Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

I tried to give this game a go...

13

Comments

  • DragonOakDragonOak Member Posts: 322

    Originally posted by WSIMike


     
    Wait... Hold the phone...



    You've actually seen a ganker get ganked themself? Shoot. In my experience, the ganker is usually either quitting out of the game or running away at the first sight of someone who might actually beat them... like the cowards they are.
     
    I wanna see a screen-shot of that.
     

    Actually my experience in WoW is that they are the first to scream on the forums for nerfs, crying how some other class than their own is "overpowered".  These are often the same peeps that take cheap shots on PvP servers, like wait till someone is battling an NPC and their health is down before they attack.

    And for the record KorovaMB, I play WoW, I pvp regularly.  I have one character in full pvp gear, and two that are nearly half suited in pvp gear.  I like WoW pvp to a point, it is different and fluid.  And since there are alternatives for PvP MMO's why the need to turn every single MMO out turn into some gank feast epeen compitition?  I like LoTRO, and I have seen way too many game succomb to the crys of a few because some marketing VP THINKS it will bring more business in.  Please Turbine, don't change it into a all out PvP game!!

  • WSIMikeWSIMike Member Posts: 5,564
    Originally posted by KorovaMB

    Originally posted by DragonOak



    So the fact that it could be worse makes it ok that a game based on such a strong IP has weak sub numbers?  Most successful people in the business world are that way because they are willing to risk failure to achieve greatness.  Rarely does taking the safe route pay off.
    Wait... Who says it has weak numbers? No one even *knows* with any reliability what LoTRO's numbers are.




    You're not the first one to come in there with these baseless, unspecific claims, of what "LoTRO's population should be". You're also not the first to claim that it having world PvP would guarantee a substantial boon to its population.



    Been there. Debated that. Buried the horse.


     

     

     

    "If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road,
    and the cash shop selling asphalt..."
    - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops

    image

  • WSIMikeWSIMike Member Posts: 5,564
    Originally posted by DragonOak


     


     

    Actually my experience in WoW is that they are the first to scream on the forums for nerfs, crying how some other class than their own is "overpowered". 



    lol! Indeed. All else being equal, I have seldom ever met someone who'd say they lost in a PvP fight because the other player was better. It's almost always because either their class is too gimped, or the other's is too overpowered. Too funny.



    These are often the same peeps that take cheap shots on PvP servers, like wait till someone is battling an NPC and their health is down before they attack.



    ... and then they call it "skill", or brag on the forums how they "pwned" you. Yep... seen that before too.

    That kind of behavior demonstrates another perfect example of why I'm happy LoTRO doesn't have open or world PvP... we don't have to deal with the of kind of crap those kinds of games tend to attract... at least nowhere *nearly* as often as I did in WoW, or some other more PvP focused MMOs.

    PvMP also introduces an interesting kind of friendly rivalry I've never seen in your more "traditional" PvP settings... I was on my Warg in the 'moors and this one Burglar was hanging around Gramsfoot attacking random players as they came out. I was one of them. The next day, I was on my Warg again and someone in my raid group goes "Hey, I killed you a few times yesterday on my Burglar". I said something about "now I know who to come after when I'm on the other side". We had a good laugh about it and proceeded to enjoy more general mayhem.

    Also, in no other PvP MMO that I've played, have I ever logged out at, say, midnight, to log back in 7+ hours later and see that it was still going on, with most of the same people still going at it. That happens almost all the time in the 'moors. I've literally re-joined the same party I'd left hours before a couple times and got right back into the groove.

    That said, LoTRO in my experience has an almost entirely mature community. I've run into, maybe 4 idiots in my time playing it. Actually... make that 3. I ran into one of the idiots on two different occasions.



    Like you said... there are other MMOs out there that give the rush of world PvP already. There's nothing wrong with MMOs being available for those who *don't* like it.

     

    "If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road,
    and the cash shop selling asphalt..."
    - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops

    image

  • KorovaMBKorovaMB Member Posts: 97
    Originally posted by DragonOak

    Originally posted by KorovaMB


     


