Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

PlanetSide 2: New Director's Letter Explains Server Merges

2

Comments

  • CelciusCelcius Franklin, TNPosts: 1,000Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Scarfe

    Name a game that hasn't had or doesn't need server mergers.  Except those that started with too few.  

     

    This is a flawed statement because if a server started with too few that means it is overpopulated and would never need server merges. You can't make an exception to this. Sony made a poor choice by having this many servers and you can't make up an excuse for that. GW2 is one of the few games out there that has not and does not need server merges. This has a ton to do with the way the server infrastructure is setup, but they still have a ton of servers with a healthy population without any need for server merges. Even WoW has had server merges.

    The problem is with PS2 is that it is just another F2P shooter in a sea of great F2P shooters. The game just throws you in with virtually no idea what to do. It is great to not have hand-holding, but not in a shooter. Shooters have always been a very open genre and easy to play so changing that in a genre with TONS of other options is not a good idea. Not to mention the game has virtually no depth at all. The purpose of it feels very shallow with little to no story or purpose of the overarching game. Its a solid game with a great F2P model, but as an MMO it is just not good enough. 

    The game is not going anywhere, but it will just remain around to service the niche of people who enjoyed the first Planetside. 
  • CalerxesCalerxes LondonPosts: 1,630Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vesavius

    More proof that F2P isn't the magic solution to the industry's woes.

     

    Seems a game that will struggle will struggle regardless. I would love to see some real and honest  figures as to just how 'F2P' games are doing across the board. It seems we are seeing just as much player loss with the model as we ever did with a sub.

     

    Who said f2p was a solution to the industries woe's other than you? and what are those industry woe's exactly? some games have benefitted going f2p some haven't and then you get that special catagory just for SOE, who seem to believe releasing half arsed MMO's time after time after time is going to help them produce the next big thing, EQIII fans BEWARE, DCUO & PS2 are your benchmark. though you have got something right, bad games flop whatever the options for paying the companies choose. For me more options are better than restricted options but I was subbed to SW:TOR and stopped because of the bad conversion, I play GW2 and a couple of f2p's, I like the choice and understand the consequences involved, its the quality of the package that matters DDO, LOTRO and Tera have done good f2p conversions, SOE and EA haven't. 

     

    Also what that letter forgot to mention was every player gets one of these with the server merge..

     

     

    This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up™ the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Gainesville, FLPosts: 2,000Member
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Originally posted by HikaruShidou
    Originally posted by Seelinnikoi
    And so it begins... the downfall.

    It's not the downfall, infact they are fixing a lot of problems, making it more desireable than it was at launch. They still have a long ways to go in fixing the metagameplay, but the fact is they launched with WAY too many servers in the first place.

    It may not be its downfall, but it sure isn't a sign of healthy growth of the game population.  You'd expect the game to keep expanding at least for the first six months if not the first year and then to remain relatively stable for an even longer period.  That so many have left is a sign that there isn't enough to the game to keep people around long term, let alone spend money on it.

    I don't know why someone would expect this, it isn't the norm in mmorpgs and I can only think of a handful of mmos that have done this.  PS2 is the norm, not the exception.

  • XuljesterXuljester Schuylkill Haven, PAPosts: 53Member
    Maybe we'll start seeing join queues again! Oh, joy.
  • raapnaapraapnaap LeidenPosts: 397Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Celcius

    GW2 is one of the few games out there that has not and does not need server merges.

    Tell that to well over half the extremely underpopulated servers. ArenaNet/NCSoft made the same mistake of opening too many. Today, only the top 5-6 servers per region even have a WvW population at all, and many servers even struggle to have an active PvE playerbase.

     

    Too many MMO releases see the same mistake made repeatedly, opening up too many servers at first, and having to make the choice of merging 2-4 months later... Some companies refuse to do this because it is fixed in their minds that server merges are 100% bad marketting, not caring about their existing playerbase.

