters in Star Wars Galaxies was a Ranger for this very reason. Now we have games that are focused on solo players, and include a few reasons to group here and there, if you want to. The current MMO game design is almost a complete 180 degree turn in core values and design. This is why I believe they deserve their own genre rather than being lumped in with MMORPG games. Yes, your genre may be more popular, but then so is FARMVILLE.
That 180 degree turn around is also why there's hundreds of millions of dollars being funneled into the genre. It's the reason that it's possible to develop a game that costs $50 million to produce. It's the reason the genre still exists as a genre and not as an odd blip in the history of gaming.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Those of you who have no desire to play a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER game need to go buy Skyrim or some other single player game and stop tainting this genre.
This genre is supposed to be about playing with thousands of other players on the same server/shard. If the game's design or engine fail to take this into consideration, then it is a failure on the developer's part. Instancing the hell out of zones because you create such a tiny gameplay areas is pathetic.
One of the most thrilling things about a game launch are the crowds of people. It's exciting and social. This was the most boring MMO launch of all time, IMO. That boredom continues as you play through the game and only see a handfull of other players here and there.
It makes me cringe when I see comments here from people who are completely ok with never seeing another player unless they have to group up for an instance. This is what MMORPGs have come to.
What does what you said have to do with what others have said? I have plenty of massive-multi-player at my disposal with TOR, it's called my guild and our alliances, not to mention our and their adversaries.
When I say I like to be able to explore an area that is not overrun with players, what does that have to do with not wanting to play a massively multi-player game? When there are thousands of people in an area that is supposed to be secluded and dangerous, it ruins the immersion for me. It's as simple as that.
There are plenty of other comments here, some by me, that explain it quite well from the perspective of comparing the original design intent of virtual-world MMO games to games like TOR. They are almost *nothing* alike. There is nothing wrong with your gameplay choice. I just do not feel that it is an MMORPG. It deserves its own genre, IMO.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
By massive, it is meant as a massive amount of players.
So where are you all ?
Where is the massive populated launch festivities in all the cantinas over the universe ?
We have confirmed millions of players, we have FULL servers but when you join in, you barely see more then 5 players at one place.
So, where is the crowd ?
They're everywhere.
Those millions are split up across hundreds of servers
Many players started last week and have reached the level 30-50 planets so don't expect to run into them on the starter worlds.
Most people are actually playing, not sitting around a cantina chatting. With 17 planets, they are well spread out.
Other than that I got to ask what time you're playing because I run into more than five people constantly. Most people are actually PLAYING, not sitting around a cantina.
TOR's servers partition players into phases of set amounts of players within the servers themselves? Because that's what it sounds like, and I don't want to harp on possible misinformation. Not really finding any concrete answers on the interwebz.
If I'm in a zone, there could possibly be multiple layers of players playing in the exact same area that I'll never see?
Will I be in the same phase as one of my friends if we are or are not grouped?
Is this a barrier to playing with friends?
Something that might be a part of TOR was introduced to me in this thread that I had no idea about and I need someone to purge me of my ignorance.
You know what would make the world seem somewhat more alive/busy? NPCs that move. -_-
Even without tons of players in a certain area, it would at least look somewhat lively. Paths for NPCs/mobs please.
Very very true
Also I wasn't being sarcastic can some one post a vid of a more lively sith area, I mean in my experience I didn't see it eith in OB but it would be great.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Comments
You must be new to MMOs. That or you find competing for spawns "fun"
why would you not like crowds? Obviously i chose to play an MMO because i like feeling among a cosmos of lives.
You must be new to MMOs. That or you find competing for spawns "fun"
newer mmo's like rift solved this issue with the open group system.. I never had issue in rift and at launch there were tons of people in lower level areas...http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339443/Video-FollowUp-Guide-For-Enhancing-Graphics-and-Performance-in-SWTORSorry-still-Nvidia-Only.html
This game sold in the millions. Talk about sending signals to future devs about where the genre is going. I am with you. Too many people...just instance the zones...want to do story...just instance half the game....crafting too hard and you hate working with other people just give people digital friends and have them go do all the work without having to move
Bioware removed the M from MMO and people applauded them for doing it.
You apperently do not know the history then. It started out that way. In EQ, I could and DID go hours without interacting with others. I explored many areas without ever seeing another person. I grouped for certain quests/areas and had fun doing so, but mostly soloed. It wasn't until later that MMO's started being released that were aimed (I would say forced, but that's a bit harsh) at forming groups (EQ2, WOW, LotRO to name a couple). You still didn't have to group, but you had to wait and level before attempting it solo (so why not group
Point is, it's not your version of "MMO" that is correct. MMO is just "Massive Multiplayer Online". Nothing more or less to read into it. If it is massive, is multiplayer, and is online...well?