    Your argument is flawed though.  There is a difference between telling a story and creating a fun game.  In a story, it is important to make your readers empathize with the main characters.  To do this, you can't make the "evil" characters in such a way that the readers might empathise with them.  That can create issues in a game, and thus adaptions are frequently made.  This applies to a variety of game mechanics.  For instance, Boromir was killed at the tail end of Fellowship.  Yet in game, killed players respawn.  Does that make the game incongruous with Tolkien's vision?
    No because the game is based on Morale, not hit points or life points.  When your morale runs out you are defeated.  And when you are defeated a little box pops up that you live again to fight another day.  So then your logic is flawed on the game mechanic.  As to making evil characters personable it is done by other writers all the time, Stephen King and Anne Rice come to mind.
    So, if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that when you get hit by a mob's sword, you take no actual damage, but just become demoralized?  That is in keeping with the books?  I must not have caught that detail in Tolkein's writings.
    To use your example, but from another IP, George Lucas created Stormtroopers and Darth Vader with helmets and masks.  A key reason was to de-humanize them.  This helped the movie-goer empathize with the main characters without cluttering their emotions by making them feel for the slaughtered stormtroopers.  Likewise, ST's were shown having little or no free thought.  They followed orders like lambs to the slaughter.
    Oh ya lets use that example of a completly failed game with three revamps and a customer base that is nil and deserted servers.
    My paragraph above doesn't refer to the game, but rather the movies.  Not sure how I could have made that clearer.
    Yet when SWG was launched, players could play Imperials (complete with ST armor).  The game focused around the GCW (although the implementation was not all it could be).  Had the game allowed for Rebel only play, it would have been disastrous and caused the game to feel extremely disconnected from the movies.
    It pretty much is disastrous so we are hypothocating once again.  Using a failed game is not a real good to get your point across.
    Here I am refering to the game, so I'm glad you caught that.  As to the game being a disaster, you should talk to people who played the game.  The game did not become a "disaster" until a couple years in.  The issues that the game had originally, and later on when it did become a "disaster" had nothing to do with players being allowed to play Imperials, so my point still stands.
    Thus, pvp and evil races could have been implemented without causing the game to feel like it had abandoned Tolkein. 
    And the sad fact is, that based on current customers that ENJOY the game, and a large percentage of those that actually read his books, we in a huge majority disagree.  But it is your right to have an opinion just as it is our right to have ours.
    I agree.  We each have our opinion, and neither of us is alone in it.
    Bottom line, when converting from one medium to another (book to video game) some changes are necessary to convey the story although it may break from a pure literal translation.
    Unless of course you have a situation like this one.  Tolkien Enterprises controls the IP, but based on the contract when the rights were sold in the 70's there is set standard of performance and guidelines on how the story can be utilized.  If they go outside that agreement the Tolkien family can sue and have the rights returned to them.  It is the perfect system of checks and balances.  So while you can hypothocate what coulda, shoulda, woulda..........we have what is!
    My original point in my original post was not about "what colda, shoulda, woulda", you took the conversation there.  My point was "what was going to be".  My point was based on numerous posts on the MEO boards by developers from Vivendi and Turbine.

     

     

  • KorovaMBKorovaMB Member Posts: 97
    Originally posted by WSIMike

    Originally posted by KorovaMB

    Originally posted by DragonOak



    So the fact that it could be worse makes it ok that a game based on such a strong IP has weak sub numbers?  Most successful people in the business world are that way because they are willing to risk failure to achieve greatness.  Rarely does taking the safe route pay off.
    Wait... Who says it has weak numbers? No one even *knows* with any reliability what LoTRO's numbers are.




    You're not the first one to come in there with these baseless, unspecific claims, of what "LoTRO's population should be". You're also not the first to claim that it having world PvP would guarantee a substantial boon to its population.



    Been there. Debated that. Buried the horse.


     

     

     



    I look at MMOGCHART, where it shows LOTRO with a 0.9% market share.  I would have expected that the IP that was an important inspiration to so much of the Fantasy market would capture a larger market share than that.  Even assuming Sir Bruce has the number wrong by half, a 1.8% market share with such a strong IP is embarrasing.

  • Daedalus732Daedalus732 Member Posts: 589

    Originally posted by Grindalyx


    It is middle earth. A place i have dreamed about exploreing since i was ten years old. I get to walk around in the places i have only read about.

    I think this is the biggest problem I have with LOTRO. You're not actually exploring Middle Earth because Middle Earth was/is a wide open space that covered a huge amount of territory. For me, LOTRO makes Middle Earth look small and uninspired, particularly after I saw the movies and really got a good feeling for the area.

    The game was originally called Middle Earth Online, and was supposed to be a big sandbox MMO and a relatively dark world. Then suddenly the game became LOTRO online and everything became happier and more WoWish.

    LOTRO is just not how I want to imagine Middle Earth.

  • ElRenmazuoElRenmazuo Member RarePosts: 5,361
    Originally posted by WSIMike

    Originally posted by DragonOak


     


     

    Actually my experience in WoW is that they are the first to scream on the forums for nerfs, crying how some other class than their own is "overpowered". 



    lol! Indeed. All else being equal, I have seldom ever met someone who'd say they lost in a PvP fight because the other player was better. It's almost always because either their class is too gimped, or the other's is too overpowered. Too funny.



    These are often the same peeps that take cheap shots on PvP servers, like wait till someone is battling an NPC and their health is down before they attack.



    ... and then they call it "skill", or brag on the forums how they "pwned" you. Yep... seen that before too.

    That kind of behavior demonstrates another perfect example of why I'm happy LoTRO doesn't have open or world PvP... we don't have to deal with the of kind of crap those kinds of games tend to attract... at least nowhere *nearly* as often as I did in WoW, or some other more PvP focused MMOs.

    LoTRO in my experience has an almost entirely mature community. I've run into, maybe 4 idiots in my time playing it. Actually... make that 3. I ran into one of the idiots on two different occasions.



    Like you said... there are other MMOs out there that give the rush of world PvP already. There's nothing wrong with MMOs being available for those who *don't* like it.

     



    War is war, who said there are rules. kill your enemy before they see you is the best tactical choice.Your suppose to cheat as much as you can in war.  But I never brag about it.

