Quote Originally Posted by Roelon View Post
I'm not sure what your intention is with this thread. It is a known issue. To vent here is akin to pandering, and only serves to color you as one of the few that this game will benefit from -not- having around.

Consider these facts:

- Launches are historically flawed.
- - This is an "acceptable" practice in this field. Mainly because "Launch" server capacity isn't indicative of -actual- capacity (say, a few months down the road). As this is as much a business model as it is an entertainment platform, there is more of a focus on long-term server stability, as opposed to short-term stability.
- - Consider a "return-on-investment" mindset. Should we spend a relatively large sum of money on a short-term fix; only to be stuck with that overhead once the flood has receded? - Or, should we focus those resources on long-term stability, development, etc.?

These posts are similar to a child screaming, "I want it NOW!" Please, be more constructive.
This is no longer true in this day and age. GW2 implemented overflow servers, which I think was brilliant. They also had / have a working queue. The overflow servers allow you to handle the "flood" and when the flood recedes you can eliminate no longer needed hardware / overhead. The fact is, we expect launch to have hiccups, but when the service is unusable, because customers cannot log into said service... that is not acceptable!