Then go back to Rift?
The game could use some love since it's on it's way out if you read server trends
You must be new to MMOs. That or you find competing for spawns "fun"
newer mmo's like rift solved this issue with the open group system.. I never had issue in rift and at launch there were tons of people in lower level areas...
I actually like Rift's system. It was simple, and it was an obvious (or should have been obvious) solution and it worked. Especially with larger scale dynamic events.
To be honest though, unless there's PvP involved, I'd prefer having fewer people around me in adventure areas. I like having all those people available for heroic quests and flash points, but if I'm just running around killing mobs, I'd prefer those people be in another instance doing their own thing. I like what Bioware has done with their population management and I wouldn't want to change it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I hope Bioware will remove the need of other players and just give me an option to solo everything with 3 companions.
Bots listen to commands a lot better than people anyways.
Also make the combat pauseable so i can issue orders, it just works better that way.
For example you could still group for flashpoints or sth, but just give me 3 companions.
why would you not like crowds? Obviously i chose to play an MMO because i like feeling among a cosmos of lives.
You must be new to MMOs. That or you find competing for spawns "fun"
newer mmo's like rift solved this issue with the open group system.. I never had issue in rift and at launch there were tons of people in lower level areas...Then go back to Rift?
The game could use some love since it's on it's way out if you read server trends
why would I go back to rift I can wield a lightsaber herehttp://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339443/Video-FollowUp-Guide-For-Enhancing-Graphics-and-Performance-in-SWTORSorry-still-Nvidia-Only.html
Oh give me a break. How could you, as a Rift fan, ever be taken seriously when you say that Bioware hasn't made an MMO, considering that Rift has turned into a glorified lobby game in which you can basically queue your way to level cap without ever having to take a step out into the world and meet people from your own shard? Queing up for warfronts, dungeons, and now quests? Really?
It's obvious you haven't played TOR very extensively if you think that they've instanced half the game. That's nothing but misinformation on your part, and you know it. And crafting in TOR is no different from any other MMO, aside from the fact that you don't actually have to sit there and watch your toon hammer out a piece of armor at a forge. You still have to manage the crafting just as much as any other game...you just get to be out adventuring while you do it.
As far as instancing the zones, I play on one of the most populated servers in the game, Jung Ma. Always a queue time of at least a half hour so far. And the most instances I've ever noticed in a particular zone is two. That's it...just two. And I've yet to see any zone instancing beyond the starter zone and the capital planet.
So again...so much misinformation about this game spread by people who have a vested interest in other games.
I never played Rift, but I was always a huge fan of the open group system in WAR for PQs, Keep raids, etcetera. I don't know why it isn't a standard feature by now. Ah well.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
I am enjoying the game but i think teh instancing Bioware implemented is way over the top i mean i feel like im playing GW
Playing: PO, EVE
Waiting for: WoD
Favourite MMOs: VG, EVE, FE and DDO
Any person who expresses rage and loathing for an MMO is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae.
Yes, it may not be "our" or "your" version of MMO. But the problem is....
THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO PAY FOR FEATURES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY FREE OF CHARGE, CLAIMING IT TO BE "MASSIVE"
One of the original reasons why companies charged you for access to the MMO is for the server upkeep and maintenence, because keeping 1000+ players in one, persistant world is not an easy job.
TOR, whether you like it or not, is a LOBBY GAME WITH MOVING AVATARS IN INSTANCES. Guess what? INSTANCES ALREADY EXISTED IN PREVIOUS MULTIPLAYER GAMES?
Like I said before, Diablo II anyone? TOR is just DII with moving avatars. Except in DII, YOU DIDNT HAVE TO PAY TO PLAY!!!
Yeah, I've only been gaming online for about 17 years now, and offline for a lot longer. I have no idea about the history of the genre....
The difference between the older MMOs, the ones that were built for interactivity and interdependence of players, and the ones built now is that going solo was an interesting gameplay choice that went against the grain of the design. One of my favorite characters in Star Wars Galaxies was a Ranger for this very reason. Now we have games that are focused on solo players, and include a few reasons to group here and there, if you want to. The current MMO game design is almost a complete 180 degree turn in core values and design. This is why I believe they deserve their own genre rather than being lumped in with MMORPG games. Yes, your genre may be more popular, but then so is FARMVILLE.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
This, this right here is the latest way of scamming us gamers to pay more for the same.