  • KorovaMBKorovaMB Member Posts: 97

    Originally posted by DragonOak


     
    Originally posted by WSIMike


     
    Wait... Hold the phone...



    You've actually seen a ganker get ganked themself? Shoot. In my experience, the ganker is usually either quitting out of the game or running away at the first sight of someone who might actually beat them... like the cowards they are.
     
    I wanna see a screen-shot of that.
     

     

    Actually my experience in WoW is that they are the first to scream on the forums for nerfs, crying how some other class than their own is "overpowered".  These are often the same peeps that take cheap shots on PvP servers, like wait till someone is battling an NPC and their health is down before they attack.

    And for the record KorovaMB, I play WoW, I pvp regularly.  I have one character in full pvp gear, and two that are nearly half suited in pvp gear.  I like WoW pvp to a point, it is different and fluid.  And since there are alternatives for PvP MMO's why the need to turn every single MMO out turn into some gank feast epeen compitition?  I like LoTRO, and I have seen way too many game succomb to the crys of a few because some marketing VP THINKS it will bring more business in.  Please Turbine, don't change it into a all out PvP game!!

    You clearly have deep seated feeling on this, but I will try to explain.

    1. I'm not looking for "some gank feast epeen compitition".

    2. Hopefully as a Tolkein fan, you will understand this point and accept it.   I don't want to, or need to turn every single MMO into a PvP game.  I did, however, look forward for many years for the day when a great version of Tolkein's world would come to a video game (since before MMO's existed, actually).  So the fact that it finally came to pass, and in a version I won't enjoy saddens me.  It is no different for me than it would be for a gamer who does not like pvp, but learns that the only Tolkein based game is going to be a "gank feast epeen compitiion".  They would likely not play, and yet would be saddened that they will miss a game based on their favorite "world".

     

  • DragonOakDragonOak Member Posts: 322

    Originally posted by KorovaMB

    Originally posted by WSIMike

    Originally posted by KorovaMB

    Originally posted by DragonOak



    So the fact that it could be worse makes it ok that a game based on such a strong IP has weak sub numbers?  Most successful people in the business world are that way because they are willing to risk failure to achieve greatness.  Rarely does taking the safe route pay off.
    Wait... Who says it has weak numbers? No one even *knows* with any reliability what LoTRO's numbers are.




    You're not the first one to come in there with these baseless, unspecific claims, of what "LoTRO's population should be". You're also not the first to claim that it having world PvP would guarantee a substantial boon to its population.



    Been there. Debated that. Buried the horse.


     

     

     



    I look at MMOGCHART, where it shows LOTRO with a 0.9% market share.  I would have expected that the IP that was an important inspiration to so much of the Fantasy market would capture a larger market share than that.  Even assuming Sir Bruce has the number wrong by half, a 1.8% market share with such a strong IP is embarrasing.

    And SWG is?  How about EQ or UO the parents of MMO's as we know it today?  Matrix Online?  And how many games with IP's out there?  And if you watch closely people are tiring of WoW and moving so expect a shift.

    Most companies are smart enough to know that Blizzard brings them in and once they tire of WoW they will move on. 

  • WSIMikeWSIMike Member Posts: 5,564

     

    Originally posted by KorovaMB





    I look at MMOGCHART, where it shows LOTRO with a 0.9% market share.  I would have expected that the IP that was an important inspiration to so much of the Fantasy market would capture a larger market share than that.  Even assuming Sir Bruce has the number wrong by half, a 1.8% market share with such a strong IP is embarrasing.



    Wow... how easily you toss around unverifiable or otherwise questionable numbers you can't quantify with such confidence. Turbine has never even released their sub numbers... How can something you can't accurately identify be "embarrassing"?

     

    That said, I'm sure Turbine would appreciate your empathy. Though I'm not sure they would share the sentiment. By all indications, they're quite happy with how the game is doing. It had a great launch. It's getting great reviews.  They've already announced their first expansion. They're expanding into new markets. They're adhering to a considerable update schedule.  Overall, I'd say the game is doing pretty well...



    I don't see anything particularly "embarrassing" about any of that.

    Maybe you're just bitter because it doesn't have the type of PvP you hold so dear?

    And how can you say how popular it *should* have been based on the IP? Do you claim to have your finger on the pulse of fantasy lovers everywhere? Is there some comprehensive poll you're using the results of? Are there credentials you'd like to share with us to give your claims some credibility?

