Most would agree Classic is doing well and many are enjoying playing, a rare thing these days in MMORPG space.
Because there less mmorpgs worth playing today than there were in 2004.
Well, we didn't really had many choices too, back in 2004, beside WoW, Lineage (1), EQ, Ultima ...and maybe I missed some.
Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Shadowbane, Dark Age of Camelot, EQ2, Asherons Call (and asherons call 2), Horizons, City of Heroes, Ryzom, EVE... Yea you missed a few.
We had so many choices in 2004. WoW wasn't popular because it was one of the only games.
Most would agree Classic is doing well and many are enjoying playing, a rare thing these days in MMORPG space.
Because there less mmorpgs worth playing today than there were in 2004.
Well, we didn't really had many choices too, back in 2004, beside WoW, Lineage (1), EQ, Ultima ...and maybe I missed some.
The problem today is that we didn't got any big MMOs in the past .. several (?) years and it seems players moved to different types of games andso, big companies are not seeing the genre as profitable as say .. the 2000's.
And guess what? All we "got", beside the old MMOs, are the "amazing" kickstarer games which (mostly) all of them are even bad, empty or ...Soon(tm) to be released.
So for this situation I ...blame them both: Players, for supporting kickstarter games & F2P - P2W shitty games, Companies for failing to come up with something good and for trying to copy/paste the "same old, same old".
I said it in the past and i'll say it again. There needs to be a "revolution" in the MMO genre, or else..nothing will change.
UO, EQ1, DAoC, SWG, AC, AO all existed in 2004
Those right there were all gen1 mmorpgs and also the pinnacle of mmorpg innovation and design.
There will be no revolution in mmorpg genre as outside indies no large publisher even has a mmorpg in consideration anymore.
The revolution for mmorpgs is as likely as revolution for dialup internet.... not happening
So as far as new AAA mmorpgs go - there are none, it's dead Jim.
Damn, I completed forgoten about DAoC, SWG , AC
None which I played however, and maybe because of this I didn't added them to "my list".
Anyway, yes, as of now is dead Jim, but that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere, indies or not, will not "shake" the genre, same way as WoW did it back in the days.
Most would agree Classic is doing well and many are enjoying playing, a rare thing these days in MMORPG space.
Because there less mmorpgs worth playing today than there were in 2004.
Well, we didn't really had many choices too, back in 2004, beside WoW, Lineage (1), EQ, Ultima ...and maybe I missed some.
Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Shadowbane, Dark Age of Camelot, EQ2, Asherons Call (and asherons call 2), Horizons, City of Heroes, Ryzom, EVE... Yea you missed a few.
We had so many choices in 2004. WoW wasn't popular because it was one of the only games.
True, true. My bad !
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
What is the server capacity nowadays? Still no post about that?
Yeah, still nothing on that ....and there never will be.
Which means, using the "High, Medium or Full" tags are (and have always been) useless for determining an MMOs population or popularity.
But that wont stop the ignorant from using them to try just that.
..or you know, the other ignorants can google and see this : I think server capacity was something like 3,000 concurrent logins by late Classic. - Ion Hazzikostas
Your big attempt at trying to counter me with a link like that is laughable. I mean, are you serious with this?
Heres a tip: when someone says things such as "I think" and "something like" then that means what they are saying is not trustworthy.
You tried arguing that WoW Classic is doing so well based solely on server population tags and you failed because you are IGNORANT to the fact that those tags are meaningless.
Wait what? "Someone"?! That's the current director of WoW ( including Classic ).
Well, I guess for some of you, not even official words are to be taken serious, right?
Those Tags are not meaningless. I mean, for "theory conspiracy" like you, sure it might, but for the players, who are actually playing the game, waiting in que, etc, knows what this Tags means.
Next time, try to speak a little bit nicer with me, or else i'll ask you to rise 2 fingers and then wait for me to allow you to speak.
3,000 per server? That was for Real WOW classic not now. He says so in the article you linked. So how much does it hold now? I mean with layering it is hard to tell I guess but arguing over pop numbers when no one outside of Blizzard actually knows seems a bit silly. For or against.
I do like what he says here though......