     

    On an unrelated note, I see people are mentioning PS2 as being a pay2win game around here. You can take my word for it, as a true "free to play" hater, that PS2 is one of the few F2P games out there that does it right: Cosmetics and faster advancement. I have a battlerank 55 character on the Miller EU server and not once spend a cent (although I will soon, since SOE more than earned it by now, I just never pay for 'F2P' games until I am certain they don't add post-launch nasty things).

     

    As for performance, I can't say I have any problems with the game on my computer. It is very CPU heavy, you should be able to run the game fine with a quadcore 3.0GHz+ CPU (I personally have an i7 CPU), 6 GB memory, and a decent graphics card.

     
     
  • DaedalEVEDaedalEVE Aberdeen, MDPosts: 39Member
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Vesavius

    More proof that F2P isn't the magic solution to the industry's woes.

     

    Seems a game that will struggle will struggle regardless. I would love to see some real and honest  figures as to just how 'F2P' games are doing across the board. It seems we are seeing just as much player loss with the model as we ever did with a sub.

    I honestly don't think they are struggling, not really at all PS2 is cash machine. Hell I spent 40 on beta, and another 60 after launch. That's saying a lot. I'm just not a FPS person. I still pop in every now and then though.

    I play almost every day and between the Alpha Package, Premium, Gettting station cash here and there, then the tripple station cash day, I've put something like $300 into it so far I think. I have someone in my outfit who's bought nearly everything in the game. No idea what he's spent, but any time something new comes out he buys it because he can. 

    Most people in my outfit are waiting for the next tripple station cash day to empty their piggy banks. That's when SOE really brings in the money.

  • strangiato2112strangiato2112 Richmond, VAPosts: 1,538Member Common
    Originally posted by Calerxes
     DDO, LOTRO and Tera have done good f2p conversions, SOE and EA haven't. 

     

    I *greatly* prefer EQ2 model to LOTRO.  LOTRO is straight up nickel and diming, and it spills over to subbers.  LOTRO makes SUBSCRIBERS pay for standard MMORPG features like the ablity to lock your level.  And they shove the cash shop down subscribers throats, with the core game UI having little buttons to click to buy instant travel to your quest giver.

    I would rather not be able to wear gear i don't need than deal with having to pay a few bucks for almost everything and the constatnt reminders of the shop.  I like LOTRO but they go way too far with what they expect people to pay for.  

    SoE model is perfect for people who like content but dont care if they can't over gear it. And unlike LOTRO, you can just sub and get everything you would expect from an MMORPG.

    TERA model is a different story because the game is nowhere near as good as LOTRO or EQ2.  The better your game, the more you can rely on a F2P system designed to encourage people to sub like EQ2 or nickel and dime like LOTRO.  Games like Aion and TERA cant do that.

  • VindicarVindicar ParisPosts: 134Member

    Quit the traditionnal SOE bashing.

    PS2 is a true F2P ( some would try to argue it is "somehow" P2W, only thing to remember is that you can access every single weapon and perk without spending a single coin) and is probably the best F2P ever released (in term of quality, and enjoyement provided).

    Most ranters are those who didn't forgive SOE for their passed mistakes and those who can't play the game 'cuz of hardware issues.

    Old school french hardcore whiner. Online since T4C.

    I was "Namless" and "Daroot" in AO (Rk2)
    Recently known as "Vindicar" (Aion (EU), SWTOR (EU), WoW (EU).
    Actually Known as "Wundicar" in Age of Wushu (US)

  • VyethVyeth Fayetteville, NCPosts: 1,459Member

    "Now that the crush of new players from launch and the holidays has died down"

    Why is there even a discussion about this? Every modern MMO has gone through this phase at nearly the exact same time, however instead of ignoring the problem for so long like EA did with SWTOR, SoE decided to can the servers early to prevent their loyals leaving due to lack of action..

    It's a pure PvP game, and population on each server is KEY to enjoyment.. Even if they had one single server, if that server always said FULL those people are having fun guaranteed.

    image

  • TookyGTookyG Warhammer Online Correspondent Alameda, CAPosts: 1,188Member
    In the post WoW world, you get crushed with players at launch and are forced to open more servers than you'll need in 6 months. This is par for the course today.

