test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

WoW was worse?!?!

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
ok, am I missing some thing here? because i played wow in beta at the same time I played EQ2 in beta, BOTH games where fun and had advantages and disadvantages, But I do remember Both being able to handle the loads on their server. i do remember them both having tons of content, not only a weeks worth but the whole time I was in beta, almost 2 months worth of content and still did not get to see it all.

Now I am not trying to debate weather STO is worse or better, but please show me Proof that wow was worse then STO at launch? really I would love to know.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mordiaky wrote: »
    Now I am not trying to debate weather STO is worse or better, but please show me Proof that wow was worse then STO at launch? really I would love to know.

    Yeah let me just fire up the flux capacitor. In all seriousness, what proof then would be acceptable from folks ?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    How about the crashes on the Bonechewer server every 20 minutes for 2 weeks straight. I started WOW in closed beta and still have an account there but those first 2 weeks still give me a twitchy eye on and a nervous tick
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mordiaky wrote: »
    Now I am not trying to debate weather STO is worse or better,

    That is exactly what you are doing.

    Wow had it's problems at launch, as far as content goes, couldn't tell you. Blizzard only launches the lowest level instances and beginner endgame content with each expansion. Cryptic seems to have underestimated how fast people were going to level and there really isn't much in this game yet for Admirals to do beyond some exploration dailies and PVP.

    It does occur to me that people leveled alot faster here than they do in wow (at least early on for wow).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Wooger wrote:
    How about the crashes on the Bonechewer server every 20 minutes for 2 weeks straight. I started WOW in closed beta and still have an account there but those first 2 weeks still give me a twitchy eye on and a nervous tick

    here let me quote some thing to you so you can understand a bit more of what happened.
    The World of Warcraft Launch

    As is common with the launch of a MMORPG, World of Warcraft had its share of problems at first. Partly because of the huge number of people who bought the game, along with server instability, Blizzard chose to stop selling copies of the game some time after the launch. Sales were limited accordingly until more servers, called worlds, or realms, could be assembled. Due to the massive initial sales, there were also periods where players had to wait in queues before playing, as some realms were at their maximum player limit. When more servers were added, these queues became less common and sales of the game resumed. Still, in certain high population areas with World of Warcraft like Ironforge or Orgrimmar, players continued to experience game performance delays.
    Source = http://world-of-warcraft-gold.com/world-of-warcraft.html

    Ok I did not say it was the best, i did not say they had no problems at all. What i asked is, how was it WORSE then STO?

    yes a lot of server on wow had problems at launch, BUT you could always log on to another server and still play the game you paid for. also, look at the above quote, They handle the problem and fixed the issue's. and how did cryptic handle the same problem? i have no idea, its still a problem after 3 weeks in!

    So tell me how is it WORSE like a lot of folks are saying around these forums?
    Nazferiti wrote:
    That is exactly what you are doing.

    Wow had it's problems at launch, as far as content goes, couldn't tell you. Blizzard only launches the lowest level instances and beginner endgame content with each expansion. Cryptic seems to have underestimated how fast people were going to level and there really isn't much in this game yet for Admirals to do beyond some exploration dailies and PVP.

    It does occur to me that people leveled alot faster here than they do in wow (at least early on for wow).

    do you guys even read the question before posting? i asked again:

    "HOW WAS IT WORSE?????????"

    now do not post here like a TRIBBLE till you can answer my question.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    try to make a lighthearted comment and get an explanation on why WOW still has problems. I never said which was worse, all I did was try to make a small funny to lighten the mood on these forums, cause lately they have been worse than an angry group of marines




    WHy the hate Bro?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    wow's launch problems are common knowledge to teh average mmo player. daily downtime across all servers, broken mechanics, unexpected server crashes, broken quests, overloaded CS etc etc etc.

    by the time wow released in EU most if not all those problems were fixed. although wow of today still has some zero day terrain exploits and minor bugs that most players will never see unless they hunt for them.


    how was wow's launch worse?

    does STO server shut down every single day at prime time for several hours, come back up for 20 minutes then crash again? are there 8+ hour queues to get into every server? are many of the missions broken? are many of the spells broken?

