Originally posted by MX13 1) 90% of this HUGE game is designed for small groups or Solo play. 2) There is PLENTY of soloing. This has been discussed in several Beta Reviews. 3) It's a MULTIPLAYER game... it amazes me that some people want to play a MMO alone... It SHOULD be designed for groups of 2-4, that's the average size group I've played with in MMO's... 4) It's a complete waste of resources to redesign Hundreds of things to make a non-raid server, when a VAST majority of content is non-raid. 5) VANGUAD IS NOT A RAID GAME. Raiding is one of only a few things you can do in Vanguard, and you can get equally good items without raiding.
For #4 if a VAST majority of content is non-raid wouldn't it be trivial or close to trivial to make it completely non-raid?
No, it's not even close to trivial. This game has been in the Dev cycle for 5+ years. Let's say 10% of the game is dedicated to raiding. Based on the total number of quests & areas, that would be HUNDREDS for areas that would need to be redesigned, if not thousands. What would that do to the Dev cycle & release date? What about testing?
If this game was a cookie cutter "insert quest here" model it would be easy, but it involves FAR more then text & quest NPC's...
Also, it simply makes more sense to include a variety of content types, rather then fewer becuase some don't like them. Most don't like crafting either, does than mean it should be removed? Or should Dip be removed? How about removing player housing, player cities or ships... only about 50% of poeple will use those, and most find them unnesessary. Just because everyone doesn't like a piece of the content, it's doesn't mean it shouldn't be included.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
Originally posted by MX13 Oh, and... I encourage ALL to read this section if you are concerned about raiding, but for those who what summary answers, here are a few points this FAQ section makes. There is a LOT more information in the actual FAQ section.Will the best loot come only from raids?Aradune Mithara: No. ... ...In a nutshell, we want the best items to be available through a variety of routes: raids, long contiguous adventures, broken up adventures, trade skills, diplomacy, etc. ... (please read the entire section for the complete answer)
Could you be more clear? Please elaborate.
Aradune Mithara: What's key here is that the best items should come from experiences where there was the greatest risk vs. reward and time commitment (plus, there's always luck -- being in the right place at the right time, etc.).
Some of the best items will come from conventional raiding (large groups of people participating in long contiguous adventures). Some will come from long adventures consisting of less people and more importantly, while a lot of time will have to be invested, the content will be such that all of that time doesn't have to be contiguous. ... (please read the entire section for the complete answer)
Please explain further that doesnt necessarily seem consistent.
Aradune Mithara: I think I was consistent, although perhaps not as clear as they could have been. Some of the best items will only be obtainable via raiding, other best items through grouping, and others through special casual areas, and others through the other spheres (harvesting/crafting and diplomacy).
Let me try to come up with a quick hypothetical example -- it's simplistic, but perhaps will make more sense:
1. The best all around helmet (say non-situational -- it has the best AC, or the best +STR attribute) for a warrior may come from a high level group zone
2. The best fire resistant vambraces may come from a raid zone
3. The best light armor boots may come from a challenging encounter that is made for casual/solo size groups (1-3).
4. The best AC armor (call it the Red Dragonscale Breastplate) may come from dragon scales collected in a difficult group dungeon, but then also require a high level harvester to actually collect the scales in the depths of a the dragon's lair, and then a high level crafter to be able to use it and other components to actually create the Red Dragonscale Breastplate
Were a person to absolutely insist on obtaining all 4 of these hypothetical items above, he would have to either a. engage in all 4 activities to some significant extent, as well as work with others in most of the examples or b. buy/trade for them, assuming they are items that are tradable.
Ok. Here is my core problem with vanguard advocates who say raiding isn't problem for non-raiders who want equal progression.
in the above quote Evil Vision Lord Brad clearly states:
2. The best fire resistant vambraces may come from a raid zone
Now in a previous reply MX13 states definitively that there will almost always be similar gear availalbe in grouping /solo instances.
Yes, Brad has said that Vanguard will not follow the WoW model of bigger is ALWAYS better. But it seems pretty clear that he has said certain top tier items will be exclusive to certain places. Some group/solo, some raid.
I do not understand how MX13 can say that someone who only groups will have roughly equivalent gear when they will not get the best fire resisitance vambraces etc. Similarly someone who only raided will be lacking whatever best items come from group isntances.
Brad is very clear that if you do not participate in ALL playstyles, including crafting, you will miss out on some optimal items.
Clearly someone who does not raid will never have an optimal gear set. Given the Brad quote above is true, this must be true correct?
Originally posted by Neanderthal Originally posted by z80paranoiaIf you read the LoTRO site and the boards it basically says that while raids will be in LoTRO it won't be forced. Raiding will only be an option and not the bottleneck that prevents character advancement like in a more raid-centric game.
Uh huh. And now you sound just like the Vanguard fans.
That was my intent. I sound like them because I'm also a Vanguard fan just to a slightly lesser extent. I'm definitely a Brad fan. And the intelligent Vanguard fans like MX13, make sense and I am happy to be compared to the likes of them.
I've heard the same thing from fans of Vangaurd and fans of AoC and now I'm hearing it from a LotRO fan.
My "heritage" (fandom) has no bearing on the validity of my information. The mere fact that you've heard others say similar about other games does not automatically discredit my info.
Edit: I just wanted to add that AoC will be so awesome that I will gladly raid every night on it. AoC will chain your soul because it will be just that uncomparibly awesome.
Tell me something...if raiding does not result in better rewards then what will motivate raiders to do raids? If you can come up with a good explanation for that I would be amazed.
My ability or inability to come up with a good explaination for you has no bearing on the validity of my information. Besides a "good" explaination is subjective to the audience.
Don't tell me that people will go on raids just for the hell of it. If people can get equal rewards without raiding then how do the devs intend to motivate people to do raids?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from. It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before.
See, if they are putting raids in the game (and they are) they obviously want people to do it. So what will the motivation be?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from. It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before. It is possible to make the raids not boring.The simple fact of life is that people won't do raids unless raiding results in the best rewards. That's just the way it is. That is why the raiding playstyle and non-raiding playstlye cannot co-exist peacefully in the same game. If non-raiding results in equal rewards it kills raiding. And for raiding to result in the best rewards then non-raiding progression has to STOP at some point (otherwise the rewards would catch up to raid rewards)....so raiding kills non-raiding.Those are not facts. Those are just opinions based on past experiences with games that forced raiding. I would be fascinated to hear how the LotRO devs plan to work around this. How can they motivate people to do raids if people can get the same rewards with the same time investment without having to do raids.Ask their devs on their boards. They are quite friendly and interact frequently with their community. Otherwise you are just asking retorical questions and you are probably not all that interested in getting the real answers. here's a quote from a LoTRO dev...
