What I'm wondering about...

[Rhywden]

... is how software companies fail and fail and fail again to get comparatively simple stuff right. Because all they'd need to do is look at the competition.

Bear with me.

By that I mean a combination of things, but mostly the UI side. For example, I'm looking at all tasks which could be streamlined to some kind of default action with optional advanced selections.

Take the Chocobo Porter stuff. When I select those guys, I'm presented with a menu with two options: Hire a porter or tell me stuff about those porters. Only upon selecting the first option I can finally choose the destination. And in 99% of all cases I only select the first option.
So why have the options at all? Default directly to the destination selection screen when you visit a porter for the _second_ time and stuff the question at the bottom of the list (if it is really needed at that point).
Doesn't make the game any more difficult or easy but gets rid of one click you don't really need to make.

More serious: The way they're handling errors. That's where they're really bad at.

One big error: Presenting information about server status only _after_ you've already tried to log in. Not to mention this _idiotic_ way of simply throwing you back to the main screen.

Why is this idiotic? Because it screws them over even more. Think about it: Whenever you try to log in, you try to establish a connection, then some info is transmitted and after that, the connection goes through a teardown. Computationally, that's expensive.
A real _queue_ server (cluster, if needed) would give you information _in advance_ whether you should try to login or not (and also give meaningful feedback, not simply disable the "start" button, by the way). If you then choose to login, you'll be placed in a queue, regardless of the number of people in front of you. And after your number has come up, you'll be _handed off_ to your real server cluster.

Now, if you think that this solution would put more of a strain on them, consider this: You have a client in a queue and can _control_ what this client does, namely, tell the program: "Hey, we're full, you're #300, at the rate we're going it looks like 10 more minutes, ask me for a status update in 60 seconds." That does not need much bandwidth.

Contrast this with Client connects => Client hammers the server => Client gets disconnected => Client connects => ... in a nice 5 second cycle.

To summarize: The problems currently are made worse by questionable UI decisions ("Click the OK button to continue" => Why even have the OK button in the first place? Continue immediately and present the info seamlessly on the screen, there's enough space...) and by not giving enough information about server status and capacity _beforehand_.

[Rudrastic]

Or you know, having an AFK timeout so your servers aren't plagued with idle people afraid to log out because they won't be able to get back in because the server is full of people who are idling because they don't want to log out because they won't be able to get back in because the server is

you get the point.

[Rhywden]

Well, that particular can of worms I didn't want to get into

[BaconMage]

Yeah that whole higher a porter thing was really pissing me off too, that and using the elevator system in Limsa. "Are you sure you want to go here?" Well I clicked there so I'm fairly certain I do and if not I'll just take another elevator, STOP ASKING ME TO COMFIRM MY DECISIONS!!

[edgefu]

Are you sure you want us to stop asking you to confirm your decisions?

[Rhywden]

Are you sure you want us to stop asking you to confirm your decisions?

Heh

Seriously, though, if the resulting action is non-destructive you don't really need a confirm-cancel-dialogue.

[BaconMage]

Are you sure you want us to stop asking you to confirm your decisions?

LOL yes. Also though how about a in game system message letting us know when servers are going to come down in 15 or 5 minutes, instead of just disconnecting everyone, leaving thousands of players going WTF?!

[Elix]

The saddest thing about this situation is that their original launch of the game was complete and utter failure to the point that they had to shut down the game months later.

I doubt the team that launched the game was in charge of this launch BUT the new team must have documentation of why the first launch failed and brainstormed solutions.

This is where they've repeated the same mistakes, a lot of these errors occurred in the original launch, so unfortunately whatever team/department is in charge of this release didn't learn from their first mistake.

I completely appreciate them extending early access and giving us a variety of solutions to errors they make seem are on our end but in reality they're responsible for. I also can't stand there being a constant problem and them not acknowledging it.

I will still play this game because compared to the first, the game play and redesign is awesome but unfortunately not everyone shares the patience I do so on the long run I see a HUGE drop of players after the first month and possibly even legal drama on their end no matter what the Terms of Use specify.

[BaconMage]

I'm only playing until Elder Scrolls Online comes out, then its no more Realm Reborn.

[Rhywden]

I'll probably be giving EQ Next a hard look. I also don't recall Sony having such massive problems during their EQ2 launch