    if you answer these questions honestly you'll find that STO is somewhat better, though not perfect by any means. STO has had an above average launch.


    you also seem to suggest that multiple shards would solve the problems of queues and downtimes, but you would be mistaken. for most mmo players, rerolling on a new server is no solution to these problems at all. when i play a new mmo, i roll on teh same server as my friends. even if i haven't even made a new toon yet, let alone having invested time in a toon on a server, i prefer to wait out a queue or downtime to investing in a throw away toon on a server i can't play with friends on.

    now what STO will do in the next 3 months, six months and year as compared to wow is the real question.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Wow was down more, but you also have to factor that STO only has one server so it is more pronounced because everybody is offline at the same time. I played on Dalaran at WOW launch and the database corrupted and the server was down for 3 days. When it finally came back online all guilds and friends list were toast and had to be reformed.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mordiaky wrote: »
    ok, am I missing some thing here? because i played wow in beta at the same time I played EQ2 in beta, BOTH games where fun and had advantages and disadvantages, But I do remember Both being able to handle the loads on their server. i do remember them both having tons of content, not only a weeks worth but the whole time I was in beta, almost 2 months worth of content and still did not get to see it all.

    Now I am not trying to debate weather STO is worse or better, but please show me Proof that wow was worse then STO at launch? really I would love to know.

    their just gonna flame you and tell you to basically take thier word for it... Ive played alot of games at launches and didnt take me 2 weeks to max out and get bored and I am a casual player heck I was trying NOT to level and did anyway didn't even know I reached max to a day later. if this game was BIGGER it would feel so empty.... at least in wow I could travel all over and explore.. this game exploring is just a pain and not enough places to go visit.. plus with it all instanced you barely see anyone sometimes.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mordiaky wrote: »
    ok, am I missing some thing here? because i played wow in beta at the same time I played EQ2 in beta, BOTH games where fun and had advantages and disadvantages, But I do remember Both being able to handle the loads on their server. i do remember them both having tons of content, not only a weeks worth but the whole time I was in beta, almost 2 months worth of content and still did not get to see it all.

    Now I am not trying to debate weather STO is worse or better, but please show me Proof that wow was worse then STO at launch? really I would love to know.


    I don't know how we can objectively prove downtime and bugs - but at the end of the day, WoW was a better/higher quality game in 2004 than STO is in 2010... and it's not even close.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mordiaky wrote: »
    ok, am I missing some thing here? because i played wow in beta at the same time I played EQ2 in beta, BOTH games where fun and had advantages and disadvantages, But I do remember Both being able to handle the loads on their server. i do remember them both having tons of content, not only a weeks worth but the whole time I was in beta, almost 2 months worth of content and still did not get to see it all.

    Now I am not trying to debate weather STO is worse or better, but please show me Proof that wow was worse then STO at launch? really I would love to know.

    Google is your friend. I got 2 weeks of free playtime by Blizzard after initial 30 days were over and so did many of my guild members since we couldn't even log in and spent most of our time crashing to desktop or just staring at login screen just to experience another server crash. I got total of 2 hours play time in 3 weeks.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Nazferiti wrote:
    Wow was down more, but you also have to factor that STO only has one server so it is more pronounced because everybody is offline at the same time. I played on Dalaran at WOW launch and the database corrupted and the server was down for 3 days. When it finally came back online all guilds and friends list were toast and had to be reformed.

    that's a good point. no roll backs in STO. yet. +1 for STO.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mordiaky wrote: »

    Wait you went to a gold site for you're info. I'm sorry but I would never trust a sweat shop.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    typhaon wrote: »
    I don't know how we can objectively prove downtime and bugs - but at the end of the day, WoW was a better/higher quality game in 2004 than STO is in 2010... and it's not even close.

    ummm no it wasn't.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Unable to find sources to cite for proof, so Im sorry but as I recall WoW had server stability issues, login issues, etc from launch in Nov 2004 till probably late Jan, early Feb 2005. That is 2-3 months of issues.

