PDA

View Full Version : Blizzard, Worse login server for a mmorpg I have ever seen.


Pages : 1 2 [3]

K007
01-05-05, 06:34 PM
"They have done a huge improvement over the final public beta though."

....

WeReWoLf
01-05-05, 06:36 PM
You know it's the truth. They had 15 servers then. They have 50 now.

|MaguS|
01-05-05, 09:43 PM
I forgot to mention what might seem like the obvious, but blizzard is much smaller then soe, and they do have at least 2x the subscriber base. It would cost them alot more in bandwidth to push out patches, with less money to spend on it to boot.

regards
mike

Um, No.... Blizzard is as large as SOE... not Sony but SOE. If you look at the Parent companies then, ya Sony would own Vivendi Universal in a money throwing contest. Blizzard is probably one of the most popular developers in Korea, They can sell a can of crap as long as it has the Blizzard name on it.

Zone engines are very plug in play (as you put it), Just remodel the zone offline and then throw it on the server, every player will get an instant download of that zone in the next logon, no need to even tell them about it. Makes for great suprises (Still remember SOE's Holloween on EQ a few years back...)

Elderblaze
01-06-05, 12:12 AM
When you make comments about blizzard selling a can of crap to Koreans, you come off sounding incredibly biased, blizzard has never made a bad product. period. Everything they have ever released has been a 1 million seller or better. StarCraft, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Diablo, Diablo 2. Probably not Warcraft 1, or that viking game though. And obviously WoW has not sold 1 million copies *YET* but they are on the way.

Even if you do not like one blizzard game it's pretty close minded to think they make crap. And I know you dident come out and say directly "They make crap" you stated that koreans would buy anything blizzard makes, regardless it sounds very fanboi like. Im no fanboi i've played games from Soe and Blizzard, but I was enjoying blizzards games before Soe was even thought about. I used to play WarCraft 2 on Kali back in 95, but your probably a bit to young for that.

I digress.. the Bit Torrent patches are a slight annoyance at best, as Blizzard dosent feel the need to come out with a new game patch every week to fix 1000's of bugs like SOE does.

Regards,
Mike

|MaguS|
01-06-05, 08:10 AM
When you make comments about blizzard selling a can of crap to Koreans, you come off sounding incredibly biased, blizzard has never made a bad product. period. Everything they have ever released has been a 1 million seller or better. StarCraft, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Diablo, Diablo 2. Probably not Warcraft 1, or that viking game though. And obviously WoW has not sold 1 million copies *YET* but they are on the way.

Even if you do not like one blizzard game it's pretty close minded to think they make crap. And I know you dident come out and say directly "They make crap" you stated that koreans would buy anything blizzard makes, regardless it sounds very fanboi like. Im no fanboi i've played games from Soe and Blizzard, but I was enjoying blizzards games before Soe was even thought about. I used to play WarCraft 2 on Kali back in 95, but your probably a bit to young for that.

How old do you think I am? Please indulge me... As for Blizzards quality in software, I honestly loved every game they have made except for Warcraft 3 and its expansion... I dispise WC3. I think it is probably one of the worse RTS games on the market. I hate the upkeep system and how slow it plays. I loved the rushing in WC2 and WC3 practically distroyed that.... I won't even get started on the Hero's....

I own every Blizzard title, I am not Bias at all. I just don't think they are as talented as other developers. I mean they take delay a game left and right just for it to release buggy and hacker friendly. They rarely make an Original title and when they do its not as good as thier previous efforts.

Hell, I just want them to finish "Starcraft Ghost", I love the SC universe but Im not putting too much hope on the game being as great as the hype for it is...

ChrisRay
01-06-05, 08:42 AM
How old do you think I am? Please indulge me... As for Blizzards quality in software, I honestly loved every game they have made except for Warcraft 3 and its expansion... I dispise WC3. I think it is probably one of the worse RTS games on the market. I hate the upkeep system and how slow it plays. I loved the rushing in WC2 and WC3 practically distroyed that.... I won't even get started on the Hero's....