Realistically, WoW game director Ion Hazzikostas told Forbes, the population is going to drop dramatically after the tourists leave and the committed WoW Classic players settle in for the long haul. To deal with that disparity, the company is using "layering," which creates multiple copies of the entire game world of Azeroth to hold people in the short term.
If you would of read the article, you would see how much per layer can hold ( or approximate ).
Nevertheless, this info is better then no info or "info' from Twitch or, newly , people who now say that "Full/High" doesn't mean anything. I will take their words over a ...crystal ball any day..
I think the change in the way that high/medium/low makes sense if one considers Blizzard's probable aims
Day 1: unknown demand, get people into the game as quickly as possible, open as many servers and server layers as required. Blizzard reported server population based on the server with the highest capacity. Result servers shown as high, medium and low. Speculation: trying to get the population to spread out would be in the best long term interests of the servers.
Today: Blizzard would have two aims: - the smallest number of layers per server coupled with as that would deliver the best player experience - as in a decently populated "server" experience; - minimal / zero queues - since no one likes queues!
Now if the initial surge of interest has slowed then continuing to measure population based on the server with the highest population would show as "low" all the time - while in reality they will only show as low because they have 5 layers say compared to another server having 10.
Showing as "low" all the time would generate a false message - vanilla not successful! It could also cause some people to move to "medium" or "high" servers resulting in a degree of instability.
So the change in how server population is now reported makes sense.
Assuming that Blizzard's aims are to provide players with the "best" experience - meaning they keep the number of layers to a minimum - and that most servers will flag as "high". It would also make sense for the servers with the lowest population to get any extra layers still needed to deal with new players joining. As before this would help with long term server population balance.
What this means for now is that trying to use servers' high/medium/low status as a guide is meaningless.
*********************
At some point in the future server populations might mean something - but don't hold your breath!
To see this you need to pick some percentages for what low/medium/high might mean. How about 25%, 50% and 75%? You can pretty much pick any numbers because of the server layering it won't matter (see below).
So how many layers? Say a server has 10 layers - based on the 3,000/layer number above that would be 30k per server and 100 servers would be 3M if the population was equally spread which it won't be of course. Key point: the higher the number of layers the longer you will need to hold your breath!
Going with 10 layers so nominally 9 full layers and 1 spare: 90%+ populated: high.
Time passes, over half the population leaves ...... now there are only 4 full servers and 1 spare. Server status: nominally 4 full and 1: 80% populated: high.
Only when you get to 2 full servers and 1 spare will the - so 66%+ - will the server register as medium.
And to get to low - well that will be 25% on a single (1) server.
In a nutshell the server status readings are going to be very unresponsive for pretty much any measure of low/medium/high. Even 75%, 85%, 95% will be moderately unresponsive!
So ... as dubious as I would be about drawing any conclusion from Twitch numbers ...
Most would agree Classic is doing well and many are enjoying playing, a rare thing these days in MMORPG space.
Because there less mmorpgs worth playing today than there were in 2004.
Well, we didn't really had many choices too, back in 2004, beside WoW, Lineage (1), EQ, Ultima ...and maybe I missed some.
Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Shadowbane, Dark Age of Camelot, EQ2, Asherons Call (and asherons call 2), Horizons, City of Heroes, Ryzom, EVE... Yea you missed a few.
We had so many choices in 2004. WoW wasn't popular because it was one of the only games.
WoW took EQ1 and made it polished, bright colored graphics that appealed to masses and it was easy on most PCs.
They also replaced the more free-form gameplay with spoonfed questing approach with bright yellow ! that basically held players hands to max level. Casual players flocked to it like never before.
I'm not going to lie, the "spoon fed" questing was a breath of fresh air to me in Vanilla.
I had spent the last 3 years camp grinding my brains out in L1, DAOC, SB and capped off by L2 and I was happy to play a MMORPG with a different appoach.... at first.
The more I played WOW the more I could see the drawbacks to their quest based approach.
Despite joining WOW along with 40 or so of my long time guildies from previous MMOs it quickly became apparent how less social the level based quest design was.
This made it very hard for us to play together as a guild as we rarely had the same quests in our logs.
Very quickly the guild fragmented with everyone going off go play with their own circle of friends who made the effort to keep their quest progression in sync.
I was playing with my then 12 year old son so we were quickly left behind by most of the guild, having to level up on our own while listening to the rest of the guild struggle with the early raiding content which they weren't very successful at.