    Star Trek is not even 3 weeks old. If these same issues are going on say in April or May then yeah, ok its very bad... Its been bad, but not worse than WoW I dont think. At least not overall. Id say both are on par in terms of issues.

    IN some ways I think star trek lacks, number of quests in comparison I think is the biggest thing. Not that there arent any but it would seem there is not enough or at least not enough variety.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    ajac09 wrote: »
    their just gonna flame you and tell you to basically take thier word for it... Ive played alot of games at launches and didnt take me 2 weeks to max out and get bored and I am a casual player heck I was trying NOT to level and did anyway didn't even know I reached max to a day later. if this game was BIGGER it would feel so empty.... at least in wow I could travel all over and explore.. this game exploring is just a pain and not enough places to go visit.. plus with it all instanced you barely see anyone sometimes.

    And thats exactly what you are doing. Why should we take your word for it? and we are discussing server and stability issues not the in game features.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mordiaky wrote: »
    ok, am I missing some thing here? because i played wow in beta at the same time I played EQ2 in beta, BOTH games where fun and had advantages and disadvantages, But I do remember Both being able to handle the loads on their server. i do remember them both having tons of content, not only a weeks worth but the whole time I was in beta, almost 2 months worth of content and still did not get to see it all.

    Now I am not trying to debate weather STO is worse or better, but please show me Proof that wow was worse then STO at launch? really I would love to know.

    Time heals all wounds.
    It also makes a game that I started playing in Febuary (TWO MONTHS AFTER LAUNCH) that was buggy as hell, with frequent server downtime (they gave us free time cause of it only once that I remember tho), and horrid lag issues because of the people trying to cram into their servers, perfect.
    Dude, I remember timing my way across Ironforge the first month I played taking literally 30 minutes on Eredar server.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mordiaky wrote: »
    at least hello kitty island has more content and it is more challenging,And its a finished game, but hey if that's to much for you then stick with STO :D

    you post stupid stuff like that and you call me a troll?

    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines ~Your Pal, Indigofyre

    That is dear OP from another topic. Take whatever he says with grain of salt.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    i started playing wow last year so lots of content most issues fixed since ive been playing the game has gotten 50% better with patches and updates so shouldnt STO be the same in a year if STO is still like this maybe we have problems

    I like the star trek theme the space combat just being in a star trek world so my hope is set on cryptic to make it right and for the rest of you that want a good star trek game im certain this is your only shot so possitive constructive criticism is far better received and utallised than the smears and wimpering i see from a lot of posts

    Do any of these people complaining know what it takes to set some thing like this up Ive been told that WOW is complicated not just because of the volume of the system but that the whole game is constantly evolving almost like its alive not quite it still needs imput but i believe it is far more complicated that most of us understand
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Goomer wrote:
    i started playing wow last year so lots of content most issues fixed since ive been playing the game has gotten 50% better with patches and updates so shouldnt STO be the same in a year if STO is still like this maybe we have problems

    You do know WoW has been out 5 years right? You analogy would be correct if you had said "If STO is like it is right now FIVE YEARS from now, then we might have a problem"
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Wow had terrible server queues across the board at launch--some folks waited hours to get in to a server with terrible lag that was rebooted at least 2-3 times a week and was down basically all day every Tuesday for the first couple of years.

    STO had a couple of hiccups in the first 2-3 days and has been fine ever since. By comparison, Cryptic got it right.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    The whole "was WoW (or whichever game) better or worse at release?" argument is quite pointless. I've been a part of these same discussions on AoC and WAR forums recently.

    The thing is - STO is not competing 5 or 6 years ago, like in some strange Star Trek temporal anomaly episode. Its competing today. And therefore, it gets compared with other MMOs as they are today.

    Saying that I, as a consumer, should lower my expectations just because a product is new on the market is ridiculous. Why? Because there are things called standards. Whether its cars, food, or anything else, each generation of products brings higher standards the consumers can (and will) expect. A new player on the field will either meet these standards (set by the products already on the market), or will have a hard time getting customers.

    Only thing that matters is the comparison of the products at the moment of purchase. Granted, for MMOs, due to the fact you're paying monthly, you will re-evaluate potential games as time goes by and switch, but once again you'll be comparing the games as they are at that moment.