"Unique refers to the only place you can get said sword, armor, etc. We use comparable to say that while you may not be able to get the exact +400 uber sword of death that you can get in a Raid, you might get a +410 uber sword of smiting. And yes, crafters should be able to make some darn cool stuff..."
While items in LoTRO raids will be "unique" their power lvl won't be raid exclusive as per the quote. You may feel that this is bad design but it is what they are doing nontheless.
And hey, if playing a mmo where raid gear is equal to fellowship gear turns you or anyone else off....guess what?
Lord Of The Rings Online is not for you! go support a game that is more to your liking because you will hate LoTRO. I'm sure you've heard that before too.
Ok. Here is my core problem with vanguard advocates who say raiding isn't problem for non-raiders who want equal progression.
in the above quote Evil Vision Lord Brad clearly states:
2. The best fire resistant vambraces may come from a raid zone
Now in a previous reply MX13 states definitively that there will almost always be similar gear availalbe in grouping /solo instances.
Yes, Brad has said that Vanguard will not follow the WoW model of bigger is ALWAYS better. But it seems pretty clear that he has said certain top tier items will be exclusive to certain places. Some group/solo, some raid.
I do not understand how MX13 can say that someone who only groups will have roughly equivalent gear when they will not get the best fire resisitance vambraces etc. Similarly someone who only raided will be lacking whatever best items come from group isntances.
Brad is very clear that if you do not participate in ALL playstyles, including crafting, you will miss out on some optimal items.
Clearly someone who does not raid will never have an optimal gear set. Given the Brad quote above is true, this must be true correct?
Are you KIDDING me??? Wow... just wow... so you're actually saying that if you don't have all of the best gear period, there's no point in playing, even though there will be bracers with resistances you may want more somewhere else... You're making up a problem that may not even exist. Brad just said for EVERYONE to read that the effect of not raiding in VSoH is at best that you'll have to get another set of bracers, not the "fire" ones... just come on...
First off, read this part again...
Were a person to absolutely insist on obtaining all 4 of these hypothetical items above, he would have to either a. engage in all 4 activities to some significant extent, as well as work with others in most of the examples or b. buy/trade for them, assuming they are items that are tradable
You get that? You may very well be able to trade for or buy them. Oh, the world is so cruel... I want it NOW!!!!
Second, it DOESN'T effect your progression. Progression & gear are seperate things.
Third, to gain all this gear WOULD NOT happen for 99.999% or players, not including the raid gear, even though what is best is different for almost every player. In fact, the crafting / harvesting gear will be MUCH more rare, and have a MUCH larger impact.
Fourth, they've said repeatedly that what some gear may be the best in one way, but not another, so there is no "optimal" set of gear for anyone. There are MANY other factors for what is actually best for each player.
Fifth, asking your guild to help do a raid ONCE for ONE item is actually fun.
Sixth, stats are capped, so a casters "fire resistant" spell can get you just as much resistance in a different way. You know, that you can get the best stats through various ways.
Seventh, people should NOT all have the best gear, period. If you don't want to do ONE raid to get soemthing, then you shouldn't have it. I don't raid and I believe this.
Eighth, THAT WON'T BE THE ONLY WAY TO GET THAT RESISTANCE. Those are the bracers with the highest Fire-resistance. There may verywell be 10 other items, some with higher resistances, those are just bracers. There are DOZENS of slots on players.
Ninth, if you don't raid to get them thats your problem. Raiding is ONE part of a huge game. It's CONTENT. If you don't want to participate, that's your CHOICE.
Tenth, does this mean that raiders should complain that they CAN'T get the other items form raiding?
Last, I'll leave you with this. Brad said you may be able to get that gear by trading or buying it, so I'll tell you what: Before you start complaining about something you have no idea will even BE an issue, why don't you WAIT for the problem to acutally arise, instead of making up problems just to complain about one tiny thing that probably wouldn't even be noticed IF it actually ever was a problem...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
Ok. Here is my core problem with vanguard advocates who say raiding isn't problem for non-raiders who want equal progression.
in the above quote Evil Vision Lord Brad clearly states:
2. The best fire resistant vambraces may come from a raid zone
Now in a previous reply MX13 states definitively that there will almost always be similar gear availalbe in grouping /solo instances.
Yes, Brad has said that Vanguard will not follow the WoW model of bigger is ALWAYS better. But it seems pretty clear that he has said certain top tier items will be exclusive to certain places. Some group/solo, some raid.
I do not understand how MX13 can say that someone who only groups will have roughly equivalent gear when they will not get the best fire resisitance vambraces etc. Similarly someone who only raided will be lacking whatever best items come from group isntances.
Brad is very clear that if you do not participate in ALL playstyles, including crafting, you will miss out on some optimal items.
Clearly someone who does not raid will never have an optimal gear set. Given the Brad quote above is true, this must be true correct?
Are you KIDDING me??? Wow... just wow... so you're actually saying that if you don't have all of the best gear period, there's no point in playing, even though there will be bracers with resistances you may want more somewhere else... You're making up a problem that may not even exist. Brad just said for EVERYONE to read that the effect of not raiding in VSoH is at best that you'll have to get another set of bracers, not the "fire" ones... just come on...
First off, read this part again...
Were a person to absolutely insist on obtaining all 4 of these hypothetical items above, he would have to either a. engage in all 4 activities to some significant extent, as well as work with others in most of the examples or b. buy/trade for them, assuming they are items that are tradable
You get that? You may very well be able to trade for or buy them. Oh, the world is so cruel... I want it NOW!!!!
Second, it DOESN'T effect your progression. Progression & gear are seperate things.
Third, to gain all this gear WOULD NOT happen for 99.999% or players, not including the raid gear, even though what is best is different for almost every player. In fact, the crafting / harvesting gear will be MUCH more rare, and have a MUCH larger impact.
Fourth, they've said repeatedly that what some gear may be the best in one way, but not another, so there is no "optimal" set of gear for anyone. There are MANY other factors for what is actually best for each player.
Fifth, asking your guild to help do a raid ONCE for ONE item is actually fun.
Sixth, stats are capped, so a casters "fire resistant" spell can get you just as much resistance in a different way. You know, that you can get the best stats through various ways.
Seventh, people should NOT all have the best gear, period. If you don't want to do ONE raid to get soemthing, then you shouldn't have it. I don't raid and I believe this.
Eighth, THAT WON'T BE THE ONLY WAY TO GET THAT RESISTANCE. Those are the bracers with the highest Fire-resistance. There may verywell be 10 other items, some with higher resistances, those are just bracers. There are DOZENS of slots on players.
Ninth, if you don't raid to get them thats your problem. Raiding is ONE part of a huge game. It's CONTENT. If you don't want to participate, that's your CHOICE.