When we finally got to 60 with almost zero guild help we felt no real kinship with the others so we bailed and joined a solid raiding guild and found ourselves immediately in the fight to down Rag while our former mates continued to struggle just to clear the entrance trash mobs.
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
The usual suspects that don't play wow coming to a wow thread to be negative. We get it you don't like wow.
Just like the four usual WOW fanbois who come here to gush over how great and wildly successful Classic is without any actual evidence.
At least we are posting on the Game's Forum. Others who come into this Forum and make doom and gloom remarks, are worst then the fanboys.
I never understood. If you don't like a game or you have no interest in it, why going to the said game forum/threads, and post negativity comments about it?
I'm guilty here. I usually post every .. few months or so, on Starcitizen threads, but..I hope that's ..understandable
Other then that, Classic IS a wildly successful game with evidences. If you want to deny that, come with real evidences and not some Twitch numbers. Even the Icy-Veins data, from more then a week ago ( in comparation with mine ), shows that the game is wildly successful.
If one is denying that, well .. say it once, say it twice...but keep going and going and going, it's just absurd.
i don't understand why you care if it's wildly successful or not, if you were enjoying the game as much as you claim you wouldn't be here posting screenshots of non contextual data and claiming it's a fact...
From what i've seen others have already pointed out that Classics server pops are relative and dynamic and hardly an actual representation of actual server numbers, but you're here screaming from the rooftop like you have to prove it's successful before other people said it probably won't be.
If it was as good as you keep saying you'd just be playing the game having fun, right?
As someone that is currently playing on an rp-server with medium population the general mood on the server is positive and people are enjoying their time.
On the other hand I joined a former vanilla raid guild where the guild leader has now been absent for 10 days. The guild is still populated and people still join but the guild is still not growing in amount of active players and at this point its a chat channel and nothing more. At times it also gets quiet. I will most likely switch to a more active guild if I intend to play at 60.
It feels like its going to be a low populated server when the three month honey moon is over where it gets lonely playing up alts.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
I am sorry if this makes people think I am an unsophisticated MMMORPGer but I like questing. I enjoy doing hard quests and actually achieving their objectives. Grinding mobs don't give me any satisfaction aside from the drops and gains in levels. Actually reading a quest and then achieving its objectives make the game alive for me. The NPCs have a purpose aside from not sleeping and standing in one spot waiting for yours truly to speak to them.
I guess many people (e.g. DMKano) hates questing with a passion but for me a world has to have objectives and questing gives me the framework to proceed. Having said that though Everquest hardly had any quests and it is still the number one game in my book but Everquest worked because it was quite difficult to achieve things on your own and grinding to level was such a huge part of moving ahead. As you gain levels in Everquest you gained key abilities and spells which made you attractive in groups and grouping was the main activity in that game.
Everquest occupies such a huge part of my MMORPG development I cannot say I prefer the questing method in WoW over Everquest simply because my own emotional ties to Everquest will always cloud my preference. Some of my very good friends were made in Everquest who I remain friends with to this day although they have long since stopped playing any games in this genre.
Questing for me gives me the reason to grind a group of mobs. Otherwise I would find it tedious and WoW does it well.
A lot of toing and froing on the numbers playing, I think it is too early yet for us to have a clear picture. By the end of this year we will be able to get a real assessment of the impact of classic population wise.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
We had so many choices in 2004. WoW wasn't popular because it was one of the only games.
None which I played however, and maybe because of this I didn't added them to "my list".
Anyway, yes, as of now is dead Jim, but that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere, indies or not, will not "shake" the genre, same way as WoW did it back in the days.
One could hope!
True, true. My bad !
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
Day 1: unknown demand, get people into the game as quickly as possible, open as many servers and server layers as required. Blizzard reported server population based on the server with the highest capacity. Result servers shown as high, medium and low. Speculation: trying to get the population to spread out would be in the best long term interests of the servers.
Today: Blizzard would have two aims:
- the smallest number of layers per server coupled with as that would deliver the best player experience - as in a decently populated "server" experience;
- minimal / zero queues - since no one likes queues!
Now if the initial surge of interest has slowed then continuing to measure population based on the server with the highest population would show as "low" all the time - while in reality they will only show as low because they have 5 layers say compared to another server having 10.