    Wanna test it? Go and start your own business, keep the same prices as your competitors but use the standards/quality they had couple of years ago - see how long you last. ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    SB324 wrote:
    The thing is - STO is not competing 5 or 6 years ago, like in some strange Star Trek temporal anomaly episode. Its competing today. And therefore, it gets compared with other MMOs as they are today.

    But the thing is that unlike other real world products software is something that is always evolving. If this were a SP game then Id expect what we get at launch to be the final product, but even thats not alwasy true (how many games get fixes/content patches after the fact?). MMOG's typically always have a break-in period. This hasnt changed since UO came out in 1997. I was there for that one and that had lots of rubber banding, crashes, I think I remember a server revert here and there .. nevermind exploits and poor game mechanics.

    So while you may compare a MMOG only to existing established games, I do not. I compare it in a relativstic sense. But then this is subjective, as is such terms as best this or worse that.

    The current state of this game suits me and my expectations. If it doesnt suit you or someone else then except to just rant why not simply leave and speak with your money. Ill never understand all these folks who pre-bought lifetime and then are quitting and feel the need to vent about it. You took the risk buying a lifetime sub. Caveat emptor.

    Should games just work at launch ? Why yes they should. But they (the majority of the time) dont.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    kanid wrote:
    ]

    But the thing is that unlike other real world products...

    So while you may compare a MMOG only to existing established games, I do not. I compare it in a relativstic sense. But then this is subjective, as is such terms as best this or worse that.
    .

    Absolutely, that's why I said that in case of MMOs, you constantly re-evaluate your choice, since technically speaking, each month is a new "moment of purchase".

    So even if I don't continue my subscription after 30 days, I'll continue to keep an eye on STO. If, in time, it becomes a best MMO choice (for me, obviously) I'll simply resubscribe.

    But I'll again be comparing it with other MMOs as they are at that moment, and not couple of years ago.

    EDIT: Messed up the quote. :mad:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    SB324 wrote:
    Absolutely, that's why I said that in case of MMOs, you constantly re-evaluate your choice, since technically speaking, each month is a new "moment of purchase".

    So even if I don't continue my subscription after 30 days, I'll continue to keep an eye on STO. If, in time, it becomes a best MMO choice (for me, obviously) I'll simply resubscribe.

    But I'll again be comparing it with other MMOs as they are at that moment, and not couple of years ago.

    EDIT: Messed up the quote. :mad:

    I messed up my quote. Heh no worries.

    But I agree. I like this software-frontier experiencing. Its a love hate thing. Some folks just want it to work. To each their own. Though if the game has too many more 'unexpected maintenance' periods I may not renew myself.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mordiaky wrote: »
    ok, am I missing some thing here? because i played wow in beta at the same time I played EQ2 in beta, BOTH games where fun and had advantages and disadvantages, But I do remember Both being able to handle the loads on their server. i do remember them both having tons of content, not only a weeks worth but the whole time I was in beta, almost 2 months worth of content and still did not get to see it all.

    Now I am not trying to debate weather STO is worse or better, but please show me Proof that wow was worse then STO at launch? really I would love to know.

    What planet were you living on? Well maybe what server. If you played ANY high population server in WoW during its launch, or updates.. or expansions.. then it was instability heaven.

    Also, there was no Endgame in WoW if you rushed ahead as well. I hear a lot of complaining, but its either coming from the people who arn't giving the game a chance or have rushed and are already admiral.

    Did you play a priest at release? If you did, then you will remember how that class was UNABLE to play the solo. Priests couldn't kill a mob and would just get killed pretty easily.

    There was no Endgame at WoW's release. There was no MC, No battle grounds, no Onyxia.


    I think you are just poorly formulating your argument. Its not the endgame, its just what was there in general.

    A lot of time in wow was spent running from one zone to another. Remember when you couldn't get easily teleported to cities for their flightpoints? Also WoW had instances and professions, another time sink to get more items.

