Thrax: Where's the masses?

Back off Bozo, your breath stinks. 1500 players w/ 500 servers does not equate to "hundreds of packed 32 man servers" For gods sake use your calculator.

And I know damn well there more than "several players" on this board who played T2 at release. I was one of many. T2 sold very well because T1 was a hit, not because of any demo, review, or word of mouth about T2. The screaming started on release day, and within a month the numbers started falling. 7 (8?) patches later there was a minimal, but steady, fanbase. T2 killed Tribes, and T:V could not revive it.
 
The Pumpkin King said:
PJ, if it was such a GLORIOUS sequal that boosted the franchise. Then why did T1 players hate it? Why did they all quit playing? 16 man teams are ridiculous to have to handle.

The T1 fans hated T2. How can you say it improved the franchise?
Click to expand...

This is where you are missing the entire concept of IMPROVING a franchise. You are thinking only about what you like and not about what helps the franchise.

You improve a franchise by bringing in MORE players. Some T1 fanatics hated T2 but they were VASTLY outnumbered by the people who liked T2. The MAIN thing that matters is bringing in new players to expand the base of the franchise. For every ONE T1 player that hated T2 there were probably HUNDREDS who liked T2 that replaced them.

You improve a franchise by getting more people excited and PLAYING it. It is a fact of life that if you come out with a new version of a game in a series that you WILL lose people who do not like the changes. You can never make a new version of a game that will NOT lose players. The trick is to cause MORE people to play the game than you lose. T2 did this in a BIG way.

If you can only look at it from the perspective of a T1 Fanboy who hated T2 then you will NEVER really understand what it takes to make a SUCCESSFUL sequal to a game. You will always look at things from a screwed perception that has no real basis in reality.
 
Last edited:
No developer designs their game to appeal to a tiny community, make no mistake they actually thought t:v's game design would be popular. Even with all the horrible gameplay imbalances, the ohh so terrible crash before you even get into the game bugs, the total lack of t1 cowboy capper appeal, all the sales returns that supposedly were going on, T2 still managed to have 5k online every night. If you can't admit that the difference in gameplay played a part in achieving that number you are too biased to accurately discuss the topic. For as many T1 people who were repulsed by T2, I am sure there is in the worst case scenario an equal number of T2 people who were repulsed by T:V. The only thing that T:V did wrong was manage to alienate the other 99.9% of the gaming community who doesn't play any Tribes.
 
The Pumpkin King said:
So?
Click to expand...

Only way to continue a franchise is to bring new players into the mix. T2 might not have appealed to 75% of the Tribalwar community, but it appealed to a whole new mass of players that entered the Tribes world.

T:V on the other hand just killed everything. They tried to be new and innovative while catering to the Tribalwar crowd and missed completely. Furthermore they spent more time on appealing to people, and jazzing things up, than spending it on simple gameplay issues and competition balancing. Demos dont work, Observer features are basically worthless, Netcode is awful, Server Code and what I guess is a memory leak makes it nearly impossible to play. I havent even touched any competition level balancing issues.

New players breathe new life into a franchise - you cant hope to keep the same playerbase forever, because human nature is to be fickle, never mind people simply growing out of their gaming phaze.

I mean how many T1 Vets actively play any game, or more importantly, would play a game.
 
Last edited:
Aesop-The evil one said:
Bullshit. We all pinged the same servers. Several hundred packed 32 man servers? LOL! Not quite. The 128 man servers fell apart after several months. Period. AND they were complete lag fests.
Click to expand...

You really don't know what you are talking about. Hell, I am seriously starting to doubt your claim that you even played T2 during those times.

The ONLY people who had problems on the 128 player servers were those connecting through dialups because a dialup connection DID become overloaded or because they were trying to run the game on an underpowered computer. But those of us on DSL/Cable with decent computers didn't have any problems with lag and there were apparently quite a few people who were able to play because those servers were almost CONSTANTLY over 60 people online.

And you are completely IGNORNANT about why those servers went away. The next to the last patch to be released by what was left of the Dynamix programming staff was an Anti-Cheat patch. This patch almost DOUBLED the amount of bandwidth the servers used. This one single FACT caused all of the high player count servers to shut down almost overnight. None of them had a connection that could handle the virtually doubled bandwith requirements.

Maybe if you actually KNEW anything about the history of Tribes 2 you might be a credible person but as it stands your ignorance is making you look seriously stupid.
 
The Pumpkin King said:
You people arguing player counts are missing the point entirely.
Click to expand...

No we aren't.

Player counts are the LIFE BLOOD of any online game. Without the player counts a game or franchise will be abandoned by the developer. You can go on all you want about competition but competition does not bring in the player counts you think it does. There hasn't been a popular FPS game with high player counts that the competition players ever made a difference in how popular the game was. The fact of the matter is the competition players depend heavily on the player counts. Low player counts competition withers and dies. With high player counts competition becomes viable.

Without high player counts a game is DEAD.

