So, you mean to say that the game being successful at launch means the community is to blame for the problems?
I really don’t mean to be rude, but do you really believe that if a new very anticipated Store opens up with half their stock and they run out of stuff to sell and people complain about it, it’s the customer’s fault? >_>
Anyway, that aside… Game design choices has nothing to do with release plans. The game would have it’s flaws by design even if launch was smooth and according to plan.
The problem with choosing comes balancing out what the elitists will do.
Say if, Dungeoning didn’t have a limit. So you’d grind straight from 50 to 70, 90 to 105~110, 115 to 130, and dungeoning yields onward, you’d destroy the want to actually have the fields around those levels, unless you wanted to backtrack once you were done grinding.
It’s exactly what happened in LaTale, alas. The game is just basically a Maplestory clone but with some innovations that made it casual and fun to play as you just chilled with friend and junk. It had a fairly vibrant world as you ran around the places retrieving the memories of a fallen warrior. But then, the Coliseum update came out. The game had it’s instances but they were more farm based
It was an instance that let you farm and level, and what ended up happening is that the speed you’d level up in Coliseum was much faster than most of the beginning game, and so people mostly grinded there and forsake the rest of the world simply because it was faster. It took like, a good year~2 years in itself until the game was revamped in itself to nerf the leveling of Early coliseum and buff the early leveling so people would actually go into the fields to quest, but that was the issue.
The point is, with options of how you want to level, come balancing issues. Letting dungeons become unlimited would require some sort of round-about nerf to them, as it’d just straight be better as it is to field grinding for cards. I do think that the game should have options for those without damage though, make it easier for Chronolinkers and full Tanks to level up, but they’d have to adjust ratios in my opinion.
God damn it man.
You already have to backtrack as hell in this game. Either that or you’ll be grinding your ass off nonstop.
Dungeons don’t give that much Exp. It’s because they come right after a EXP reset that it feels like it. And to be fair I don’t think people would mind having more people to play with at level cap. Don’t need to make it super carebear style. They just need to tone down the dungeon Exp a bit. No biggy seriously.
Thing is. I don’t really care about “balancing issues”. That’s not my job. I am a player that loves the game but can’t play with my friends on something we love doing such as dungeons. I know that there are a lot of people that feel this way but don’t complain about it precisely because we have a portion of the playerbase that gets annoyed with the slight possibility of their non-lifeness grinding becoming easier for future players.
I agree that it needs to be tweaked. I’m not saying I want things easy, on the contrair I love challenges. I just want to not be forced to do the same thing everytime I log into the game. Sometimes I’m fine with grinding field mobs. Sometimes I want to experience various dungeons with my friends and right now ToS doesn’t even have that. Dungeons have no lore what-so-ever but they are fun to play, having to do your role and stuff. Different from field hunting which involves you killing stuff regardless of what class you are.
[quote=“PrinceMark, post:16, topic:265388”]
-snip-[/quote]
sigh misunderstood words, no time to counter or tl;dr. If you actually have a better source of the financial statements of those companies, fine, but until then, not now; because I really don’t have the time to entertain those kinds of words without backing. Money speaks, not mockery.
Maybe 6 years? An MMO’s lifespan with a set niche like that of a korean MMO that doesn’t follow the WoW formula is just a bit longer, even shorter if it did follow the WoW formula and suffered a case of generititis.
Looking at HanbitSoft’s income statements, it does bring to mind what and what is not to come. They did get some RoI from the sale of early access packs, plus the contract award from NEXON, but they definitely did not make a full RoI. I used to invest at KOSDAQ listings myself, but have since moved on from that because checking at KRX is such a hassle when there’s still a language barrier with the middleman, so I don’t know anything beyond 2009. Especially since T3 acquired them, it’s even more unpredictable (now, I also used to date someone who was inside T3 but…), I’ll take a look at the six month reports they have (if there are any).
Edit: Why is it that the first person I quote is always who the reply is directed to?! Can’t there be a neutral case when directing to multiple quotes? They really should fix that…
I disagree with your statement that games that don’t follow the WoW formula have a longer lifespan.
The WoW formula is about what worked. You can compare that to FFXIV for instance. It has the same principles and it indeed reached WoW on active subscribers last year. In other words, If you can’t innovate positively, don’t do it without the intention of changing it later.
Tera is another example of a very successful MMO, even thou it started well and declined they made it back up with a decent F2P plan and became one of the word’s most profitable MMORPG in 2014.
ToS already has a differential and a loyal playerbase. All they need to do is not bullshit their customers with poor design choices. I remember that the game was fine in my book during CBT. It had individual dungeon entry limitations, trading, and the market fees were not an insane percentage to try and “keep bots away from the game” (That didn’t work btw).