    If you have noticed with any of cryptics games, it isn't a gear intensive game and they INTENTIONALLY leave game mechanics ambiguous to deter the game from becoming a max DPS number crunch.

    Sure STO, has many flaws, I wish the environments were more open and had more exploration and some fixes here and there, but all around, the game has been pretty fine for me.

    I've rarely crashed, so I really think the issues with people crashing is just them not knowing how to use their computer. Also WoW had much alot of server downtime and even longer queue times than STO has ever had. WoW also had terrible balance and classes that were either overpowered or entirely broken for any scenario. Does any one remember how overpowered the original 'Will of the Forsaken' was?

    For someone who has claimed to play wow beta and release, you really have a bad memory, you should get that checked out.


    oh also PS. When you take into consideration that Cryptic was going to lose the licensing of the game to Paramount/CBS, then I can understand why the game was rushed. And I think they are doing a fairly decent job in trying to address these issues with the game. Although I do think that they are also understaffed. I don't think they had the resources that Blizzard does when it comes to fixing things. If you have noticed with these patches lately, alot of them have been addressing bugs, stability and overall problems. If they are tight on manpower, then I won't be expecting a lot of energy invested in balance and more material until thats done.

    Also, its a different game and will probably be more episodic in nature than WoW's long haul grind. Sure wow is a good MMO and sets a good standard to beat, but that doesn't mean that every MMO has to fit to how WoW was successful. Let new games try to change things for good, I don't want any more WoW clones.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I highly HIGHLY doubt you played since beta if that is what you remember from WoW.
    They limited sales because they didnt have servers to put people in.
    Entire battlegroups would go down nightly for 5-6 hours with no explaination-not even a "server down" status in the forums.
    There was NO endgame-what-so-ever. There were 5 man instances, but that is not endgame as we knew it in WoW. (there were 3 if I remember right)
    Some classes were completely unplayable
    Even after endgame came in servers would crash durring raid time. Google "Shattered Hand MC" I think the video is still on youtube of about 50 raids falling through the world when MC crashed and the floor fell out. Oh yeah, then we couildnt log back in because our toon was in use already. Then when we did get in we just kept falling.
    How about when your entire raid would freeze or disapear in AQ and you would get one shotted-or unfreeze to find everyone dead-that was great fun.
    How about when we had to wait in a 8 hour Que?

    This server launch has had it's issues-no doubt, but don't pretend you played since launch if you can't remember the hell that WoW was for the first year. In Blizzards defense, the last few years have been really good-until they get new patches, then the servers are down for 10 hours.

    I would take this launch 100 times over what I dealt with in WoW back then. Not to say that this game or WoW is better, I think at launch WoW had obvious advantages in the gameplay-while STO has the edge in graphics. WoW had more depth while STO has a ton more potential. There are plusses and minuses in every game-I enjoyed WoW for years-and now I'm enjoying STO when I can play (I work 50 hours a week-and have a 1 year old and a wife to spend time with). I see the issues that we've had here, and yes, its annoying to have the only game time you have taken away because of a server crash-but please, don't act like you didn't complain about the same thing when WoW launched (if you actually played since launch).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    hhm...... where to start?

    the 16 +hour ques that lasted for nearly the first entire month oops there's a frequent crash. que started all over again. wow also had no end game content at launch either. they couldn't add server fast enough either.

    plus read their current forum s which are full of people bad mouthing that game and fighting each other. worse than in this forum ten times over!

    then ther was the launch of swg which the servers lasted maybe 5 min before the crashed and took the dev almost 3 days to bring them back online again.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    WoW was terrible, dying and rezzin at the GY, then running to your corpse..and the server drops, comes back up later you find you did not die after all (lol). But, now you are in a spot w/ a bunch of respawned mobs, and you um, die. yea.
    5 months later WoW still had huge server problems.
    I made this 3 years ago, and wow has been out how long? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZdqrL9j_A4

    Your "Proof"
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    This message is hidden because mordiaky is on your ignore list.
    Couldn't agree more, OP.

    By your own admission, you quit last week.
    It's time to move on.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I don't think STO's launch is that bad at all, but I have seen better and I have seen worse.
Sign In or Register to comment.