My gaming blog
Can someone post a video of an starting area that doesn't look deserted?!?!? it's very hard showing my friend videos when he is wanting to see how lively the Sith's starting areas is.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
What does what you said have to do with what others have said? I have plenty of massive-multi-player at my disposal with TOR, it's called my guild and our alliances, not to mention our and their adversaries.
When I say I like to be able to explore an area that is not overrun with players, what does that have to do with not wanting to play a massively multi-player game? When there are thousands of people in an area that is supposed to be secluded and dangerous, it ruins the immersion for me. It's as simple as that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You apperently do not know the history then. It started out that way. In EQ, I could and DID go hours without interacting with others. I explored many areas without ever seeing another person. I grouped for certain quests/areas and had fun doing so, but mostly soloed. It wasn't until later that MMO's started being released that were aimed (I would say forced, but that's a bit harsh) at forming groups (EQ2, WOW, LotRO to name a couple). You still didn't have to group, but you had to wait and level before attempting it solo (so why not group
Point is, it's not your version of "MMO" that is correct. MMO is just "Massive Multiplayer Online". Nothing more or less to read into it. If it is massive, is multiplayer, and is online...well?
If you were soloing in original EQ1 you were doing it wrong even if you didn't realize it at the time. Or you were a Druid. These games were originally designed for people willing to play well with each other but I realize that's not the case today."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
If he is, then his comment still represents what a lot of people who like SWTOR are saying. They couldn't care less if other people were in the game with them. Joining a guild represents very occasional grouping and a chat window to them. (in other words, co-op gameplay).
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
You apperently do not know the history then. It started out that way. In EQ, I could and DID go hours without interacting with others. I explored many areas without ever seeing another person. I grouped for certain quests/areas and had fun doing so, but mostly soloed. It wasn't until later that MMO's started being released that were aimed (I would say forced, but that's a bit harsh) at forming groups (EQ2, WOW, LotRO to name a couple). You still didn't have to group, but you had to wait and level before attempting it solo (so why not group
Point is, it's not your version of "MMO" that is correct. MMO is just "Massive Multiplayer Online". Nothing more or less to read into it. If it is massive, is multiplayer, and is online...well?
Yeah, I've only been gaming online for about 17 years now, and offline for a lot longer. I have no idea about the history of the genre....
The difference between the older MMOs, the ones that were built for interactivity and interdependence of players, and the ones built now is that going solo was an interesting gameplay choice that went against the grain of the design. One of my favorite characters in Star Wars Galaxies was a Ranger for this very reason. Now we have games that are focused on solo players, and include a few reasons to group here and there, if you want to. The current MMO game design is almost a complete 180 degree turn in core values and design. This is why I believe they deserve their own genre rather than being lumped in with MMORPG games. Yes, your genre may be more popular, but then so is FARMVILLE.
That 180 degree turn around is also why there's hundreds of millions of dollars being funneled into the genre. It's the reason that it's possible to develop a game that costs $50 million to produce. It's the reason the genre still exists as a genre and not as an odd blip in the history of gaming.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
There are plenty of other comments here, some by me, that explain it quite well from the perspective of comparing the original design intent of virtual-world MMO games to games like TOR. They are almost *nothing* alike. There is nothing wrong with your gameplay choice. I just do not feel that it is an MMORPG. It deserves its own genre, IMO.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
You know what would make the world seem somewhat more alive/busy? NPCs that move. -_-
Even without tons of players in a certain area, it would at least look somewhat lively. Paths for NPCs/mobs please.
They're everywhere.
Those millions are split up across hundreds of servers
Many players started last week and have reached the level 30-50 planets so don't expect to run into them on the starter worlds.
Most people are actually playing, not sitting around a cantina chatting. With 17 planets, they are well spread out.
Other than that I got to ask what time you're playing because I run into more than five people constantly. Most people are actually PLAYING, not sitting around a cantina.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
I don't understand.
TOR's servers partition players into phases of set amounts of players within the servers themselves? Because that's what it sounds like, and I don't want to harp on possible misinformation. Not really finding any concrete answers on the interwebz.
If I'm in a zone, there could possibly be multiple layers of players playing in the exact same area that I'll never see?
Will I be in the same phase as one of my friends if we are or are not grouped?
Is this a barrier to playing with friends?
Something that might be a part of TOR was introduced to me in this thread that I had no idea about and I need someone to purge me of my ignorance.
LOL. Fav'd.
Hoo boy, I don't miss those days! And if only they were always that polite!
Very very true
Also I wasn't being sarcastic can some one post a vid of a more lively sith area, I mean in my experience I didn't see it eith in OB but it would be great.
But don't edit it, make it something like this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y-HV5A5SjM
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.