I own every Blizzard title, I am not Bias at all. I just don't think they are as talented as other developers. I mean they take delay a game left and right just for it to release buggy and hacker friendly. They rarely make an Original title and when they do its not as good as thier previous efforts.

Hell, I just want them to finish "Starcraft Ghost", I love the SC universe but Im not putting too much hope on the game being as great as the hype for it is...


heh I completely disagree with your points on warcraft 3. Micro management requirements of Warcraft greatly outweight in macro management you'd have to do with starcraft or warcraft 2., Rushing is still possible, Just not against the computer, Hero rushes are a game of their own, They'll either do damage, Have little impact, Or completely change the game.

Being good at controlling your heroes is very important for warcraft 3, and being able to micro manage the units is important. The whole point of upkeep was to show that you dont need large armies to win. But rather show that you can win with good management of a small army. And I absolutely love that aspect of WoW. Starcraft and Warcraft 2 dont offer anywhere near the actual depth of micro managing that Warcraft 3 does.

I think warcraft3 was revolutionary to what we will expect from future Real Time Strategy games in the future.. I have even seen other companies immitate it already. ((Lords of Everquest, Btw I have the game. Not terrible. But not great))

|MaguS|
01-06-05, 09:08 AM
Lords of Everquest was crap... Sony should have never made that game... it just sold because people wanted to get into the EQ2 Beta.

Main gripe with Heroe's is that I had to baby sit them... So I just made them patrol my base and used normal troops. I like sending out squads of guys, I don't want to have to keep control of a single unit(make him use items and special abilties). I just wana control 3 squads and move in formation (Love BFME's System)...

My favorite RTS to date is still Red Alert 1/2.

Ninjaman09
01-06-05, 10:49 AM
heh I completely disagree with your points on warcraft 3. Micro management requirements of Warcraft greatly outweight in macro management you'd have to do with starcraft or warcraft 2., Rushing is still possible, Just not against the computer, Hero rushes are a game of their own, They'll either do damage, Have little impact, Or completely change the game.

Being good at controlling your heroes is very important for warcraft 3, and being able to micro manage the units is important. The whole point of upkeep was to show that you dont need large armies to win. But rather show that you can win with good management of a small army. And I absolutely love that aspect of WoW. Starcraft and Warcraft 2 dont offer anywhere near the actual depth of micro managing that Warcraft 3 does
QFT. I'm not being a fanboy here, Warcraft 3 was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant genre. Keep it up, Blizzard.
Main gripe with Heroe's is that I had to baby sit them... So I just made them patrol my base and used normal troops. I like sending out squads of guys, I don't want to have to keep control of a single unit(make him use items and special abilties). I just wana control 3 squads and move in formation (Love BFME's System)...
Wow...just, wow. No wonder you didn't do well in the game. The Hero was supposed to be a support unit for your troops to keep them alive or greatly enhance their damage-dealing through thier abilities. Sending out units without a hero is instant death in Warcraft 3, but small groups with wise micromanagement of the hero (which is very easy thanks to WC3's awesome interface) will win a lot more battles than you'd think. Warcraft 3 had some of the most rewarding battles because of how actively involved the player is in combat, which is much better than "attack-moving" several large groups of units and watching and waiting until the battles are over. Not that I'm saying Starcraft, Warcraft 2, or the C&C games are bad, they aren't (except Tiberian Sun and Generals, those games blow ass). In fact, those games are all awesome. But Warcraft 3 was a welcome departure from the usual formula and it's a hell of a lot of fun if you bother to learn how to play it.

Ghosthunter
01-06-05, 10:56 AM
my biggest gripes with WoW, on top of all the lag and server issues..was the game was just too easy..in beta was able to level 60 in a week or so..

tradeskills too easy..

and i never grouped once...because everyone wants to solo since more XP..

I think it has a lot of potential..but game is not challenging enough...i dont get the same feelig of accomplishment like in EQ1 or EQ2

|MaguS|
01-06-05, 11:02 AM
Wow...just, wow. No wonder you didn't do well in the game.

Who said I didn't do well? I just didn't enjoy it... I beat the game in acouple weeks after its release.

Your coming off like a blizzard fan... ontop of your high horse...