Tenth, does this mean that raiders should complain that they CAN'T get the other items form raiding?
Last, I'll leave you with this. Brad said you may be able to get that gear by trading or buying it, so I'll tell you what: Before you start complaining about something you have no idea will even BE an issue, why don't you WAIT for the problem to acutally arise, instead of making up problems just to complain about one tiny thing that probably wouldn't even be noticed IF it actually ever was a problem...
No, I clearly never said if you can't get all the best gear there is no point in playing. At least not in this quoted post. I simply said I do not see how you can say people will be able to get comparable gear through grouping. Which you have now admitted is not possible.
However you have said it may be possible to be functionally equivalent through other means.
As for optimal sets, I never specified that the gear set was worn all at once. As with many other MMOs most people have a collection of many pieces for different roles. For example in WoW most raiders collect all sorts of resisitance sets used in different raid instances, ie. fire for Molten Core and nature of Ahn Qiraj.
It seems most likely to me that certain items will be the optimal piece in a particular slot for a paricular purpose, while certain slots/purposes may have some leeway with a few different options for a particular purpose.
The stat caps sound interesting, but I seriously doubt you can just cap them all. It is almost certainly the case that it will only ever be possible to to cap some subset of stats. Even if I can max my fire resisitance without raid gear and only grouping gear, it will almost certainly be the case that the raider&group equipped person will have higher stats in other things in addition to capped fire resisitance. The more optimal stat items you have the more you can buff up the non capped stats. The exact configuration will of course depend on what you are doing. Since it will almost certainly be imposssible to ever completely max all stats, and probably even half your stats, it is always at least somewhat advantageous to have as many optimal stat items as possible.
There is no functional equivalence between raiders and non-raiders. Unless all items are tradeable. That has its own problems, but theoretically everyone would be equivalent, since anyone could have any item. I would argue that when you get down to the practical it never turns out that way.
As for whether or not someone should or should not be penalized for not raiding. That is not the purpose of my post. It was merely asking how non-raiders could possibly be equivalent to raiders given the statements from BMQ.
I do not see how you can say gear is not a part of progression. It is a significant part of the power of your character and is obtained in a steadily increasing manner almost exactly analogous to levels (and may even be directly linked to levels). The only real difference is the mechanism to get them. XP is generic and obtained in a predictable manner. Items are individual rewards and are given in a sometimes predictable but often random manner. Certainly a tanker in level 10 gear will not be able to run a level 55 dungeon, no matter what his level. Both affect your overall effectiveness and your overall effectiveness determines your ability to get to the next tier of level and/or items.
At the very least you should be able to admit that the item set of someone who does not raid will not be functionally equivalent to someone who raids and groups. And that the raid&group item set will be at least slightly more effective. Even with item caps etc this must still be the case, because if caps are too easy to max then people won't be motivated to get the stuff and items sets will becomee trivial. Whether you think this is the way it should be or that the difference will be very small or negligible or that trade will equalize things out or whatever else. I think you must at least admit that the two item sets that would be available will not be functionally equivalent.
Having the best fire resistant vambraces means that your total stats are higher than someone who doesn't have them (assuming you need fire resisitance for whereever you are going), and therefore have more leeway. Perhops you can forego the FR buff that the person without them needs and can now use the parry buff instead. Or whatever else. Perhaps the best Frost resistance vambraces are in a grouping drop. Perhaps in that case the non-raider and raider are equivlaent against frost encounters. But either way, when you need your fire set the raider has some slight advantage.
You also asked if the raid-only people should complain like the non-raid people do. While that is not what my post was asking and I did specifically say that a raid-only person is in the same boat as a non-raider. Well actually their boat would be even worse numbers wise. So if there are any people who only want to raid, then sure I guess they should complain if that bugs them. I really doubt there are very many people who only raid, although I have occasionally seen some people claim such a thing. I personally think itemization rewards in MMOs like Vanguard/WoW/EQ should be similar to XP and should be not based on playstyle in any manner.
I don't really care, because my only point in this post was that there is not functional equivalence. Not that there should or should not be functional equivalence. I may have argued that in other posts in other threads. But I do not wish to argue that here as I am very very tired of such things. I am merely saying I cannot accept claims that there is functional equivalence between non-raiders and raid&groupers in Vanguard because there are basic statements by BMQ that do not support that.
Originally posted by z80paranoia If you read the LoTRO site and the boards it basically says that while raids will be in LoTRO it won't be forced. Raiding will only be an option and not the bottleneck that prevents character advancement like in a more raid-centric game.
Uh huh. And now you sound just like the Vanguard fans.
That was my intent. I sound like them because I'm also a Vanguard fan just to a slightly lesser extent. I'm definitely a Brad fan. And the intelligent Vanguard fans like MX13, make sense and I am happy to be compared to the likes of them.
Not much to respond to here. I could get all huffy because you offhandedly implied that I am not intelligent, but why bother. Anyone with any brains can figure out that a game with raiding WILL favor raiders (see I can imply things too).
I've heard the same thing from fans of Vangaurd and fans of AoC and now I'm hearing it from a LotRO fan.
My "heritage" (fandom) has no bearing on the validity of my information. The mere fact that you've heard others say similar about other games does not automatically discredit my info.
No...it doesn't automatically discredit your info. But it also does not automatically validate it. My point is; why should I believe you and not them? Why...just because it's YOU who is telling me this?
Tell me something...if raiding does not result in better rewards then what will motivate raiders to do raids? If you can come up with a good explanation for that I would be amazed.
My ability or inability to come up with a good explaination for you has no bearing on the validity of my information. Besides a "good" explaination is subjective to the audience.
Oh, but your ability to explain your claims very much does have a bearing on their validity. For example: if you wanted to convince me that Christmas presents really do come from Santa Claus you would have to give me a pretty solid explanation of how he gets to every house all in one night.
You are telling me to believe you just because you tell me to believe you. Well sorry, I don't much go in for the blind faith thing. Back up your claims with rational, logical reasoning or don't expect me to believe you.
Don't tell me that people will go on raids just for the hell of it. If people can get equal rewards without raiding then how do the devs intend to motivate people to do raids?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from.
I'm asking you. You're the one who came here talking about it so I'm asking you.
It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before.
This has no bearing on my question. I didn't ask you what the raids would be like.
See, if they are putting raids in the game (and they are) they obviously want people to do it. So what will the motivation be?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from.
You're here, I'm asking you. Are you incapable of even trying to think for yourself about this? Speak hypothetically if nothing else. How do you think they might motivate people to do raids other than putting the best rewards in raiding.
It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before. It is possible to make the raids not boring.
I didn't ask if raids would be boring or not.