Showing as "low" all the time would generate a false message - vanilla not successful! It could also cause some people to move to "medium" or "high" servers resulting in a degree of instability.
So the change in how server population is now reported makes sense.
Assuming that Blizzard's aims are to provide players with the "best" experience - meaning they keep the number of layers to a minimum - and that most servers will flag as "high". It would also make sense for the servers with the lowest population to get any extra layers still needed to deal with new players joining. As before this would help with long term server population balance.
What this means for now is that trying to use servers' high/medium/low status as a guide is meaningless.
*********************
At some point in the future server populations might mean something - but don't hold your breath!
To see this you need to pick some percentages for what low/medium/high might mean. How about 25%, 50% and 75%? You can pretty much pick any numbers because of the server layering it won't matter (see below).
So how many layers? Say a server has 10 layers - based on the 3,000/layer number above that would be 30k per server and 100 servers would be 3M if the population was equally spread which it won't be of course. Key point: the higher the number of layers the longer you will need to hold your breath!
Going with 10 layers so nominally 9 full layers and 1 spare: 90%+ populated: high.
Time passes, over half the population leaves ...... now there are only 4 full servers and 1 spare. Server status: nominally 4 full and 1: 80% populated: high.
Only when you get to 2 full servers and 1 spare will the - so 66%+ - will the server register as medium.
And to get to low - well that will be 25% on a single (1) server.
In a nutshell the server status readings are going to be very unresponsive for pretty much any measure of low/medium/high. Even 75%, 85%, 95% will be moderately unresponsive!
So ... as dubious as I would be about drawing any conclusion from Twitch numbers ...
I had spent the last 3 years camp grinding my brains out in L1, DAOC, SB and capped off by L2 and I was happy to play a MMORPG with a different appoach.... at first.
The more I played WOW the more I could see the drawbacks to their quest based approach.
Despite joining WOW along with 40 or so of my long time guildies from previous MMOs it quickly became apparent how less social the level based quest design was.
This made it very hard for us to play together as a guild as we rarely had the same quests in our logs.
Very quickly the guild fragmented with everyone going off go play with their own circle of friends who made the effort to keep their quest progression in sync.
I was playing with my then 12 year old son so we were quickly left behind by most of the guild, having to level up on our own while listening to the rest of the guild struggle with the early raiding content which they weren't very successful at.
When we finally got to 60 with almost zero guild help we felt no real kinship with the others so we bailed and joined a solid raiding guild and found ourselves immediately in the fight to down Rag while our former mates continued to struggle just to clear the entrance trash mobs.
Plus and minuses to everything I suppose.
"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
From what i've seen others have already pointed out that Classics server pops are relative and dynamic and hardly an actual representation of actual server numbers, but you're here screaming from the rooftop like you have to prove it's successful before other people said it probably won't be.
If it was as good as you keep saying you'd just be playing the game having fun, right?
On the other hand I joined a former vanilla raid guild where the guild leader has now been absent for 10 days. The guild is still populated and people still join but the guild is still not growing in amount of active players and at this point its a chat channel and nothing more. At times it also gets quiet. I will most likely switch to a more active guild if I intend to play at 60.
It feels like its going to be a low populated server when the three month honey moon is over where it gets lonely playing up alts.
I guess many people (e.g. DMKano) hates questing with a passion but for me a world has to have objectives and questing gives me the framework to proceed. Having said that though Everquest hardly had any quests and it is still the number one game in my book but Everquest worked because it was quite difficult to achieve things on your own and grinding to level was such a huge part of moving ahead. As you gain levels in Everquest you gained key abilities and spells which made you attractive in groups and grouping was the main activity in that game.
Everquest occupies such a huge part of my MMORPG development I cannot say I prefer the questing method in WoW over Everquest simply because my own emotional ties to Everquest will always cloud my preference. Some of my very good friends were made in Everquest who I remain friends with to this day although they have long since stopped playing any games in this genre.
Questing for me gives me the reason to grind a group of mobs. Otherwise I would find it tedious and WoW does it well.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Well, anyone can check in real-time the status of servers, both EU/US and even Korean and Taiwan - https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/game/status/classic-eu -
Enjoy!
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!