Ninjaman09
01-06-05, 11:13 AM
Your coming off like a blizzard fan... ontop of your high horse...
No, I'm a veteran of the game. Anyone with a pulse could beat the single player campaign. It's multiplayer where the fun is, and I guarantee you'd last about 5 minutes in any 1 on 1 game by having your hero "patrol your base". It demonstrates a lack of understanding of how to play the game, hence, in my opinion, invalidating your criticism of it. It's like complaining that your computer can't scramble your eggs for you. And I hate to break it to you, but since you're the one who brought up the whole "Blizzard sucks" topic, you're the one coming off as a fanboy here.
my biggest gripes with WoW, on top of all the lag and server issues..was the game was just too easy..in beta was able to level 60 in a week or so..

tradeskills too easy..

and i never grouped once...because everyone wants to solo since more XP..
Sorry, aside from your mention of server issues, you are either exaggerating to an extreme or just completely making that up. Leveling to 60 in a week? Never grouped once? Sorry, that's impossible. Not hard, not extremely difficult, IMPOSSIBLE. I'm sorry, maybe not impossible - it's technically possible if you did not sleep, eat, or do anything other than play the game for the entire week 24 hours a day. Even then, it'd be extraordinarily difficult. Since no one plays the game like this except freaks or spoiled kids with no responsibilities, it's hardly a just comment about the game.

|MaguS|
01-06-05, 11:25 AM
No, I'm a veteran of the game. Anyone with a pulse could beat the single player campaign. It's multiplayer where the fun is, and I guarantee you'd last about 5 minutes in any 1 on 1 game by having your hero "patrol your base". It demonstrates a lack of understanding of how to play the game, hence, in my opinion, invalidating your criticism of it. It's like complaining that your computer can't scramble your eggs for you. And I hate to break it to you, but since you're the one who brought up the whole "Blizzard sucks" topic, you're the one coming off as a fanboy here.

Oh I am a fanboy, 4 years of EQ does that to you... I will never deny that... As for playing WC3 online, did for awhile. Got bored of it, rather play WC2 and SC online. Was big on D2 for awhile but after alittle break from it my characters were deleted and I never returned to it.

I never said Blizzard sucked, I say they aren't gods like every Blizzard fan holds them as. I think other RTS games are better then the ones they created and I think thier MMORPG is lacking alot.

You need to also lighten up and lower the hostility, I have never directed any attacks towards your playstyle, skill or character yet you seem to need to at me, without even knowing anything about me. No wonder poeple generalize the Blizzard Fanbase...

vampireuk
01-06-05, 11:36 AM
I wonder why people always have to take shots against Blizzard, they make games for god sake not rape babies.

Ninjaman09
01-06-05, 11:39 AM
You need to also lighten up and lower the hostility, I have never directed any attacks towards your playstyle, skill or character yet you seem to need to at me, without even knowing anything about me.
Yet you have repeatedly made comments of this nature:
No wonder poeple generalize the Blizzard Fanbase...
Snide remarks like this are generally not well recieved. If you want to act like a prick, be prepared for people to use a less than friendly tone.

I couldn't care less if you like Blizzard games or not, that's not the point. Let's try and remember who started bashing who here. You attack my favorite games, I'll defend them. You've repeatedly asserted that people only like Blizzard games because of the name. I like them because all of their games ARE awesome, and in my opinion Blizzard IS the best PC game development company. I generally am not interested in Westwood's C&C series. But I don't go trolling around C&C boards calling everyone "Westwood fanboys" and repeatedly posting how much I hate a certain game that I've barely spent any time playing. I understand that you want to be "different" and go against the grain, good for you, but keep it to yourself.

saturnotaku
01-06-05, 11:41 AM
I wonder why people always have to take shots against Blizzard, they make games for god sake not rape babies.

Probably for many of the same reasons people take shots at Microsoft. Both companies are damn good at what they do from a business perspective. Their products are popular and generally well-liked among those who use them, but at the same time they both have their harsh critics.

vampireuk
01-06-05, 11:49 AM
Probably for many of the same reasons people take shots at Microsoft. Both companies are damn good at what they do from a business perspective. Their products are popular and generally well-liked among those who use them, but at the same time they both have their harsh critics.