The simple fact of life is that people won't do raids unless raiding results in the best rewards. That's just the way it is. That is why the raiding playstyle and non-raiding playstlye cannot co-exist peacefully in the same game. If non-raiding results in equal rewards it kills raiding. And for raiding to result in the best rewards then non-raiding progression has to STOP at some point (otherwise the rewards would catch up to raid rewards)....so raiding kills non-raiding.
Those are not facts. Those are just opinions based on past experiences with games that forced raiding.
Those facts have indeed been demonstrated in previous games. It not only makes logical sense but there is observable evidence for it. Which, I must say, is more than you have offered so far. So far all you've done is tell people to believe you because you say so.
I would be fascinated to hear how the LotRO devs plan to work around this. How can they motivate people to do raids if people can get the same rewards with the same time investment without having to do raids.
Ask their devs on their boards.
I'm talking to you so I'm asking you.
They are quite friendly and interact frequently with their community.
This irrelevant to my question.
Otherwise you are just asking retorical questions and you are probably not all that interested in getting the real answers.
I would love to get a real answer but from what I've seen so far I very much doubt that I will get one.
here's a quote from a LoTRO dev...
"Unique refers to the only place you can get said sword, armor, etc. We use comparable to say that while you may not be able to get the exact +400 uber sword of death that you can get in a Raid, you might get a +410 uber sword of smiting. And yes, crafters should be able to make some darn cool stuff..."
None of this means a goddamned thing. What's the difference between a "sword of death" and a "sword of smiting"? What does "darn cool" mean?
While items in LoTRO raids will be "unique" their power lvl won't be raid exclusive as per the quote.
Sounds nice...except that the quote doesn't actually say a damn thing about the relative power levels of raid and non-raid items.
You may feel that this is bad design but it is what they are doing nontheless.
Prove it. Or at least try to back up your arguments with a little logic.
And hey, if playing a mmo where raid gear is equal to fellowship gear turns you or anyone else off....guess what?
Ok, I'll take a guess.......Mmmmmmm, my guess is that no such game exists. Do I get a cookie for being right? Because I am right you know. Why am I right, you ask? I'll take a page from your book and tell you that I'm right just because I say so. So there!
Lord Of The Rings Online is not for you! go support a game that is more to your liking because you will hate LoTRO. I'm sure you've heard that before too.
Oh yeah, I've heard that sort of thing before. Funny thing is, I'm not even on a LotRO message board right now. I hang around here poking Vanguard with a stick and some LotR guy comes in and tells me go away and stop bothering LotRO. Shouldn't you leave the "go away" stuff to the Vanguard fans when we're on a Vanguard board?
Originally posted by z80paranoia Some of us have expressed interest in a non-raiding server. I was one of those people. I would love to see one in Vanguard. But honestly, it's far better to actually support a game that is being made from the ground up to support our playstyle. Why? Because then there will be no need for alternative rule servers and we will have more like-minded people to play the game with. Why? Because the main, and therefore, most populated servers will support our playstyle by default.
If you really want to show Vanguard how popular a game that was similar but didn't force raiding would be then start supporting a game that does just that. Support an mmo that does not deny one the ability to progress in small groups or solo. Support a game that doesn't implicitly regard groupers as second-class citizens. That game is The Lord Of The Rings Online. This game is for us. Sure, their classes are few and the armor looks kind of boring (compared to the flamboyant WoW and Guildwars armors) but other than that, it's right up our alley.
When people read about how we want to be as decked out as a soloer or grouper as a raider, the typical reply is "If you want to have group and solo epics, Vanguard is not for you". Those people are absolutely correct. Don't even bother trying to argue it. They are wrong sometimes when they sometimes say that soloers and groupers want "free epics". Something you worked hard for whether solo or in a group is not "free". Such statements presuppose that dezens if not hundreds of hours of raiding a single dungeon is the only possible valid form of "currency" for epic gear. That also presupposes that the work of a single individual or party is inherently inferior. That's all elitist garbage. Nevertheless, if the devs back them by supporting their playstyle the most, then that game is just not for us.
This post was not made to bash Vanguard. It will be a good game for those who agree with that style of advancement. I'm only saying that instead of complaining or petitioning and polling for changes that go against the developers intentions, support a different game. Other people have said this but I decided to dedicate an entire topic to it in my own words. Please try to understand it before flaming. This post was made to give those of us who hate raiding something to consider.
ryzom seems like something you may like, 9 man groups are all that you really need in that game.
No, I clearly never said if you can't get all the best gear there is no point in playing. At least not in this quoted post. I simply said I do not see how you can say people will be able to get comparable gear through grouping. Which you have now admitted is not possible. No, I haven't, and stop making stuff up. I clearly pointed out your theory is pointless, since there is no "best gear". You may need to raid to get gear that ALL has the highest fire resistance, but if you did so you would cap well for the raid item, and there are MANY other options that are equal or better in various ways.
However you have said it may be possible to be functionally equivalent through other means.
As for whether or not someone should or should not be penalized for not raiding. That is not the purpose of my post. It was merely asking how non-raiders could possibly be equivalent to raiders given the statements from BMQ. And I pointed out that they not only could be equal, they could possibly exceed, depending on thier view of what they want in equipment, which is something you are ignoring.
I do not see how you can say gear is not a part of progression. Gear is, elite gear IS NOT, which is what you were refering to.
At the very least you should be able to admit that the item set of someone who does not raid will not be functionally equivalent to someone who raids and groups. It can EXCEED it, you just don't want to admit it.
Having the best fire resistant vambraces means that your total stats are higher than someone who doesn't have them (assuming you need fire resisitance for whereever you are going), and therefore have more leeway. Perhops you can forego the FR buff that the person without them needs and can now use the parry buff instead. Or whatever else. Perhaps the best Frost resistance vambraces are in a grouping drop. Perhaps in that case the non-raider and raider are equivlaent against frost encounters. But either way, when you need your fire set the raider has some slight advantage. You're missing the main point in gear: Sure, maybe you can't have the fire resistant bracers, but you CAN have the cold resistant bracers that may havehigher cold resist than fire resist, which may be called BETTER gear. This is not a game where there are 3 sets of highend bracers, this is a game with HUNDREDS of DIFFERENT highend bracers. That is not an overestimation. Only 20% of those are available by raids, which makes the remaining 80% available to you.
I don't really care, because my only point in this post was that there is not functional equivalence. Yes there is, you just won't admit it.
I'm sorry, but at this point you're whining that you can't have high-end bracers #45 IF they are not tradeable, IF they are the best for your gear, IF they offer stats that aid you, IF your class can wear them, IF your race can wear them, IF you decide the other #300+ high-end bracers don't suit your needs any better, and the whole time you MAY be able to get them anyway... come on...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
Originally posted by Neanderthal Originally posted by z80paranoia Originally posted by Neanderthal Originally posted by z80paranoiaIf you read the LoTRO site and the boards it basically says that while raids will be in LoTRO it won't be forced. Raiding will only be an option and not the bottleneck that prevents character advancement like in a more raid-centric game.