    Until you cancel your subscription, you are only helping to continue the cycle of mediocrity.

  • WraithoneWraithone Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 3,593Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vindicar

    Quit the traditionnal SOE bashing.

    PS2 is a true F2P ( some would try to argue it is "somehow" P2W, only thing to remember is that you can access every single weapon and perk without spending a single coin) and is probably the best F2P ever released (in term of quality, and enjoyement provided).

    Most ranters are those who didn't forgive SOE for their passed mistakes and those who can't play the game 'cuz of hardware issues.

    As soon as they get rid of dear Old Smed, some of us might consider "moving on".  Until that time... ^^  PS2 isn't a bad game, all things considered (though it certainly has its share of "issues"...). But its all too typical of SOE's mentality.

  • KenrichKenrich Fresno, CAPosts: 106Member
    At least the merge will help The Vanu population :P

    image
  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,474Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vesavius

    More proof that F2P isn't the magic solution to the industry's woes.

     

    Seems a game that will struggle will struggle regardless. I would love to see some real and honest  figures as to just how 'F2P' games are doing across the board. It seems we are seeing just as much player loss with the model as we ever did with a sub.

     Because it could never be that they over estimated the number of servers they needed.

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,474Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vyeth

    "Now that the crush of new players from launch and the holidays has died down"

    Why is there even a discussion about this? Every modern MMO has gone through this phase at nearly the exact same time, however instead of ignoring the problem for so long like EA did with SWTOR, SoE decided to can the servers early to prevent their loyals leaving due to lack of action..

    It's a pure PvP game, and population on each server is KEY to enjoyment.. Even if they had one single server, if that server always said FULL those people are having fun guaranteed.

     Well, it happens because people want to slam a game to make themselves feel superior.

  • CalerxesCalerxes LondonPosts: 1,630Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by strangiato2112
    Originally posted by Calerxes
     DDO, LOTRO and Tera have done good f2p conversions, SOE and EA haven't. 

     

    I *greatly* prefer EQ2 model to LOTRO.  LOTRO is straight up nickel and diming, and it spills over to subbers.  LOTRO makes SUBSCRIBERS pay for standard MMORPG features like the ablity to lock your level.  And they shove the cash shop down subscribers throats, with the core game UI having little buttons to click to buy instant travel to your quest giver.

    I would rather not be able to wear gear i don't need than deal with having to pay a few bucks for almost everything and the constatnt reminders of the shop.  I like LOTRO but they go way too far with what they expect people to pay for.  

    SoE model is perfect for people who like content but dont care if they can't over gear it. And unlike LOTRO, you can just sub and get everything you would expect from an MMORPG.

    TERA model is a different story because the game is nowhere near as good as LOTRO or EQ2.  The better your game, the more you can rely on a F2P system designed to encourage people to sub like EQ2 or nickel and dime like LOTRO.  Games like Aion and TERA cant do that.

     

    This is where we differ SOE and EA think f2p is all about trying to force you to sub to games that nobody wanted to sub to in the first place by restricting you at every turn, money caps, limited race and class options, hotbars, gear etc etc.. whereas Tera has gone fully f2p, DDO and LotRO give you the option to sub, you can buy or earn ingame TP to buy content from the shop.

    This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up™ the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.

  • CalerxesCalerxes LondonPosts: 1,630Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Wraithone
    Originally posted by Vindicar

    Quit the traditionnal SOE bashing.

    PS2 is a true F2P ( some would try to argue it is "somehow" P2W, only thing to remember is that you can access every single weapon and perk without spending a single coin) and is probably the best F2P ever released (in term of quality, and enjoyement provided).

    Most ranters are those who didn't forgive SOE for their passed mistakes and those who can't play the game 'cuz of hardware issues.

    As soon as they get rid of dear Old Smed, some of us might consider "moving on".  Until that time... ^^  PS2 isn't a bad game, all things considered (though it certainly has its share of "issues"...). But its all too typical of SOE's mentality.

     

    How is that guy still in a job, its one failed game after another? though I suppose milking your existing playerbase is where the money is?