     

    "If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road,
    and the cash shop selling asphalt..."
    - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops

    image

  • DragonOakDragonOak Member Posts: 322
    Originally posted by KorovaMB

    Originally posted by DragonOak

    Originally posted by KorovaMB


     
    So, if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that when you get hit by a mob's sword, you take no actual damage, but just become demoralized?  That is in keeping with the books?  I must not have caught that detail in Tolkein's writings.
    Maybe you need to not only read the books again but play the game?  I mean how do you formulate an opinion based on lack of knowledge about the game mechanics and how the play is?  And please don't do the "I logged on 10 months ago for 10 minutes and decided the game SuXXors" claim.  I mean you should articulate by having actually knowledge.  The detail you missed in Tolkien's writings is about the battle of good versus evil and how good will prevail.  Tolkien wrote the book for children during and after his experiences in  WW1.  Try to understand the story please.
    My paragraph above doesn't refer to the game, but rather the movies.  Not sure how I could have made that clearer.
    But since we are talking MMO's perhaps the reference is valid?
    Here I am refering to the game, so I'm glad you caught that.  As to the game being a disaster, you should talk to people who played the game.  The game did not become a "disaster" until a couple years in.  The issues that the game had originally, and later on when it did become a "disaster" had nothing to do with players being allowed to play Imperials, so my point still stands.
    So what are the current subscription numbers again, and while they are flooring out (read the SWG boards here for more info) Turbines numbers are on the rise.  I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the company must be making a profit since it did announce an expansion.
     
     
    I agree.  We each have our opinion, and neither of us is alone in it.
    Excuse me I need to give Satan a quick call and check on the status of Hell.
    My original point in my original post was not about "what colda, shoulda, woulda", you took the conversation there.  My point was "what was going to be".  My point was based on numerous posts on the MEO boards by developers from Vivendi and Turbine.
    But you post was "coulda, shoulda, woulda".........because it is not MEO nor is Vivendi involved in any way.  So what was the point again?

     

     

     

  • KorovaMBKorovaMB Member Posts: 97

    Originally posted by DragonOak


     
    Originally posted by KorovaMB

    Originally posted by WSIMike

    Originally posted by KorovaMB

    Originally posted by DragonOak



    So the fact that it could be worse makes it ok that a game based on such a strong IP has weak sub numbers?  Most successful people in the business world are that way because they are willing to risk failure to achieve greatness.  Rarely does taking the safe route pay off.
    Wait... Who says it has weak numbers? No one even *knows* with any reliability what LoTRO's numbers are.




    You're not the first one to come in there with these baseless, unspecific claims, of what "LoTRO's population should be". You're also not the first to claim that it having world PvP would guarantee a substantial boon to its population.



    Been there. Debated that. Buried the horse.


     

     

     



    I look at MMOGCHART, where it shows LOTRO with a 0.9% market share.  I would have expected that the IP that was an important inspiration to so much of the Fantasy market would capture a larger market share than that.  Even assuming Sir Bruce has the number wrong by half, a 1.8% market share with such a strong IP is embarrasing.

     

    And SWG is?  How about EQ or UO the parents of MMO's as we know it today?  Matrix Online?  And how many games with IP's out there?  And if you watch closely people are tiring of WoW and moving so expect a shift.

    Most companies are smart enough to know that Blizzard brings them in and once they tire of WoW they will move on. 


    You are beginning to bore me, but since you asked....

    1. As a baseline, the charts show LOTRO peaking at 200k subs, with a current number of approx 150k subs.

    2. SWG hit 300k subs just after launch, and stayed above 250k until just before the NGE.  Keep in mind that this would have represented a larger market share, as the market size was much smaller then.  Also, LA was unhappy with the sub level, and is part of why I say a realistic expectation for a Tolkein IP would be much higher than what Turbine has actually achieved.

    3. UO had a slower climb, but achieved 200k subs around July 2000, and stayed above that level into 2004.

    4. EQ broke 400k in 2001, and stayed above that line until into 2005.

    5. Matrix Online - Are you kidding?!?  The strength of this IP is not even in the same league as LOTR or Star Wars.

     

  • WSIMikeWSIMike Member Posts: 5,564

    Originally posted by KorovaMB


     
    You clearly have deep seated feeling on this, but I will try to explain.
     
    1. I'm not looking for "some gank feast epeen compitition".
    2. Hopefully as a Tolkein fan, you will understand this point and accept it.   I don't want to, or need to turn every single MMO into a PvP game.  I did, however, look forward for many years for the day when a great version of Tolkein's world would come to a video game (since before MMO's existed, actually).  So the fact that it finally came to pass, and in a version I won't enjoy saddens me.  It is no different for me than it would be for a gamer who does not like pvp, but learns that the only Tolkein based game is going to be a "gank feast epeen compitiion".  They would likely not play, and yet would be saddened that they will miss a game based on their favorite "world".
     

    Difference is - for me at least - I wouldn't be throwing out statements about population figures I can't accurately identify being "embarassing". I wouldn't be arrogant enough as to believe what the game "could have been". I wouldn't make a broad claim that implementing my preferred play style would provide an increase to its population.

    How do I know this? Because it's happened to other games I've had hopes for that didn't pan out the way I'd have liked... and I haven't done any of the above.

     

    "If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road,
    and the cash shop selling asphalt..."
    - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops

    image

  • DragonOakDragonOak Member Posts: 322

    Originally posted by tkreep



    War is war, who said there are rules. kill your enemy before they see you is the best tactical choice.Your suppose to cheat as much as you can in war.  But I never brag about it.

    And with my hand extended as to salute......palm down.........I hear the sound as if a train looms in the distance............neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..........................wooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww as the palm of my hand misses the top of my head racing by................

    I think you missed the point.