Uh huh. And now you sound just like the Vanguard fans.
That was my intent. I sound like them because I'm also a Vanguard fan just to a slightly lesser extent. I'm definitely a Brad fan. And the intelligent Vanguard fans like MX13, make sense and I am happy to be compared to the likes of them.
Not much to respond to here. I could get all huffy because you offhandedly implied that I am not intelligent, but why bother. Anyone with any brains can figure out that a game with raiding WILL favor raiders (see I can imply things too).
I didn't imply you were not intellignet but if you wish to take it as such I won't attempt to stop you. Saying one person is smart is not tantamount to calling someone ellse unintelligent. Nice try though.
I've heard the same thing from fans of Vangaurd and fans of AoC and now I'm hearing it from a LotRO fan.
My "heritage" (fandom) has no bearing on the validity of my information. The mere fact that you've heard others say similar about other games does not automatically discredit my info.
No...it doesn't automatically discredit your info. But it also does not automatically validate it. My point is; why should I believe you and not them? Why...just because it's YOU who is telling me this?
I didn't ask you to believe me. But perhaps you can read the actual quotes from the devs I posted and judge them and even examine the sources of the information (which I didn't invent) and judge it on it's own merit rather than judge me.
Tell me something...if raiding does not result in better rewards then what will motivate raiders to do raids? If you can come up with a good explanation for that I would be amazed.
My ability or inability to come up with a good explaination for you has no bearing on the validity of my information. Besides a "good" explaination is subjective to the audience.
Oh, but your ability to explain your claims very much does have a bearing on their validity. For example: if you wanted to convince me that Christmas presents really do come from Santa Claus you would have to give me a pretty solid explanation of how he gets to every house all in one night.
You are telling me to believe you just because you tell me to believe you. Well sorry, I don't much go in for the blind faith thing. Back up your claims with rational, logical reasoning or don't expect me to believe you.
I didn't ask you to believe me. But perhaps you can read the actual quotes from the devs I posted and judge them and even examine the sources of the information (which I didn't invent) and judge it on it's own merit rather than judge me.
Don't tell me that people will go on raids just for the hell of it. If people can get equal rewards without raiding then how do the devs intend to motivate people to do raids?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from.
I'm asking you. You're the one who came here talking about it so I'm asking you.
It is a logical fallacy to ask me to give you the contents of another individuals mind. I'm a reader, not a mind reader.
It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before.
This has no bearing on my question. I didn't ask you what the raids would be like.
You cannot explain a motivation to do something without at least to some small extent explaining what an experience would be like. Secondly my statements are not limited to being purrely answers to your questions. If I wish to include additional thoughts I am free to do just that. Doing so does not invalidate my direct answers.
See, if they are putting raids in the game (and they are) they obviously want people to do it. So what will the motivation be?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from.
You're here, I'm asking you. Are you incapable of even trying to think for yourself about this? Speak hypothetically if nothing else. How do you think they might motivate people to do raids other than putting the best rewards in raiding.
You should have said that in the first place. Don't try to backpeddle it now. You should have specified that you wanted a hypothetical answer. I think for myself just fine but you must admit you didn't ask me to hypothesize so you are to blame for your dissatisfaction on that count.The motivation is fun.
It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before. It is possible to make the raids not boring.
I didn't ask if raids would be boring or not.
Again I'm not obligated to limit myself from adding additional input. The fact that you didn't ask is a given.
The simple fact of life is that people won't do raids unless raiding results in the best rewards. That's just the way it is. That is why the raiding playstyle and non-raiding playstlye cannot co-exist peacefully in the same game. If non-raiding results in equal rewards it kills raiding. And for raiding to result in the best rewards then non-raiding progression has to STOP at some point (otherwise the rewards would catch up to raid rewards)....so raiding kills non-raiding.
Those are not facts. Those are just opinions based on past experiences with games that forced raiding.
Those facts have indeed been demonstrated in previous games. It not only makes logical sense but there is observable evidence for it. Which, I must say, is more than you have offered so far. So far all you've done is tell people to believe you because you say so.
The past is not the future and is not always an accurate representation of reality. Something that was traditionally dont a certain way does not mean not other ways are possible. To claim that is to commit the appeal to tradition fallacy. I never at any point told anybody to believe me just because I say so. Quote me saying that...quote the entire paragraph so as to leave the context in tact.
I would be fascinated to hear how the LotRO devs plan to work around this. How can they motivate people to do raids if people can get the same rewards with the same time investment without having to do raids.
Ask their devs on their boards.
I'm talking to you so I'm asking you.
It is a logical fallacy to ask me to give you the contents of another individuals mind. I'm a reader, not a mind reader.
They are quite friendly and interact frequently with their community.
This irrelevant to my question.
It is. Logically if you want to know what a dev intends to do you would ask an actual dev and not a guy who doesn't even work for turbine. If you dont ask the devs then evidently you don't really want to receive an authentic and authoritative answer. The devs availability is relevent to anyone interested in getting the true authoritative answer because it lets them know that obtaining a response from them is possible.
Otherwise you are just asking retorical questions and you are probably not all that interested in getting the real answers.
I would love to get a real answer but from what I've seen so far I very much doubt that I will get one.
To get a real answer ask a question that doesnt involve mind reading and divination and psychic phenomena.
here's a quote from a LoTRO dev...
"Unique refers to the only place you can get said sword, armor, etc. We use comparable to say that while you may not be able to get the exact +400 uber sword of death that you can get in a Raid, you might get a +410 uber sword of smiting. And yes, crafters should be able to make some darn cool stuff..."
None of this means a goddamned thing. What's the difference between a "sword of death" and a "sword of smiting"? What does "darn cool" mean?If that's all you have to say you've missed the numbers part. The numbers in the devs example clearly illustrate the devs intent to make raid and non-raid gear equal.
