Home › Game Forums › TERA
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The Battle between GW2 and TERA
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Once again, quit the generalizing, you are making yourself look [mod edit] and it doesn't help your case in any way.
lol, I bet the mods are having a ball.
I'm pretty sure that Jesus works for Anet.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
I don't see a battle.
I'm having a bit of fun with TERA - but in a couple of months, it'll surely have sub #'s around 150k-100k. I don't see it having much staying power.
You mean the 3rd coming of christ. the second was last weekend
GW2 has no end game PVE that appeals to you I'm sure you ment to say.
My theme song.
Oh and I must of said the following at least a dozen times, but I guess a 13th time... doesn't hurt.
A. Yes we already know you don't need 12 million or 6 million or 3 million folks to keep a P2P model successful, but you need a considerable amount and more importantly one that stays for the long haul and not have a mass exodus in 3 or 6 months.
B. There is nothing wrong with a niche game, but if it becomes too niche it can and will hurt the P2P business model which eventually results into having barren servers and forcing it to become F2P (and in most cases P2W) down the road.
Ok with those 2 things out of the way, here are the populations charts. Note that they were taken around 11:30 pm EST (9:30 pm PST) on Sunday. Note the numbers I posted as caps for BHS and NHN which I posted above as well as what I talked about Aion.
As you can see there are 11 servers, but only 2 shows as highly populated, 2 as moderately populated, while the rest can probably be considered light. Note also that some folks have already hit level cap... yesterday.
EDIT: You have to scroll at the bottom of the post or open the picture to see the whole thing.
For Guild Wars 2 we had the following server list:
Anvil Rock
Borlis Pass
Yak’s Bend
Henge of Denravi
Maguuma
Sorrow’s Furnace
Kaineng
Jade Quarry
Fort Aspenwood
Ehmry Bay
Ferguson’s Crossing
Darkhaven
Vasburg
Eredon Terrace
Crystal Desert
Tarnished Coast
Steamspur Mountains
Blazeridge Mountains
Isle of Janthir
Sea of Sorrows
Deldrimor
Scavenger’s Causeway
Moladune
Eternal Grove
At the same time with TERA, roughly 2/3 of the Guild Wars 2 servers were listed as high and roughly 1/3 were listed as light in populations. Note that this was the first beta weekend that was not under the NDA. I did not include the European servers because I don't think I had access to them, I don't recall if we did, but I was told they had 2 dozen servers.
the easist hard mode lvl 60 dungeon in Tera will be 100x harder than any raid in Rift there.
I take 5 man content that require real skill to past over thing that just require more people.The main point of discussion that have been propping up here is how many of use tried TERA for shims and giggles and ended up being surprised by how much we liked it.
It will certainly not be to everyone's taste, same with GW2. The only point to be made is that people are doing themselves a disservice if they don't try TERA for themselves and form their own opinion instead of following whatever someone says like lemmings.
You mean fail like how EVE failed? It has a monthly fee and I hear it has a little bit of PvP. (sarcasm off)
All die, so die well.
You cannot compare EVE Online to TERA Online... at all. I already made several posts on this, but I guess one more time doesn't hurt. EVE Online does use a P2P business model and has been quite successful. It has been able to grow throughout the years and come out with 15 mini/major expansions. But then take a look at the landscape of MMORPGs. There is only 1 maybe 2 games at best out the 600 or so that can directly compete with EVE Online. They have way more breathing room than TERA does.
If you look at the history of MMORPG games (especially the theme park P2P based whether medieval or fantasy or futuristic) that follow the typical formula (with maybe adding 1 new major: or relatively new addition) you will see this is clearly not the case. Post 2005 the P2P model for these types of games have decreased, and rapidly so post 2009. From 2010 till now only 5 games were released as a P2P model. Many games in turn have converted to hybrid or F2P models because they cannot sustain their initial business venture.
Even in one of my posts in this very thread I talked about half a dozen other AAA titles and/or hyped up games to show as examples that are upcoming. Not to be rude or anything but this is like the dozen times folks have compared (or have tried to in some shape or form) compare theme park games to EVE Online. I am not even sure how this is possible.
You do realize that all of the MMO flops since WoW started with tons of highly populated servers, right?
They all followed the same pattern. Tons of hype before release, tons of bitching at release when people realize it doesn't live up to the hype, and then a dramatic decline in subs.
If anything TERA has an advantage because the game was not hyped here, so it doesn't have to live up to anything.
I agree, I played Rift for 3+ months and SW:TOR alone was able to force server merges, imagine what a good MMO will actually do to Rifts sub numbers?
Rift got lucky that it had no competition for a full year, but it's definitely never going to get game of the year ever again. It's hilarious that GW2 players can make all the GW2 versus Tera threads they want on the Tera/Public forums, but if anybody speaks poorly of GW2 in a GW2 forum, that thread gets locked, and infractions tossed around.