  • KorovaMBKorovaMB Member Posts: 97

    Originally posted by WSIMike


     
    Originally posted by KorovaMB





    I look at MMOGCHART, where it shows LOTRO with a 0.9% market share.  I would have expected that the IP that was an important inspiration to so much of the Fantasy market would capture a larger market share than that.  Even assuming Sir Bruce has the number wrong by half, a 1.8% market share with such a strong IP is embarrasing.



    Wow... how easily you toss around unverifiable or otherwise questionable numbers you can't quantify with such confidence. Turbine has never even released their sub numbers... How can something you can't accurately identify be "embarrassing"?

     

    That said, I'm sure Turbine would appreciate your empathy. Though I'm not sure they would share the sentiment. By all indications, they're quite happy with how the game is doing. It had a great launch. It's getting great reviews.  They've already announced their first expansion. They're expanding into new markets. They're adhering to a considerable update schedule.  Overall, I'd say the game is doing pretty well...



    I don't see anything particularly "embarrassing" about any of that.

    Maybe you're just bitter because it doesn't have the type of PvP you hold so dear?

    And how can you say how popular it *should* have been based on the IP? Do you claim to have your finger on the pulse of fantasy lovers everywhere? Is there some comprehensive poll you're using the results of? Are there credentials you'd like to share with us to give your claims some credibility?

     


    You dispute the numbers I have given, yet offer none of your own.  While the numbers from MMOGChart are not 100%, with accuracy levels that can vary from game to game, they are the only numbers we have to work with.  If the game was such a huge success, don't you think Turbine would publish sub numbers, rather than obscure numbers such as number of characters created?

    Just because a set of numbers don't serve your point doesn't mean they must be inaccurate.

  • DragonOakDragonOak Member Posts: 322

    Originally posted by KorovaMB


     
    You are beginning to bore me, but since you asked....

     
     
    I am truly sorry that my time here did not entertain you...........I used to do that for my children when they were little..........but I often see people become bored after their points are debated and they "lose interest" because their points are not always valid.
    1. As a baseline, the charts show LOTRO peaking at 200k subs, with a current number of approx 150k subs.
    Hypothetical numbers since Turbine doesn't release those numbers.  And there are plenty of debates on how "valid" Sir Bruces data really is.
    2. SWG hit 300k subs just after launch, and stayed above 250k until just before the NGE.  Keep in mind that this would have represented a larger market share, as the market size was much smaller then.  Also, LA was unhappy with the sub level, and is part of why I say a realistic expectation for a Tolkein IP would be much higher than what Turbine has actually achieved.
    Ok those numbers that SOE tends to lump in all its Station pass subs for each and every game.  So one person with Station Pass will count for all games on the pass whether they play them or not.  SOE is known for fudging numbers.  Your comments about LA is open for debate, once again I refer readers to the SWG Veterans boards, and like most of what you have debated here, it is only a hypothesis.  It is necessary to differ the two, because you tend to elude your opinions and beliefs as being pure facts.  But once again, we know Turbines numbers are growing, new people playing, expansions announced, and IP agreement was extended.  Those prove the game is profitible and have growth potential.
    3. UO had a slower climb, but achieved 200k subs around July 2000, and stayed above that level into 2004.
    Again Sir Bruce's numbers are not validated since his sources are secret, and at best they are guesses.  I mean lets call up NCSoft or any other MMO company for that matter and see what they say there subscription numbers are, I am sure they will give us a complete and accurate numbers that are not hyped in the slightest.
    4. EQ broke 400k in 2001, and stayed above that line until into 2005.
    Ummm I played in 2001 and I vividly remember them announcing they broke 100k.  Again you are referring to numbers that can NOT be validated or for that matter proven.
    5. Matrix Online - Are you kidding?!?  The strength of this IP is not even in the same league as LOTR or Star Wars.
    Sigh it is an IP none the less, that had a HUGE box office response.  I guess you missed the show then.  The point is as an IP is failed to, so your hype that an IP should preform better I counter with proof of those that didnt.
     
    I hope I didn't bore you this round, and if I did, maybe a slinky and silly putty may do the trick.
     

     

     

  • DragonOakDragonOak Member Posts: 322

    Originally posted by KorovaMB


     
    You dispute the numbers I have given, yet offer none of your own.  While the numbers from MMOGChart are not 100%, with accuracy levels that can vary from game to game, they are the only numbers we have to work with.  If the game was such a huge success, don't you think Turbine would publish sub numbers, rather than obscure numbers such as number of characters created?
     
    Just because a set of numbers don't serve your point doesn't mean they must be inaccurate.

    Oh No Yu Ddnt!!!!!!  Be sure to stay tuned in, I can assure you a far more articulate and relative response is forth coming than I could ever provide.

  • AstralglideAstralglide Member UncommonPosts: 686

    As far as animation goes, I thought the animation in this game was terrible until 2 things happened:

    1) I re-installed WOW to solo-play (I can't stand soloing in LOTRO) and noticed how cartoony their graphics and animation is

    2) I bought a dual-core with an 8600 GTS and can now run both DX10 (on Vista64 Ultimate, baby!) and much higher graphical settings for LOTRO and it really is a beautiful game- when your graphics don't suck.