While items in LoTRO raids will be "unique" their power lvl won't be raid exclusive as per the quote.Sounds nice...except that the quote doesn't actually say a damn thing about the relative power levels of raid and non-raid items.If that's all you have to say you've missed the numbers part. The numbers in the devs example clearly illustrate the devs intent to make raid and non-raid gear equal.You may feel that this is bad design but it is what they are doing nontheless.Prove it. Or at least try to back up your arguments with a little logic."The simple fact of life is that people won't do raids unless raiding results in the best rewards. That's just the way it is. That is why the raiding playstyle and non-raiding playstlye cannot co-exist peacefully in the same game. If non-raiding results in equal rewards it kills raiding. And for raiding to result in the best rewards then non-raiding progression has to STOP at some point (otherwise the rewards would catch up to raid rewards)....so raiding kills non-raiding."The above are your words are they not? So basically anything that goes against that would be bad or wrong in your opinion? You did say a little logic...there, you've got it. BTW...I did in fact say "may" which implies that my statement in question was by no means authoritative. And hey, if playing a mmo where raid gear is equal to fellowship gear turns you or anyone else off....guess what?Ok, I'll take a guess.......Mmmmmmm, my guess is that no such game exists. Do I get a cookie for being right? Because I am right you know. Why am I right, you ask? I'll take a page from your book and tell you that I'm right just because I say so. So there!I never at any point told anybody to believe me just because I say so. Quote me saying that...quote the entire paragraph so as to leave the context in tact. Lord Of The Rings Online is not for you! go support a game that is more to your liking because you will hate LoTRO. I'm sure you've heard that before too.Oh yeah, I've heard that sort of thing before. Funny thing is, I'm not even on a LotRO message board right now. I hang around here poking Vanguard with a stick and some LotR guy comes in and tells me go away and stop bothering LotRO. Shouldn't you leave the "go away" stuff to the Vanguard fans when we're on a Vanguard board?Lord Of The Rings Online is not for you! You've missed my entire point. Which is rather than complain about a game not being to your liking find a game that is more to your liking. Devs of LoTRO have already said that their game will not force raiding. That is an official statement from Jared Hall one of the devs of LoTRO. I never asked you to believe me but I am asking you to believe the devs. If MX13's info is correct (and it seems so) Vanguard might not force raiding either. But my point..I repeat my point still stands. rather than suggest they change the vision or philosophy of a game that they don't agree with just find another game you do agree with. You may not agree with what the lotro devs have said about how raids will be reletive to non-raid content but I do. Accorrding to the dev Jared Hall <---click the link.) LoTRO will not force raiding. If you think he is not being honest you need to argue with him not me because if anything I was fooled by him if he's being anything less than honest. I didn't make up the stuff I'm saying, he said those things and I'm just conveying what he has said and recommending based on his assertion which I have chosen to believe. Likewise my quote from Brad McQuaid is from Brad, I am not the author but I believe everything he said, he is the lead designer..he would know. Now if the devs are liars and I was just foolhardy enough to believe what they said then I stand corrected. Read the entire post by Jared Hall in the link and then come back and claim that he didn't say LoTRO would not force raiding. Of course feel free to pretend I never backed my claims with quotes from the official staff of Turbine and Sigil and after the quotes were questioned supplied links to my dev-written sources. Feel free to continue to act as if I invented the information as opposed to have gotten it straight from the officials.
Originally posted by MX13 Originally posted by gestalt11
At the very least you should be able to admit that the item set of someone who does not raid will not be functionally equivalent to someone who raids and groups. It can EXCEED it, you just don't want to admit it.
This is completely impossible. Grouping is a subset of raid and grouping. Your conlcusion is illogical and contradicts mathematics. There is no way a subset will exceed the superset.
Originally posted by boognish75 Originally posted by z80paranoia
ryzom seems like something you may like, 9 man groups are all that you really need in that game. Ryzom is bankrupt and is trying to sell its IP. Not a great reccomendation at this point.
Asking to be free from it still leave a 80% that is droolicious. I have no doubt I would enjoy the game a LOT if I can just be made completely impervious to raiding, which is only going to happen on a raid-free server. I am a customer, you can't change me, you either make me happy or lose me. Most customers don't talk even a tiny fraction that I do, nor do they care. As the OP, they move on. Me, for some reasons, I believe that Vanguard would be awesome with raid-free servers.
Granted, BioWare and Stargate "will Pwns" on the design level for groupers, but in case you didn't notice, they doesn't even have a release date. They may be cancelled along the way or release in 2011...do you want to chat with me up to 2011 or are you hoping that I will find a good MMO that would keep me quiet until BioWare save us all?
Vanguard, with a raid-free server, would make me at home and extremely happy.
Peoples saying no to a raid-free server, I invite you to read my signature and consider that, you are leaning heavily toward the "individuals" I am talking about! Raid-free servers REMOVE NOTHING from other servers, it just make a very sweet, some would say easier, gaming experience that would outmatch all other servers combine, making Vanguard an incredibly successfull game rather than a competitor for EvE and Mxo. I know that some raiders reveal in the misery of others, however such attitude would kill Vanguard if the dev abide to it completely.
The creation of raid-free servers has everything to do with the peoples WANTING it, not the peoples harboring hate toward it. I think it was clearly displayed, many times, that the peoples are vocally supporting these raid-free servers...a LOT. The lack of raid-free servers would be like if Brad wouldn't have create PvE servers because the gankers where crying.
Raid-free servers or die!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by z80paranoia Some of us have expressed interest in a non-raiding server. I was one of those people. I would love to see one in Vanguard. But honestly, it's far better to actually support a game that is being made from the ground up to support our playstyle. Why? Because then there will be no need for alternative rule servers and we will have more like-minded people to play the game with. Why? Because the main, and therefore, most populated servers will support our playstyle by default.
If you really want to show Vanguard how popular a game that was similar but didn't force raiding would be then start supporting a game that does just that. Support an mmo that does not deny one the ability to progress in small groups or solo. Support a game that doesn't implicitly regard groupers as second-class citizens. That game is The Lord Of The Rings Online. This game is for us. Sure, their classes are few and the armor looks kind of boring (compared to the flamboyant WoW and Guildwars armors) but other than that, it's right up our alley.
When people read about how we want to be as decked out as a soloer or grouper as a raider, the typical reply is "If you want to have group and solo epics, Vanguard is not for you". Those people are absolutely correct. Don't even bother trying to argue it. They are wrong sometimes when they sometimes say that soloers and groupers want "free epics". Something you worked hard for whether solo or in a group is not "free". Such statements presuppose that dezens if not hundreds of hours of raiding a single dungeon is the only possible valid form of "currency" for epic gear. That also presupposes that the work of a single individual or party is inherently inferior. That's all elitist garbage. Nevertheless, if the devs back them by supporting their playstyle the most, then that game is just not for us.
This post was not made to bash Vanguard. It will be a good game for those who agree with that style of advancement. I'm only saying that instead of complaining or petitioning and polling for changes that go against the developers intentions, support a different game. Other people have said this but I decided to dedicate an entire topic to it in my own words. Please try to understand it before flaming. This post was made to give those of us who hate raiding something to consider.
Guild Wars has no raiding. It's all solo or group play and because of that I have decided and have followed through to support it by purchasing every expansion. That's a first for me for an online game.
