What ToR did right and what it failed at

[mirodin]

WoW did this better in Tol Barad, where the PvE questing portion has both factions in the same area, so if you're going there to do PvE dailies, you need to be prepared for PvP.

I also remember WoW making the alliance guards pussies, so they didn't attack the horde players when they stomped you right after you come out of the portal .

Yet there are hundreds upon hundreds of bugs caught and reported over and over again in beta that were not fixed before release.
Yet they expect us to pay a complete price for it. If the game is bugged and broken, how about not charging us money to play it until it's fixed?

Yet there were thousands upon thousands of bugs fixed. For example i had a few reported bugs that got fixed, one that crashed your game after you open the Armormech crew skill. They don't expect you to do anything, if you have problems or don't enjoy the game then stop playing it. To some of us the issues the game has now are minor inconveniences.

[Omniclass]

Ok I will bite one more time, Please do not think I complain because I like to, I am complaining because I want this game to do well. It will be good for the MMo genre and good for gamers to have more choices.
Sure the points I listed might not be anything that bothers you but it does bother others and you really need to think if everyone will be as patient as yourself?

---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 09:11 AM ----------




So how did Rift have 10 times the features with 10 times less budget and time spent in production?

I know my patience is far more than some but i know other poeple have more just based on the virtue of personal experiences.

As for Rift, yeah the 12hr queue times and massive account security holes were amazing ill take less features and be able to trust that i dont need to start logging in before work ....We are still very close post launch there server stability and quick patching are very good signs for the future. My patience is out weighed by my ability to see the broader side of things and whats important for the game now and what can be added soon. Doesn't mean 6 months from now they still dont have some things(improved search function in the ah, they can keep the sorting i like it personally, what they decide to add is up to them just add useful things) that ill be sitting idle still waiting...

[atrixx]

Yet there are hundreds upon hundreds of bugs caught and reported over and over again in beta that were not fixed before release.

Yet they expect us to pay a complete price for it. If the game is bugged and broken, how about not charging us money to play it until it's fixed?

Depends if they get enough quality reports/information to be able to figure out what is causing it. There have been several small patches (some client side, some server side only) that have been deployed to help track down bugs better and normally lead to a fix with in a week.

[Moonsorow]

I don't want to rationalize this too much, but I'll make a point. No SWTOR shouldn't try to compete the WOW of 7 years ago...so the comparisons are pretty silly. However, there is only so much that can go into release to maintain a delivery schedule and also to make sure the launch goes smoothly. The more various systems/features you add the game, the much more complicated it will be to fix them. The first 2-3 months of any program/game release is for bug fixing since not everything can be caught in Beta. Simply not possible unless the program is extremely simple. Is it an incomplete game? Sure. Many features need to be added, but they have said for a long time that many of the features people want are scheduled to go in post launch or they are reviewing. If people don't want to deal with the game during the first few months post launch, simply don't play. Come back after a couple major content patches and try again.

The one thing that they have done very well so far though that few hit on, is the server stability. They have been able to increase population limits since launch and things haven't crashed once (for me) since the start of early access. That to me is an amazing success that no one has really been able to accomplish.

---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 07:37 AM ----------



Have never experienced the downtime during peak hours after launch. My better half is on for several hours and every evening and has never said anything. At first I would have thought you were on an EU server, but there have been a couple isolated server outages that they've reported issues on. They tend to do a good job keeping people updated on the forums and twitter though. However, I usually play every Friday evening and have never seen things go down unless it was for emergency maintenance and patching which is done at 2AM. Even with those, we normally get around a days advanced notice but sometimes it is only a 6 or 8 hours notice. Either way, they post when servers would have to go down on their forum.

Yea 2 AM CST which is 12 AM PST. For me on a Friday night that's prime time for me. I work too many hours during the week and the only days I can unwind are Fri - Sun. I'm in California.

[Ravenblade]

So how did Rift have 10 times the features with 10 times less budget and time spent in production?

What do you mean with 10 times less budget? RIFT cost about $50,000,000 at minimum (real costs est. around close to $60,000,000 actually). 10 times as much would be around 500m.
It also took around 5 years to make.

Considering both MMOs are using different architectural layouts they are not comparable at base. Trion's investment is VC-based (they started off with around $350m which they spread over several games) so they naturally took alot of conservative routes, that probably meant on spending side they couldn't be as generous. Usually - and I am going by experience in a similarly grown company - that means that people have to work with less for more under less-than-ideal circumstances for that one goal of success with alot of shared resources as well. A company like EA would just recoup the losses elsewhere and have no problem with lay-offs in order to survive whereas a company like Trion only has this chance or face closure.

Either way the entire nature of your question is why they accomplished more with less, the real answer lies within the fact that most internal things will always remain undisclosed that includes the decision processes, management sessions, how many times they had to start over things, how many people they had to hire, lay off, what challenges they had to face etc. Also some of the things which Bioware had to overcome were no issue for Trion, like synchronized event scripting, whereas Bioware didn't have to deal with issues unique for Trion such as dynamic world events affecting players. In short: it's not comparable on 1:1 basis, chances are that if roles were reversed none of both may come out better. Bioware made a controversial decision on engine part, Trion made a controversial decision on security part, I don't know - I will take the first over the latter any day.