    A witty saying proves nothing.
    -Voltaire

  • KorovaMBKorovaMB Member Posts: 97

    Originally posted by DragonOak


     
    Originally posted by KorovaMB


     
    You are beginning to bore me, but since you asked....

     
     
    I am truly sorry that my time here did not entertain you...........I used to do that for my children when they were little..........but I often see people become bored after their points are debated and they "lose interest" because their points are not always valid.
    1. As a baseline, the charts show LOTRO peaking at 200k subs, with a current number of approx 150k subs.
    Hypothetical numbers since Turbine doesn't release those numbers.  And there are plenty of debates on how "valid" Sir Bruces data really is.
    2. SWG hit 300k subs just after launch, and stayed above 250k until just before the NGE.  Keep in mind that this would have represented a larger market share, as the market size was much smaller then.  Also, LA was unhappy with the sub level, and is part of why I say a realistic expectation for a Tolkein IP would be much higher than what Turbine has actually achieved.
    Ok those numbers that SOE tends to lump in all its Station pass subs for each and every game.  So one person with Station Pass will count for all games on the pass whether they play them or not.  SOE is known for fudging numbers.  Your comments about LA is open for debate, once again I refer readers to the SWG Veterans boards, and like most of what you have debated here, it is only a hypothesis.  It is necessary to differ the two, because you tend to elude your opinions and beliefs as being pure facts.  But once again, we know Turbines numbers are growing, new people playing, expansions announced, and IP agreement was extended.  Those prove the game is profitible and have growth potential.
    3. UO had a slower climb, but achieved 200k subs around July 2000, and stayed above that level into 2004.
    Again Sir Bruce's numbers are not validated since his sources are secret, and at best they are guesses.  I mean lets call up NCSoft or any other MMO company for that matter and see what they say there subscription numbers are, I am sure they will give us a complete and accurate numbers that are not hyped in the slightest.
    4. EQ broke 400k in 2001, and stayed above that line until into 2005.
    Ummm I played in 2001 and I vividly remember them announcing they broke 100k.  Again you are referring to numbers that can NOT be validated or for that matter proven.
    5. Matrix Online - Are you kidding?!?  The strength of this IP is not even in the same league as LOTR or Star Wars.
    Sigh it is an IP none the less, that had a HUGE box office response.  I guess you missed the show then.  The point is as an IP is failed to, so your hype that an IP should preform better I counter with proof of those that didnt.
     
    I hope I didn't bore you this round, and if I did, maybe a slinky and silly putty may do the trick.
     

     

     

     


    Unfortunately, you continue to bore, so this will be my last post on the matter. 

    It is not an issue of not feeling my points are invalid, but rather that there is no debate here.  I posted the market share of LOTRO, with my source clearly identified.  You asked about other games, so I used the same source and responded with the number there.  Then you just claim the numbers are made up.  If you were not going to accept the numbers from that source, then why ask about other games when I had already clearly identified the source?

    The reality is that you have your opinion, and will not change it no matter what I express, no matter what numbers I quote, etc.  Yet you have not numbers or facts that you yourself will present.

     

  • WSIMikeWSIMike Member Posts: 5,564
    Originally posted by KorovaMB


     


    You dispute the numbers I have given, yet offer none of your own. 



    EXACTLY! So glad you noticed!



    I don't provide numbers of my own - *because I don't know what they are*, nor am arrogant enough to believe that I know what they *should* be.




    I'm not refuting your numbers... To do that I would have to have some idea of what they are myself and... well... I already covered that. I'm  questioning the arguments *you're* making based on them.



    Nowhere do I say "your numbers are wrong". I simply point out, with some incredulity, how confident you seem in throwing out statistics that can't be verified as accurate.




    While the numbers from MMOGChart are not 100%, with accuracy levels that can vary from game to game, they are the only numbers we have to work with.  If the game was such a huge success, don't you think Turbine would publish sub numbers, rather than obscure numbers such as number of characters created?



    No... again, you're venturing into areas not you nor I can speak of with any confidence of knowing what the hell we're talking about. All I know is... Turbine doesn't speak out on their numbers, they haven't up 'til now and there's nothing to indicate either way on whether or not they ever will, or under what conditions.



    I'm not about to get into a match of "My baseless assumption can beat up your baseless assumption". It's ridiculous.



    Based on the reaction of the more "spirited" nay-sayers on these forums in the past, any time Turbine has reported anything resembling numbers, they're called liars anyway.  I would bet money that if Turbine did come out and say "Okay, we've decided to announce LoTRO's population, current as of 3/1/08. Here are the numbers..." and then what they reported was "too high" for the haters to accept, they would be accused of fabricating, exaggerating or being otherwise deceitful. It would be called a "scam" or a "debacle" or a "scandal" or some other terrible-sounding term usually associated with government interns and energy companies.



    There are people who seem determined to be willfully offended by the idea of LoTRO being a successful game. They reject and rip apart anything showing that it is. Why they care so much, I have no idea. But they do, and boy are they vocal about it.