It doesn't matter how many fanatic competition players there might be because in the overall scheme of things they mean nothing while the total number of people playing means everything.
 
Last edited:
Also, if I play CS, CS:Source, BF1942, UT2K4, I can always go into a 32 person server and atleast 3 people will say they played and loved Tribes 2 (in a lot of CS servers, it's more like 8-10 players). Go and do the math, that's a lot of players that loved Tribes 2.
 
Aesop-The evil one said:
Back off Bozo, your breath stinks. 1500 players w/ 500 servers does not equate to "hundreds of packed 32 man servers" For gods sake use your calculator.

And I know damn well there more than "several players" on this board who played T2 at release. I was one of many. T2 sold very well because T1 was a hit, not because of any demo, review, or word of mouth about T2. The screaming started on release day, and within a month the numbers started falling. 7 (8?) patches later there was a minimal, but steady, fanbase. T2 killed Tribes, and T:V could not revive it.
Click to expand...

Then where did those 1500-5000 players that everyone seems to talking about being on-line durning the peek of T2 play? They must have all been on those hundreds of 7 man servers .. right?

No .. they were playing on those packed 32 man servers and playing on those several hundred other servers just like them. You might have been ignorent to other servers you didn't play on, but they were out there in droves ...

Don't think it's my shitty breath your smelling .. I think it might be your own bullshit creeping back up on ya ... as several others have pointed out ...
 
Last edited:
But even T1 vets that have given T2C a try, really enjoy it, and it brings back the feeling we had when playing T1. I enjoyed T2 release, but it only kept my attention for a few months, but when Classic came out, I felt like I was playing T1 again and I have not put it down ever since.
 
Oh PJ you are sooooo correct.......not. You are wrong again. The 128's were a lag fest. PERIOD. Dial up or Cable modem. Could it be you just don't know the difference between lag and normal gameplay?

As for player counts.....I agree with you.

Lets have an example we can all relate to. Halo was a good game. Therefore it spawned a sequel, Halo2. It has sold more games than any other. Why? Because Halo1 was a good game, tons of people played it, and it was highly anticipated that Halo2 would be that and more. Now if most of the people who installed Halo2 and were disappointed or pissed off, you would still have a small, but respectable player base....for awhile.

Now release Halo3. It does poorly in sales. You blame Halo3, and I blame Halo2.

It is hard to refute the logic in this scenario.

T:V should have sold a gazillion copies if T2 was so great, we would have thousands of pissed off gamers on this website instead of 15. T:V did not sell well because no one was chomping at the bit to have it at any cost.

(copy this) I predict that the DOOM3 sequel will have lower sales than DOOM3.
Your own argument has destroyed your own stupid theory. T2 killed Tribes, T:V could not raise it from the dead. As for lost credibility, that is your domain, not mine.
 
Aesop-The evil one said:
Oh PJ you are sooooo correct.......not. You are wrong again. The 128's were a lag fest. PERIOD. Dial up or Cable modem. Could it be you just don't know the difference between lag and normal gameplay?

As for player counts.....I agree with you.

Lets have an example we can all relate to. Halo was a good game. Therefore it spawned a sequel, Halo2. It has sold more games than any other. Why? Because Halo1 was a good game, tons of people played it, and it was highly anticipated that Halo2 would be that and more. Now if most of the people who installed Halo2 and were disappointed or pissed off, you would still have a small, but respectable player base....for awhile.

Now release Halo3. It does poorly in sales. You blame Halo3, and I blame Halo2.

It is hard to refute the logic in this scenario.

T:V should have sold a gazillion copies if T2 was so great, we would have thousands of pissed off gamers on this website instead of 15. T:V did not sell well because no one was chomping at the bit to have it at any cost.

(copy this) I predict that the DOOM3 sequel will have lower sales than DOOM3.
Your own argument has destroyed your own stupid theory. T2 killed Tribes, T:V could not raise it from the dead. As for lost credibility, that is your domain, not mine.
Click to expand...


First off . .. Thrax you're an idiot. You don't install Halo 2. Yeah, I know, it's besides the point, but the fact you used this wording just shows me that you talk about things you have no idea about.

Now.

As for why T:V didn't sell well. I think only like 40 to 60% of this community bought T:V, and then of that number, only 40 to 60% were happy with it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If T:V was a good sequal, you would have seen a much higer percent of buyers, and then happy customers.

If most of our community didn't care for T:V, and we are the people who were supposed to buy it, then clearly the game sucks at being a Tribes game, and ontop of that, the game its self must be pretty lame looking.

If Tribes 3 ever comes out, and it is a true Tribes game, then expect it to do thousands of times better then T:V.

T:V is a poor mans Tribes. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because if it sells, then these guys at VU will think they can move in and screw up another good series with a lot of potential.
 
americanjoe said:
Then where did those 1500-5000 players that everyone seems to talking about being on-line durning the peek of T2 play?
Click to expand...