At the very least you should be able to admit that the item set of someone who does not raid will not be functionally equivalent to someone who raids and groups. It can EXCEED it, you just don't want to admit it.
This is completely impossible. Grouping is a subset of raid and grouping. Your conlcusion is illogical and contradicts mathematics. There is no way a subset will exceed the superset.
No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
Originally posted by MX13 Originally posted by gestalt11 Originally posted by MX13 Originally posted by gestalt11
At the very least you should be able to admit that the item set of someone who does not raid will not be functionally equivalent to someone who raids and groups. It can EXCEED it, you just don't want to admit it.
This is completely impossible. Grouping is a subset of raid and grouping. Your conlcusion is illogical and contradicts mathematics. There is no way a subset will exceed the superset. No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
Possible Grouping item set = item1, item2,item3, item4
Possible raid item set = item5, item6
possible raid&grouping item set = item1,item2,item3,item4, item5, item,6
How can either of the first two sets exceed the third. They cannot. The most than can ever acheive is equivalence. And that will only be possible if every single item is non-bind on pick up and tradeable or the raid item set is completely redundant.
I have specifically referred to raid&grouping in the above posts and not raid-exclusive players. You cannot seriously claim someone who raids and groups won't get at least the same set for dungeon X that someone who groups does. In addition he has the extra options of whatever raid gear there is, some of which may eclipse any grouping equivalent.
The best you can hope to argue is that someone who raids and groups will simply not have time to work on an optimal set of gear for dungeon X because he is too busy working on his set of gear for raid Y. It is always the case that a raid&grouper can have the exact same gear as a grouper. It is not always the case that a non-raider can have the same gear as a raid&grouper. If you assume two people of equal competence and time commitments they are not functionally equivalent. And the grouper will not exceed that raid&grouper, because if that were the case the raid&grouper would simply do the same thing.
Further given historical trends in MMORPGs it is not reasonable to assume that people will be perpetually occupied. It is almost always the case that a fairly substanital subset of customers go through content faster than it is released(10-25%). Trying to argue that the raid&groupers will simply not have enough time to obtain both good grouping sets and good raid sets, and therefore exceed a grouper, does not seem reasonable to me. And to assume the raid gear will not be advantageous in at least some subset of group instances is also unreasonable.
Is it possible that some individual grouper could exceed some individual raid&grouper. Sure if that grouper has a ton of items and the raid&grouper has three. But that means nothing.
That is the most ridiculous request I've ever heard anyone ask before.. Vanguard clearly follows the roots of EQ my friend..What was EQ famous for exactly??? RAIDING END GAME CONTENT FOR UNIQUE AND GREAT TREASURES!!!!
Vanguard will live and die based on how good the end game "RAID" content is.. This game is for hardcore power gamers,not casual gamers with little time to play.. "TRUST ME" Once you get high enough level,ALL of the faithful Vanguard gamers will EXPECT more.. This is where the END GAME content comes into play.. If there is no raiding,well the game will have no followers except for maybe u and a few other pansies.. It will be considered a failure if there were no raiding.. And theres no way there would ever be a "no raiding server" lol The best advice I can give u fella is, Instead of presenting us with ridiculous ideas to suite "your gaming schedule/style whatever" DO NOT PLAY VANGUARD.. Its definitely not for the likes of you.. Thanks
Rallithon Oakthornn (Retired Heirophant of the 60th season)
Originally posted by oakthornn This game is for hardcore power gamers,not casual gamers with little time to play..
Sorry, you are wrong. This game is for the "Core" audience. These are people who mostly group, not people who do 8 hour raids. There will be raid and solo play to be sure, but mostly it is for groups.
At the very least you should be able to admit that the item set of someone who does not raid will not be functionally equivalent to someone who raids and groups. It can EXCEED it, you just don't want to admit it.
This is completely impossible. Grouping is a subset of raid and grouping. Your conlcusion is illogical and contradicts mathematics. There is no way a subset will exceed the superset.
No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
Possible Grouping item set = item1, item2,item3, item4
Possible raid item set = item5, item6
possible raid&grouping item set = item1,item2,item3,item4, item5, item,6
How can either of the first two sets exceed the third. They cannot. The most than can ever acheive is equivalence. And that will only be possible if every single item is non-bind on pick up and tradeable or the raid item set is completely redundant.
I have specifically referred to raid&grouping in the above posts and not raid-exclusive players. You cannot seriously claim someone who raids and groups won't get at least the same set for dungeon X that someone who groups does. In addition he has the extra options of whatever raid gear there is, some of which may eclipse any grouping equivalent.
The best you can hope to argue is that someone who raids and groups will simply not have time to work on an optimal set of gear for dungeon X because he is too busy working on his set of gear for raid Y. It is always the case that a raid&grouper can have the exact same gear as a grouper. It is not always the case that a non-raider can have the same gear as a raid&grouper. If you assume two people of equal competence and time commitments they are not functionally equivalent. And the grouper will not exceed that raid&grouper, because if that were the case the raid&grouper would simply do the same thing.
Further given historical trends in MMORPGs it is not reasonable to assume that people will be perpetually occupied. It is almost always the case that a fairly substanital subset of customers go through content faster than it is released(10-25%). Trying to argue that the raid&groupers will simply not have enough time to obtain both good grouping sets and good raid sets, and therefore exceed a grouper, does not seem reasonable to me. And to assume the raid gear will not be advantageous in at least some subset of group instances is also unreasonable.
Is it possible that some individual grouper could exceed some individual raid&grouper. Sure if that grouper has a ton of items and the raid&grouper has three. But that means nothing.
Look, this is the last I'll explain this, because your ignorance on this issue is ASTOUNDING. The thing you're not getting is that there are HUNDREDS of other HIGH-END options available to players for item5 & item6, so the FACT that a player can obtain a item5 & item6 is ABSOLUTE.
And to argue that someone who would spent hundreds of hours of play to raiding would have the time to gain EVERY OTHER High-End item in the game is ABSURD. There WILL be a High-End FULL set for everyone available, PERIOD... please stop this, you're just WRONG. It's PROVEN ALL players will have access to High-End items for every possible slot, even IF they don't raid...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
Originally posted by oakthornn This game is for hardcore power gamers,not casual gamers with little time to play..
Sorry, you are wrong. This game is for the "Core" audience. These are people who mostly group, not people who do 8 hour raids. There will be raid and solo play to be sure, but mostly it is for groups.
EXACTLY. It is FACT "core" gamers can aquire gear to equal or near level of the Hardcore Gamers that will be part of this game. That is how it is designed: For the Adventure, not the 1337.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
At the very least you should be able to admit that the item set of someone who does not raid will not be functionally equivalent to someone who raids and groups. It can EXCEED it, you just don't want to admit it.