    In fact,
    the only people who really seem to care a whole lot about the numbers are those who don't play and/or bash the game regardless. They see numbers and one of two things happens:

    1. If the guesstimate is "low" they immediately declare it "accurate" and bash the game as a failure. The lower the guesstimate, the more "accurate" they gleefully believe it is.

    2. If the guesstimate is "too high" for their liking, they immediately go into "indignant outrage" mode, question the accuracy of the source, dismissing it as "obviously inaccurate".



    The bottom line is - they don't like the game and will not accept any indication of it being successful because, for some reason, it's important to them to feel that it's a failure. Why? Again, I have no clue. But that is the stupidity these forums are subject to anytime someone posts numbers of the game's population. Pages and pages of it.




    See, that's why I stick to general knowledge.. things I *can* verify... to which I refer you to the paragraph about them expanding into new markets, etc. In my time, I've never known of a game expanding into new markets if it wasn't doing well enough already to justify it. Clearly, LoTRO is doing well enough to make that move. That's good enough for me.


    Just because a set of numbers don't serve your point doesn't mean they must be inaccurate.
    Ummm... Are we having the same conversation here? I'm not the one basing my arguments off of them.



    In fact... if you would read what I'm saying in my last post or two... you might see a trend in my logic...  Since you seem to be missing it, I'll offer it once more.
    I'll even put it in a different color so it stands out better.
    The numbers don't serve any point because....  Ready?



    Turbine has never released their actual sub numbers. 
    Until they do, any numbers you see - anywhere - are a guess at best, based on whatever numbers are publicly available. The numbers are not conclusive. The creators of those charts will state this themselves.
    I'm not going to repeat that again, so read it as many times as necessary until it sinks in.



    That's why I don't use them in my arguments and that's why I'm not "refuting" them, and that's why I'm calling BS on your claims based on them. Because without the actual numbers to compare against, they are not reliable.

     

    "If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road,
    and the cash shop selling asphalt..."
    - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops

    image

  • GrindalyxGrindalyx Member UncommonPosts: 657

    Originally posted by Daedalus732


     
    Originally posted by Grindalyx


    It is middle earth. A place i have dreamed about exploreing since i was ten years old. I get to walk around in the places i have only read about.

     

    I think this is the biggest problem I have with LOTRO. You're not actually exploring Middle Earth because Middle Earth was/is a wide open space that covered a huge amount of territory. For me, LOTRO makes Middle Earth look small and uninspired, particularly after I saw the movies and really got a good feeling for the area.

    The game was originally called Middle Earth Online, and was supposed to be a big sandbox MMO and a relatively dark world. Then suddenly the game became LOTRO online and everything became happier and more WoWish.

    LOTRO is just not how I want to imagine Middle Earth.


    You asked a question and i answered it. Wether it is the whole map at this point in time or not is irrelevant. it is still middle earth. We are just getting it in stages. Eventually they will fill the map in and guess what it will still be middle earth. the same game i play now. This arugument that the whole map isn't in the game makes it not middle earth is pathetic.

    I was around and following this game back when it was MEO. The original size of the playable world was suppose to be not much bigger than the launch size of the world. They scaled it back some. But in no way was MEO suppose to lauch with the whole map filled in. Yes it was suppose to be more of a sandbox game. Was soppose to be differant than what we got. But you know what? What we got is a good solid game. That is fun to play and to explore. and yes i explore the game regardless of weither you think i am or not.

    I have been a fan of the books since i was ten years old i have read the books dozens of times. I know the layout of the land and i look forward to turbine filing in the map over time. I look forward to seeing what they can do. I am sorry it is not how you imagined middle earth. Not everyone can be happy with what turbine developed. I know there are things about the game that i wish were differant but hey i can't do anything about them. and they don't outweigh all the great things about this game i like.

    imageimage

  • DragonOakDragonOak Member Posts: 322
    Originally posted by KorovaMB


     
    Unfortunately, you continue to bore, so this will be my last post on the matter. 

     
    /em waves adios.  Sorry if you feel that way, your opinions are your opinions, but they do not necessarily convey the mainstream even though you would like to think so.
    It is not an issue of not feeling my points are invalid, but rather that there is no debate here. 
    I often here that from those that make disputed points.  You feel there is no debate here because I don't bow down and say "KorovaMB is da bomb!"  You points have been disputed, and the answer for you is that there is no debate.
    I posted the market share of LOTRO, with my source clearly identified. 
    A source that has been called into question by many people, not just myself.
    You asked about other games, so I used the same source and responded with the number there. 
    Again you use a source that is not considered nuetral by both parties and then say it is fact.  Reminds me of watching Fox News.
    Then you just claim the numbers are made up.  If you were not going to accept the numbers from that source, then why ask about other games when I had already clearly identified the source?
    And again based on my own personal experience, I clearly refuted one of those numbers.  I was playing in the fall of 2001 when EQ announced they had broken 100k subscriptions.  Yet your numbers say it was 400k yet you don't see a problem.  I was there then........so that devalidates a lot of those numbers in my mind even more than before.
    The reality is that you have your opinion, and will not change it no matter what I express, no matter what numbers I quote, etc. 
    Not on the PvP issue, I am arrogant, biased, opinionated, and totally stubborn on this.  I have seen too many games ruined because the minority demanded changes only because they screamed the loudest.  Yet I see that you yourself are a compromising, open minded, middle of the road kind of person (yes that was sarcasm).  Remember you have three fingers pointing back when you tell me how I wont give on this issue.
    Yet you have not numbers or facts that you yourself will present.
    No numbers required. 
    1.  Tolkien Enterprises extended the IP agreement with Turbine until 2014 with option to 2017, that shows someone is making a profit.  TE has been very ingenious about making this IP work, and part of that is by restricting how the story line is to be utilized by its licensure.
    2.  New players entering the game in large numbers.  Don't believe me?  Do the trial account, and take a poll of new players, it will shock you.
    3.  Turbine announced the release of expansion number one.  That shows profitability right there.  How many companies are willing to invest more money into a losing franchise?  Well other than SOE anyway!
    4.  I really find it amazing how you make all these assumptions based on a game you never have played.........but then I see who we in the US has as a president and realize anything is possible.
     