    This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up™ the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.

  • umcorianumcorian Boston, MAPosts: 466Member Uncommon

    I wanted to like PS2, but ... well, I'll just own it. The game is just completely unfun if you aren't very good and just starting out. Like War Z, you just get thrown to the wolves the second you log in and get mowed down. 

    When you don't know the areas, don't know the ropes, aren't sure of the objectives and have no decent way to damage tanks and planes, you're just another player's epeen booster. Add to the fact 75% of the time, you don't know how someone killed you, where they were... and you don't even feel like you learn anything from dying. You just fall over dead, never getting any info that helps you improve.  

    No thanks. This game got a pass from me within 4 hours of playing. 

  • VarthanderVarthander BarcelonaPosts: 471Member
    Originally posted by umcorian

    I wanted to like PS2, but ... well, I'll just own it. The game is just completely unfun if you aren't very good and just starting out. Like War Z, you just get thrown to the wolves the second you log in and get mowed down. 

    When you don't know the areas, don't know the ropes, aren't sure of the objectives and have no decent way to damage tanks and planes, you're just another player's epeen booster. Add to the fact 75% of the time, you don't know how someone killed you, where they were... and you don't even feel like you learn anything from dying. You just fall over dead, never getting any info that helps you improve.  

    No thanks. This game got a pass from me within 4 hours of playing. 

    Some people find it hard to adapt to, and some people just feel like in any other FPS game and go with the flow, your case its just you didnt feel comfortable with it but still if you try some more time im sure you will end up liking it.

    image

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,277Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by umcorian

    I wanted to like PS2, but ... well, I'll just own it. The game is just completely unfun if you aren't very good and just starting out. Like War Z, you just get thrown to the wolves the second you log in and get mowed down. 

    When you don't know the areas, don't know the ropes, aren't sure of the objectives and KNOW no decent way to damage tanks and planes, you're just another player's epeen booster. Add to the fact 75% of the time, you don't know how someone killed you, where they were... and you don't even feel like you learn anything from dying. You just fall over dead, never getting any info that helps you improve.  

    No thanks. This game got a pass from me within 4 hours of playing. 

    You sound like my son. "I did horrible at wrestling.. They had to keep teaching how to do the movesimage." Well son... You've never wrestled before...image

     

    fixed a part too.

     

  • Dreamo84Dreamo84 Niagara Falls, NYPosts: 3,437Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Calerxes
    Originally posted by Wraithone
    Originally posted by Vindicar

    Quit the traditionnal SOE bashing.

    PS2 is a true F2P ( some would try to argue it is "somehow" P2W, only thing to remember is that you can access every single weapon and perk without spending a single coin) and is probably the best F2P ever released (in term of quality, and enjoyement provided).

    Most ranters are those who didn't forgive SOE for their passed mistakes and those who can't play the game 'cuz of hardware issues.

    As soon as they get rid of dear Old Smed, some of us might consider "moving on".  Until that time... ^^  PS2 isn't a bad game, all things considered (though it certainly has its share of "issues"...). But its all too typical of SOE's mentality.

     

    How is that guy still in a job, its one failed game after another? though I suppose milking your existing playerbase is where the money is?

    I think it's obvious that SoE is doing better than you think it is. But people on these forums think every game they don't like is a failed game. People even try to argue WoW is not making money anymore. You really can't judge the success of a game or company based on this website. Even Vanguard is still making money.

    image
  • ReklawReklaw Am.Posts: 6,478Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by Deto123
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Vesavius

    More proof that F2P isn't the magic solution to the industry's woes.

     

    Seems a game that will struggle will struggle regardless. I would love to see some real and honest  figures as to just how 'F2P' games are doing across the board. It seems we are seeing just as much player loss with the model as we ever did with a sub.

    I honestly don't think they are struggling, not really at all PS2 is cash machine. Hell I spent 40 on beta, and another 60 after launch. That's saying a lot. I'm just not a FPS person. I still pop in every now and then though.

    I can t remeber where the article is, but apparently PS2 is making a killing.