LOL!!! I know T2 broke 3000 during the first few months, hell it may have actually broke 5000. But the steady fall of player base was dramatic and consistant. It leveled out at about 800 to 1200. My filters have ALWAYS been set to player#. You are talking to yourself when you say there were "hundreds of filled 32 man servers", or you were playing a different game.

Don't get me wrong. I liked T2 as much as I like T:V. But neither is a good sequel to T1
 
I agree with Aseop.

T2 had lots of numbers because of T1 Success and Marketing.

Halo 2 sold well because of Halo 1. (I played Halo 2, once and I won't be buying Halo 3.)

I liked BF1942, BF2 looks like a continuation of that, I'm buying BF2 because of BF1942.

The worst thing the Tribes franchise did was deviate from the series roots each new game.

In the same sense, what about Halo 2? I hate it cause it's like playing Halo 1, and therfore a 3 year old game that I've been there and done that.

Game development is hard.

Unreal Tournament has done some good things. I think every series can learn a bit from them, VUG/IG should of, but didn't.

:cheers: for 15 more pages of I'm right, you're not!

;)
 
[AKA]PanamaJack said:
You will always look at things from a screwed perception that has no real basis in reality.
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow. Talk about getting nasty. Well, if it's going to be that way, then I'll have to educate you fool. Read closely.

[AKA]PanamaJack said:
For every ONE T1 player that hated T2 there were probably HUNDREDS who liked T2 that replaced them.
Click to expand...

Weren't you the one that posted that graph showing that T1 had more people playing it then T2? 100 to 1 T2 players to T1 players? Are you mental? Quit making stuff up.

[AKA]PanamaJack said:
You improve a franchise by bringing in MORE players
Click to expand...

This is correct, but you take it as an ultimatum. I would point out that if this was the only criteria for improvement, then changing the game to Online Poker, which has more players then any tribes game by far, would be a huge step in the right direction to improve the franchise. This shows that you aren't a true fan of the game if all you care about is player count. Fun Gameplay is what matters to the true fan.

An improved player count can be achieved without butchering the living crap out of the game. Look at Soul Calibur 2(I realize it isn't an online game). Look at Half life 2. Both these games managed to be huge successes without completely changing their game as you seem to think is the only method
of increasing player count. You are wrong. I could even point to Everquest expansion packs which both keep old fans playing and draw in new players at the same time.

[AKA]PanamaJack said:
You can go on all you want about competition but competition does not bring in the player counts you think it does. There hasn't been a popular FPS game with high player counts that the competition players ever made a difference in how popular the game was. The fact of the matter is the competition players depend heavily on the player counts. Low player counts competition withers and dies. With high player counts competition becomes viable.
Click to expand...

HAhahahahaahaha... You think competition doesn't matter? Wrong.
You think it doesn't impact player counts? WRONG.

I wonder why the CPL announcing it will sponser and fund competative tournaments for a game increases a game's player count ten fold?

It must be just some huge coincidence right? A huge coincidence that the second the CPL announces it's taking on the new game "Painkiller" that everyone then starts playing it as if by magic.

Or maybe your "Superior Perspective" on the issue isn't as sharp as you think?

[AKA]PanamaJack said:
Without high player counts a game is DEAD.
Click to expand...

No way really? Man, I'm going out on a limb here, but I might say you're right. If nobody's playing the game, then it just might be dead. Good observation buddy. You and me agree on this one.

You seem to think that player count matters more than anything when judging the quality of a game. By this logic, wouldn't you think that Everquest was the greatest game ever made? Cus I think that game blows. Tribes was better.
 
pocketgamer said:
T:V is a poor mans Tribes. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because if it sells, then these guys at VU will think they can move in and screw up another good series with a lot of potential.
Click to expand...


I had to change my tone.
 
Last edited:
Also PJ, if arguing the player #'s is all you have to throw at me, you'll find yourself spread a little to thin.

According to your logic. Whatever game at the top of the player counts is the best game. The game with the second most players is the 2nd best, so on and so forth.

What are you a robot?

What about Gameplay?
What about Fun?
What about control play?
What about bugs?
What about graphics?
What about the skill curve?
What about Maps?
What about replayability?
What about sound?
What about variety?
What about Customization?

Wouldn't you consider these as factors that make a game good as well? Or is my "Perspective ratardedly warped" as you say?
 
[AKA]PanamaJack said:
Do you know WHY you were able to do that in T1?

It was not because you were skiing. Actually you were not really skiing per say but jumping fast and all the time. You were making contact with the ground each time you jumped and that allowed you to change direction.

You can basically do the same thing with T:V using a script that will rapidly turn the ski button on and off. It would similute the ski scripts from T1. By rapidly switching the ski button on and off you will cause contact with the ground thereby allowing the movement keys to change your direction.

I am surprised no one has even tried to do this as I saw it months ago and do it manually, kind of like how people did skiing in T1 before scripts came out to automate it.

So T1 NEVER had so-called carving. It was just the fact you touched the ground everytime you jumped while moving forward.
Click to expand...


Soooo, can you make this script?
 
Back
Top