     

  • BigMangoBigMango Member UncommonPosts: 1,821

     

    Originally posted by Astralglide


    As far as animation goes, I thought the animation in this game was terrible until 2 things happened:
    1) I re-installed WOW to solo-play (I can't stand soloing in LOTRO) and noticed how cartoony their graphics and animation is
    2) I bought a dual-core with an 8600 GTS and can now run both DX10 (on Vista64 Ultimate, baby!) and much higher graphical settings for LOTRO and it really is a beautiful game- when your graphics don't suck.

     

     

    Absolutely.  OP & Co need to up their video settings. There are actually 3 character animation levels in the settings (low/medium/high). So if those guys are playing on low...

    And as far as the lotro characters being ugly... I mean, come on, one of you guys posted that he played only 30 minutes. Well, low level toons have low quality outfits, yea they are dressed like a newbie, so what? You actually need to level a toon and/or get into crafting.

    Anyway, I think lotro characters are rather pretty:

     

    http://nsa01.casimages.com/img/2008/04/10/0804101259362903602.jpg

  • TautologyTautology Member Posts: 188

    LOTRO is a good game, I play this besides Vanguard and am enjoying it again after having a break.

    For me LOTRO is a fun theme-park version of the original LOTR.  It not about exploring, it is about many short events you can participate in.  I also understand the OPs opinion about the character animations they seem very clunky and quite boring.   There is only a small sense of drama in the animation IMO.  Also the running is sub-optimal, in my opinion, as a reference please see the running animation of the chars PRE-Cu of SWG, motion capture, that was great.  The running animations in LOTRO remind me how Tom Bombadil is described in the book, something like bouncing and hopping instead of actually running (however more clunky than in the book).  Also, many things in LOTRO are great to look at but only very limited interactive, e.g. water, you cannot dive underwater and cannot have a boat, there is nore real current in the water,  Vanguard shines here.  However, LOTRO is still a great game and has other strengths (Story-line and quests!).

  • WrymstrumWrymstrum Member Posts: 196

    Originally posted by KorovaMB


     
     
    Just to clear up this persistent rumour, the no PVP was a decision Turbine made shortly after they aquired MEO from Vivendi.  PVP was to play a significant role in MEO, so it would seem Tolkein did not forbid it.
    Once Turbine announced that decision, I knew this game would not be for me.  It truly saddened me to have to take a pass on it, as I am a huge fan of Tolkein's books and virtually anything LoTR (used to play MERP).
    p.s. if you need to ask what MEO was, then don't bother replying to this post.

    Originally posted by KorovaMB


    Not sure where you're seening me make any comparisons regarding quality of the pvp between MEO and LOTRO.  I reference it as a counterpoint to the previously mentioned rumour that Tolkein Enterprises refused to allow PvP.
    Regarding my decision to take a pass on LOTRO, it was driven by the knowledge that I have never enjoyed a game without "world" pvp.  That is my endgame, and thus a game that has announced it will not have it is not a game for me.  It has nothing to do with whether MEO would have been better or not.
     

     

    I don't get what the big deal is about "world" pvp.  Yea, back in the day it was pretty exciting when you had FFA servers and you could get looted.  From what I've seen modern MMO's don't have the balls to make it meaningful anymore, except perhaps for EVE Online.  Maybe some of the newer ones will have some fresh and well designed ideas for pvp that is meaningful, challenging, and fun.  That might be cool, and I might play an MMO like that.  But IMO it's ridiculous to rule out an MMO that might bring many other great PVE focused things to the table just because it's not pvp focused. 

    I think LOTRO works very well as a PVE focused game.  If you are hung up on having full world pvp (since technically lotro's pvp is open world pvp, just limited to one zone) or two symmetrical factions, then that's your loss.  Earlier I laid out several arguments why I think having a single faction is much more desirable than having multiple factions, and I haven't seen any good counter arguments.

     

    ~~~ Currently Playing ~~~
    LOTRO- Guardian Wrymstrum & Lore-master Stabler on Nimrodel.

    Conan- Zoltar <Angels of Death> Guardian on Stormrage.

Sign In or Register to comment.