     

    I am sure that's the line and all, but mergers speak for themselves.

    I don't actually doubt they are still making profit, but the shrinkage is plain to see.

    Kinda logical that they merge servers.

    For those who have been with MMORPG for a long time we already know for a fact that when a MMO is released it's smart to release with plenty of servers because most new released MMO's will want to have the most amount of players trying their game on release. Let's say after about 3 till 6 months about 50% of the release players might have left, still leaving a pretty large player base still playing, but spread among far to many servers, making some server feel as if the game is dying while other servers seem to be full.

    Should game company's just sit and wait and holdon to all server till the complaints start coming in on forums about the game is dying, no one playes on my server anymore, or isn't it wise to gather all information from their servers and look at what and where merges are needed to make a few healthy servers, instead of having to many servers.

     

  • CaldrinCaldrin CwmbranPosts: 4,533Member Uncommon
    started playing this again after a taking a few months off.. server seemed just as populated as before btu i guess im on one of the more popular servers.. Merging the servers that are not used as much cant be a bad thing..
  • uidCausticuidCaustic acworth, GAPosts: 128Member
    People still play this eh?
  • CalerxesCalerxes LondonPosts: 1,630Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Fendel84M
    Originally posted by Calerxes
    Originally posted by Wraithone
    Originally posted by Vindicar

    Quit the traditionnal SOE bashing.

    PS2 is a true F2P ( some would try to argue it is "somehow" P2W, only thing to remember is that you can access every single weapon and perk without spending a single coin) and is probably the best F2P ever released (in term of quality, and enjoyement provided).

    Most ranters are those who didn't forgive SOE for their passed mistakes and those who can't play the game 'cuz of hardware issues.

    As soon as they get rid of dear Old Smed, some of us might consider "moving on".  Until that time... ^^  PS2 isn't a bad game, all things considered (though it certainly has its share of "issues"...). But its all too typical of SOE's mentality.

     

    How is that guy still in a job, its one failed game after another? though I suppose milking your existing playerbase is where the money is?

    I think it's obvious that SoE is doing better than you think it is. But people on these forums think every game they don't like is a failed game. People even try to argue WoW is not making money anymore. You really can't judge the success of a game or company based on this website. Even Vanguard is still making money.

     

    That point was covered in the rhetorical question. "though I suppose milking your existing playerbase is where the money is" I actually like EQ2 played for over 6 months many moons ago and go back from time to time same with Vanguard, I don't stay for various reasons but I have a fondness for both games I suppose thats why I question SOE's motives with their games.

    This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up™ the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.

  • umcorianumcorian Boston, MAPosts: 466Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by umcorian

    I wanted to like PS2, but ... well, I'll just own it. The game is just completely unfun if you aren't very good and just starting out. Like War Z, you just get thrown to the wolves the second you log in and get mowed down. 

    When you don't know the areas, don't know the ropes, aren't sure of the objectives and KNOW no decent way to damage tanks and planes, you're just another player's epeen booster. Add to the fact 75% of the time, you don't know how someone killed you, where they were... and you don't even feel like you learn anything from dying. You just fall over dead, never getting any info that helps you improve.  

    No thanks. This game got a pass from me within 4 hours of playing. 

    You sound like my son. "I did horrible at wrestling.. They had to keep teaching how to do the movesimage." Well son... You've never wrestled before...image

     

    fixed a part too.

     

    Your analogy doesn't work, because they actually made an effort to teach your son how to wrestle. PS2 does no such thing - they just throw you into the ring with no instruction and if you happened to get thrown next to an enemy tank, well, trololo.

    If my son came to me and said: "Dad, they told me to jump in front of a moving car to get on the wrestling team, so I decided I'm not going to try out"... I'd tell him: "Well, son, I don't blame you. What a stupid ****ing game that is." 

    And no, there is no decent way to take out tanks/planes as a newcomer. Until you spend certs, your only options are Heavy Assault Missiles that travel so slowly, they can be dodged by Helen Keler. 

2
Sign In or Register to comment.