And just fyi, the only reason why I'm even in this thread is because I'm 1,268th in line waiting to get into Tera servers. Tera is definitely not hurting for players that's for sure.
holdenhamlet
You are 100% wrong in everything sorry. I was also in BWE and even though GW2 had more servers, over half of them were low populated, also you are in fact comparing the all of GW2 servers to only a portion of Tera's servers. Also you can't reach level cap during headstart, unless you mean level 38, which the actual game level cap is 60.
Also as someone else mentioned MMOs that start off with a ton of servers at launch ALWAYs end up having them merge them later on. EME and Frogsters are smart enough to not make that mistake, but apparently ArenaNet is not.
Strange, in the EU there doesn't seem to be any queue at all.
And you do realize that the OP is a TERA player right?
I am playing on EU, so no, you are mistaken.
My reference is not directed at the OP directly, but just an overall forum observation.
I didn't claim that Tera was anything like Eve and it doesn't need to be for it to serve as a counter example. A pvp game with a sub fee does not equal automatic fail.
All die, so die well.
The thing about the Tera server populations is it is completely incorrect. It is purely based off of the amount of characters created. Not logged in. Which is why you will see a medium population with a queue but a full without one. All of the servers have a decent amount of people, the pvp being the most full. My server always has a ton of people logged in and I have had no issues finding groups for any of the content so far (level 33).
I am on Celestial Hills and if CH is one of the lightly populated servers then I wouldn't have noticed it for all the people on it. From the inside it looks packed, people everywhere, sometimes competing for quest mobs and so on. Also, there are a bunch of channels running for these zones.
Just because one game has servers that say Heavy population and other game has servers that say Medium population or Light doesn't mean a comparison can be made. Non of these companies reveal the actual numbers and server capacity thresholds. (except for Eve)
All die, so die well.
Yeah the main difference is, most companies list the light, medium, and heavy on what their server capacity is, and Tera lists it based off of total characters on the server. My server (Jagged Coast) was locked for character creation, but it had no queue, while basilisk crag had a queue and a medium population. It's an odd system.
I do agree that hype is part of the problem. But I think there is one underlying problem that companies continue to make and that is using the typical basic ingredients over and over again and tag on the P2P model which has become quite unpopular in recent years. And you are correct that the majority of the P2P games do eventually flop and either close shop or quickly go the F2P with the P2W route. I will list it here, note I made the post below on another thread:
I think "One" of the main problems are the ingredients used in a MMORPG title: especially for 2012-2013 and beyond.
If you add the following ingredients (especially for a large company having a team of 150-200-300 or more):
1A. P2P model or 1B. P2P model with cash shop.
2A. EverQuest I/II/WoW clone or 2B. Lineage I/II/Aion clone (Clone being defined here as taking 90% or more and making it virtually the same with subtle differences). Nothing wrong with having "some" familiarity, but you need to separate yourself from the pack unless you are an indie company.
3. Going the theme park: extremely overused route [medieval fantasy or futuristic fantasy] MMO instead of going the sand park route.
4. Generic endgame content.
5. (Optional) Bring in maybe 1 brand new thing to the table (or a feature rarely used by other online games).
If you add all that up you will have a product that will most likely fail in the long run, especially if it follows a P2P model. It reeks of the been-there-done-that. And the majority of the people leave these types of theme park MMO games in under 6 months (fatal for P2P companies that employ a large team) since it needs a considerable amount of revenue to keep them P2P. Hence the flavor-of-the-month.
Doh! This explains everything. I was like "what you talking bout a queue?".
I don't follow every single thing
Just what catches my eye while browsing.
There is no battle this is a myth to stir talk of GW2 and quite frankly Im tired of it. Tera is a launched game, GW2 is a beta game with no official release date.
If they released at the same time then sure there would be a battle. When GW2 launches not only will it have to find a space with Tera it also has to compete with everyother game.
To put things in perspective The Secret World will launch before GW2 so will Diablo 3 and so will Torchlight 2 finally when it does launch it will probably have to compete with Mists of Pandaria yeh sure spout crap about WoW below but that won't stop a few million copies being sold by people who will never leave wow.
Its funny how this NEVER comes up before the beta. Before it it was all about how much better GW2 is than Tera or other games. And now its all o you can't compare them because GW2 is in beta and Tera is launched. Well maybe people should have thought about it before they compare before and maybe NCSoft should have thought about it when they decide to put GW2 beta on top of Tera head start. and BTW thanks for the players NCSoft.
So that we are clear I have never changed my opinion on this and I have never played nor it is likely I will play GW2. If the situation were reversed I would keep the same thought.
I am however a Tera fan.
If doing the same 20 man instance raids over and over again for a chance at a rare drop is your idea of good PvE endgame, then yeah....