Besides RIFT didn't have alot of things at launch either (no addons, no LFG tool, no guild banks etc.), alot of features were inserted post-production, I have been playing it as well so I pretty much know how it went and I don't tend to hold it against them. Because companies which listen to their playerbase usually try to cater to the demands, alot demands perceived as standard features are/were not always seen the same way by its developers. It's a matter of view really, you can also find these views being reflected by parts of the playerbase. Case in point: On-going fierce debates about LFG tool, addons/macros and respecs in SW:TOR.

[Omniclass]

What do you mean with 10 times less budget? RIFT cost about $50,000,000 at minimum (real costs est. around close to $60,000,000 actually). 10 times as much would be around 500m.
It also took around 5 years to make.

Considering both MMOs are using different architectural layouts they are not comparable at base. Trion's investment is VC-based (they started off with around $350m which they spread over several games) so they naturally took alot of conservative routes, that probably meant on spending side they couldn't be as generous. Usually - and I am going by experience in a similarly grown company - that means that people have to work with less for more under less-than-ideal circumstances for that one goal of success with alot of shared resources as well. A company like EA would just recoup the losses elsewhere and have no problem with lay-offs in order to survive whereas a company like Trion only has this chance or face closure.

Either way the entire nature of your question is why they accomplished more with less, the real answer lies within the fact that most internal things will always remain undisclosed that includes the decision processes, management sessions, how many times they had to start over things, how many people they had to hire, lay off, what challenges they had to face etc. Also some of the things which Bioware had to overcome were no issue for Trion, like synchronized event scripting, whereas Bioware didn't have to deal with issues unique for Trion such as dynamic world events affecting players. In short: it's not comparable on 1:1 basis, chances are that if roles were reversed none of both may come out better. Bioware made a controversial decision on engine part, Trion made a controversial decision on security part, I don't know - I will take the first over the latter any day.

Besides RIFT didn't have alot of things at launch either (no addons, no LFG tool, no guild banks etc.), alot of features were inserted post-production, I have been playing it as well so I pretty much know how it went and I don't tend to hold it against them. Because companies which listen to their playerbase usually try to cater to the demands, alot demands perceived as standard features are/were not always seen the same way by its developers. It's a matter of view really, you can also find these views being reflected by parts of the playerbase. Case in point: On-going fierce debates about LFG tool, addons/macros and respecs in SW:TOR.

Totally beats my sandwich analogy....

[Deleted]

I can't believe you still come to the TOR forums. We get it, you have "I love WoW" tattooed on your lower back like a tramp stamp.
Try to stay on the MoP forums where your feedback is relevant.

Hehe good one, I actually lol'd

[Deleted]

It does feel like there are some who just have to piss in other peoples' sandbox because they didn't like the toys.

[shise]

You do know alderaan was never shown in the movies right?

As for other games having better music .....no just know

Music is prolly as important as graphics if not more for this kind of games.

[soulcrusher]

It does feel like there are some who just have to piss in other peoples' sandbox because they didn't like the toys.

Good quote. bang on the money.

[ShaftyMcShaft]

They don't expect you to do anything, if you have problems or don't enjoy the game then stop playing it. To some of us the issues the game has now are minor inconveniences.

I expected when they marked the game as "release" and shipped it, and I paid money for it, that it would be in a playable condition. The entire endgame is bugged. Bugged Ilum, bugged FPs, bugged Ops, bugged WZ win credit. What isn't bugged is non-existent, like progression after level cap. We call this a "bait and switch."

Oh well. The $60 was worth the leveling experience. If you look at it as KOTOR3 with multiplayer support, it's fine, except once I stop paying the $15/month I don't get to play my single-player game anymore. I've already done everything there is to do on my Imperial character, so I'll probably level a Repub and then unsubscribe. It's a perfectly fine single-player game, but there's just no MMO content.

[Asmodian]

Almost everything went wrong except story. Bioware made single with sub in the end.

[Odina]

It does feel like there are some who just have to piss in other peoples' sandbox because they didn't like the toys.

When a subject is about what something did correct and what something did incorrect don't expect everyone to be on the positive aspect!

I believe the main issue is that allot of people came in with high expectations / wanting this to be THE WOW KILLER. Like it or not it will be compared to other games and that there have been issues and reoccurring ones at the get go really sucks as others can only compare it to more refined games atm and that does not bode well for retention purposes.

If you are going to leap into a market be ready to be as good as the competition or you will get left behind or have disgruntled clients it's just the nature of the beast!

[OhpUldum]

It does feel like there are some who just have to piss in other peoples' sandbox because they didn't like the toys.

Years ago when I was in daycare I pooped in the sand box then blamed another child by pointing at him playing in the sandbox by the poop. My daycare teacher at the time is now my Grandmother through marriage, to this day she doesn't know the truth.

I figured that would lighten things up.

Now back on topic:
As others have stated most of the features we would like to see in the game are expectations on our part. Other games released within a similar time period were not released with these features but were implemented rather quickly as the developers heard us shout. However the big difference between other developers and Bioware thus far has been communication. Where one developer is an open book, the other one is guarded and speaking in generalizations.

As a whole I have very little gripes with the game. I enjoy it for what it is and if it should change in the future I would hope it is for the better.