Hmm Penny Arcade photoshop of Blizzard critics perhaps? :D

Ghosthunter
01-06-05, 12:01 PM
No, I'm a veteran of the game. Anyone with a pulse could beat the single player campaign. It's multiplayer where the fun is, and I guarantee you'd last about 5 minutes in any 1 on 1 game by having your hero "patrol your base". It demonstrates a lack of understanding of how to play the game, hence, in my opinion, invalidating your criticism of it. It's like complaining that your computer can't scramble your eggs for you. And I hate to break it to you, but since you're the one who brought up the whole "Blizzard sucks" topic, you're the one coming off as a fanboy here.

Sorry, aside from your mention of server issues, you are either exaggerating to an extreme or just completely making that up. Leveling to 60 in a week? Never grouped once? Sorry, that's impossible. Not hard, not extremely difficult, IMPOSSIBLE. I'm sorry, maybe not impossible - it's technically possible if you did not sleep, eat, or do anything other than play the game for the entire week 24 hours a day. Even then, it'd be extraordinarily difficult. Since no one plays the game like this except freaks or spoiled kids with no responsibilities, it's hardly a just comment about the game.


i said a week or so...this was in beta...before they had tons of major lag issues...it might have been 2 weeks or maybe 3 i dont know..all i know is way too short...compared to eq1, or eq2...and i played roughly 10-14 hours a day


dont even get me started on the class balance issues...LOL

Ninjaman09
01-06-05, 12:34 PM
dont even get me started on the class balance issues...LOL
Heh, yeah, there's definitely work to be done here. The Warrior class at the moment is completely useless and Mages are not too far off. I'm glad I picked a Rogue to play, seems to be the best PvP class there is.

Ghosthunter
01-06-05, 12:50 PM
Heh, yeah, there's definitely work to be done here. The Warrior class at the moment is completely useless and Mages are not too far off. I'm glad I picked a Rogue to play, seems to be the best PvP class there is.


yep rogue rocks...but you know somehow it going to be nerfed

Ninjaman09
01-06-05, 12:56 PM
Well, I'm fairly certain that the last patch dramatically increased the miss rate on Rogue specials like Sinister Strike and Eviscerate, I miss about 20% of them on mobs 8 levels below me fairly consistently (the miss rate is supposed to be 5%). I miss my stealth abilities almost 33% of the time (Sap, Ambush, Cheap Shot) as to render them almost useless. What makes me even more mad about this is that I put talent points into a talent that supposedly improve the hit rate of these abilities by 5%. Arg.

ChrisRay
01-06-05, 09:00 PM
Heh, yeah, there's definitely work to be done here. The Warrior class at the moment is completely useless and Mages are not too far off. I'm glad I picked a Rogue to play, seems to be the best PvP class there is.


I pretty much stopped my rogue. Atr level 36, And have gone back as a priest who will specialize in shadow/disc. It seems to be a good step for me. I really got tired of my 1 shot for everything rogue. Once you expend vanish/stealth capabilities, I felt rogues were giant targets.

Elderblaze
01-07-05, 12:13 AM
I played EQ1 for 5 years myself, I wouldent consider myself a fanboy by any means. If anything I miss Verant and despise SOE. They did not "ruin" everquest by any means. But they did change it, into somthing alot less frusterating, alot less time consuming, and ultimatly alot less rewarding. This is of course subjective, but i like the old days of Original EQ, yeah there where class balence issues, but it was a special game. Perhaps just because it was my first MMO. Im really looking forward to Vanguard.

I loved WarCraft 3, however I sucked at it.. i owned the single player, and played multiplayer for months, but I never could get past level 12ish. There are alot of people that put way to much time into it, and the micro managment of the game is very complicated, i've seen tiny armies of a couple heros and 4-5 unites decimate massive armies of unskilled players. It requires alot of time to play compeitivly at all. I guess the same can be said for most things these days though, like counter strike. Speaking of which, i've been playing alot more CS:S then WoW these days, not that I don't enjoy wow, but CS:S is better then ever and im having a blast with it.

Regards
Mike