In other words, legit players are paying for IMC’s mistakes while Bots are still earning their coin, or at least trying because I hope people won’t buy Silver from them.
I said a korean MMO; which has served a different yet oddly similar demographic, and FFXIV is indeed good (the remake, anyway) which is great, but what carried it, aside from the WoW formula, was also Square Enix’s name (although the Final Fantasy brand has been falling as of late with other games from subsidiaries saving it to balance it out [between Tomb Raider and Lightning Saga FFXIII, it started great, then they milked the hell out of the latter]) if the WoW formula is indeed successful for a game, then that’s great, but there’s such a thing such as overdoing it. WoW worked because it’s one of the pioneer games…RO2 attempted to follow and well…
Following from January, so far the period peaked on…April 1, the friday after the Early Access packages were released on the same week. after that it never really did get the momentum to spike higher…but it is too soon. I guess we’ll have to wait until the end of June for a more accurate 6 month report, but I don’t know… And it’s not really accurate to compare the financial statements of a parent company to a subsidiary, especially when that parent is a subsidiary itself…
Now that I think of it…why are the closed beta periods have higher averages then kOBT and release anyway?
The design needs work, as far as I can tell, and customer service too. I won’t let my feelings be known on the matter of the missions, but I can say it’s similar to Gramps TI from iRO Renewal; take that of what any of you will.
SE has always been very generous with the way they calculate their subs. FFXIV is only a success in public opinion. (because it’s being advertised as a great success everywhere)
And that is mostly due to it being a ‘‘final fantasy game’’. If it did not have the name, the game would be dead right now.
Final fantasy + a developer that doesn’t want to have a failed MMO on their list. There is no other way for a MMO that is based heavily on WoW to survive, in my experience.
LOTRO is a good example of this. It had a great world, as it was based on Tolkien’s lore. Yet it lacked the backing that a company like Blizzard or Square Enix can give, so it failed.
Says the guy who says FFXIV 1.0 was better in every way, lmao.
Flagged for irrelevance.
That aside, could someone please bring over a more accurate report from Hanbitsoft? I can’t really work with anything from IMC due to being a limited company.
I think your data may be erroneous…
I did not see that and I can relent to working with erroneous data. Seeing as how this thread is about calculating the game’s survivability, I certainly won’t be a pretentious prig about it. I was wrong.
With this new data come to light (or old, but I never saw it), since it came from 2010…well, does anyone actually know the current financial state of IMC Games and their shares now? As far as I know being a limited company meant privacy of financial records but…
RO was a much more hardcore game which catered to a much more narrow crowd, I’d say less than 0.1% can actually say that they have experienced taking down a high end MvP on RO or has been in a guild that consistently got a castle once the meta was established and maybe 1-5% reached max level.
In ToS I’d say about 10-15% will reach max level and 1% will get to experience ET clears.
The game it self is very viable to survive, its just how long it takes them to address the issues regarding optimization and server stability. The peak is yet to come, once optimization is fixed + release of ranked guild battle, that is when the peak will come.
Fair enough; that being said, the survivability rate is at 65% making it past the third year? Given that an MMO could survive with only hundreds of players (and generous amounts of donations) the viability is indeed optimistic.
O.M.G. Please, please don’t. You’re only going to bring back that psychopath in here. Can’t you talk about oh…I don’t know, financial statements and market shares of the publisher/developer instead? Or maybe factors that increase or decrease the survivability rate? Like maybe after-sales service or advertising strategy? 
Oh fine. I can’t help it im weak to bait.
Do what I do and take it in stride (see above example). Things like those are not worth the time or anger.
lately IMC seems begin to focus on pvp balance which is one of biggest issue now.
But the process seems slow, if it still continue like this i don’t think it can survive more than 3 years
agreed with some upper review, my point is
Not much to talk about, there isn’t much.
Well thought out and constructive; an excellent post from a model forumer.
Anyway, on the topic at hand, IMC needs to set up the TP shop and start generating revenue to offset some of the net loss. Otherwise, the game will tank way earlier than 3 years if the company goes bankrupt now.
The only thing that will kill this game is the community.
-We have people that cry for everything. When you don’t like something it doesn’t mean it is bad.
-We have people that think that if you don’t roll a top korean build you can’t do anything. You can complete every quest in this game with a “suboptimal” class or complete every dungeon with people that picked 1 circle of each class.
-We have people that discriminate people for being F2P or from another country. You are not better than someone that just started to play, deal with it.
-And we have people that just want this game dead.
i guess i am doing something seriously wrong with my Fletcher, I’d have to spend money to reset my Fletcher and have you enlighten me on my build then.
you cant blame the community in marketing strategies such as releasing the game too early. In the end it will always be the company to blame.