This is completely impossible. Grouping is a subset of raid and grouping. Your conlcusion is illogical and contradicts mathematics. There is no way a subset will exceed the superset.
No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
Possible Grouping item set = item1, item2,item3, item4
Possible raid item set = item5, item6
possible raid&grouping item set = item1,item2,item3,item4, item5, item,6
How can either of the first two sets exceed the third. They cannot. The most than can ever acheive is equivalence. And that will only be possible if every single item is non-bind on pick up and tradeable or the raid item set is completely redundant.
I have specifically referred to raid&grouping in the above posts and not raid-exclusive players. You cannot seriously claim someone who raids and groups won't get at least the same set for dungeon X that someone who groups does. In addition he has the extra options of whatever raid gear there is, some of which may eclipse any grouping equivalent.
The best you can hope to argue is that someone who raids and groups will simply not have time to work on an optimal set of gear for dungeon X because he is too busy working on his set of gear for raid Y. It is always the case that a raid&grouper can have the exact same gear as a grouper. It is not always the case that a non-raider can have the same gear as a raid&grouper. If you assume two people of equal competence and time commitments they are not functionally equivalent. And the grouper will not exceed that raid&grouper, because if that were the case the raid&grouper would simply do the same thing.
Further given historical trends in MMORPGs it is not reasonable to assume that people will be perpetually occupied. It is almost always the case that a fairly substanital subset of customers go through content faster than it is released(10-25%). Trying to argue that the raid&groupers will simply not have enough time to obtain both good grouping sets and good raid sets, and therefore exceed a grouper, does not seem reasonable to me. And to assume the raid gear will not be advantageous in at least some subset of group instances is also unreasonable.
Is it possible that some individual grouper could exceed some individual raid&grouper. Sure if that grouper has a ton of items and the raid&grouper has three. But that means nothing.
Look, this is the last I'll explain this, because your ignorance on this issue is ASTOUNDING. The thing you're not getting is that there are HUNDREDS of other HIGH-END options available to players for item5 & item6, so the FACT that a player can obtain a item5 & item6 is ABSOLUTE.
And to argue that someone who would spent hundreds of hours of play to raiding would have the time to gain EVERY OTHER High-End item in the game is ABSURD. There WILL be a High-End FULL set for everyone available, PERIOD... please stop this, you're just WRONG. It's PROVEN ALL players will have access to High-End items for every possible slot, even IF they don't raid...
Exactly what this statement says. Too bad many casual players cant understand that. Sigil has developed an immersive game that caters to all kind of players, and they give the casual players many options to obtain really good equipments.
Originally posted by Vanguarde Exactly what this statement says. Too bad many casual players cant understand that. Sigil has developed an immersive game that caters to all kind of players, and they give the casual players many options to obtain really good equipments.
Yes, some people just argue because they just don't like Vanguard and want other people to think it is some power gamers game. Fact is, it is really leaving TONS of options for all play styles.
I'm not going to requote all that crap again. Look, Paranoia, it's like this:
You started a thread claiming that LotRO will be a great game for solo and group players who want to be able to progress just as much as raiders.
I put you on the spot about it and you:
1. decline to offer any explanation of why we should believe your claim. In effect, telling people to believe you just because you say so.
2. Tell me to ask the devs because you can't read their minds. In other words, you don't know anything.
3. Won't even attempt to discuss the issue at hand, which you brought up, and instead prefer to bombard the thread with lengthy posts expounding on why I shouldn't be asking you questions.
To sum up: You don't know. You can't or won't tell me anything. And you don't want to talk about it.
So why did you bother starting this thread in the first place? Why did you feel qualified to announce that LotRO will be such a great game for solo and group players if you don't have any information to back it up and you won't even try to speculate rationally why it might be?
The best you did was offer a link. I went to it and read it (I had read it before, by the way) and all I saw was a lot of hype about how great raiding would be in LotR.
This all seems pointless to me so far. You make a claim about a game and you won't even try to back it up. I would love it if you were right about this. I desparately want a good fantasy game that doesn't favor raiders. But I don't believe that LotR will be that game and you haven't offered me anything that even tempts me to change my mind.
Comments
No, it's not even close to trivial. This game has been in the Dev cycle for 5+ years. Let's say 10% of the game is dedicated to raiding. Based on the total number of quests & areas, that would be HUNDREDS for areas that would need to be redesigned, if not thousands. What would that do to the Dev cycle & release date? What about testing?
If this game was a cookie cutter "insert quest here" model it would be easy, but it involves FAR more then text & quest NPC's...
Also, it simply makes more sense to include a variety of content types, rather then fewer becuase some don't like them. Most don't like crafting either, does than mean it should be removed? Or should Dip be removed? How about removing player housing, player cities or ships... only about 50% of poeple will use those, and most find them unnesessary. Just because everyone doesn't like a piece of the content, it's doesn't mean it shouldn't be included.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
Ok. Here is my core problem with vanguard advocates who say raiding isn't problem for non-raiders who want equal progression.
in the above quote Evil Vision Lord Brad clearly states:
2. The best fire resistant vambraces may come from a raid zone
Now in a previous reply MX13 states definitively that there will almost always be similar gear availalbe in grouping /solo instances.
Yes, Brad has said that Vanguard will not follow the WoW model of bigger is ALWAYS better. But it seems pretty clear that he has said certain top tier items will be exclusive to certain places. Some group/solo, some raid.
I do not understand how MX13 can say that someone who only groups will have roughly equivalent gear when they will not get the best fire resisitance vambraces etc. Similarly someone who only raided will be lacking whatever best items come from group isntances.
Brad is very clear that if you do not participate in ALL playstyles, including crafting, you will miss out on some optimal items.
Clearly someone who does not raid will never have an optimal gear set. Given the Brad quote above is true, this must be true correct?
Uh huh. And now you sound just like the Vanguard fans.
That was my intent. I sound like them because I'm also a Vanguard fan just to a slightly lesser extent. I'm definitely a Brad fan. And the intelligent Vanguard fans like MX13, make sense and I am happy to be compared to the likes of them.
I've heard the same thing from fans of Vangaurd and fans of AoC and now I'm hearing it from a LotRO fan.
My "heritage" (fandom) has no bearing on the validity of my information. The mere fact that you've heard others say similar about other games does not automatically discredit my info.Edit: I just wanted to add that AoC will be so awesome that I will gladly raid every night on it. AoC will chain your soul because it will be just that uncomparibly awesome.
Tell me something...if raiding does not result in better rewards then what will motivate raiders to do raids? If you can come up with a good explanation for that I would be amazed.
My ability or inability to come up with a good explaination for you has no bearing on the validity of my information. Besides a "good" explaination is subjective to the audience.
Don't tell me that people will go on raids just for the hell of it. If people can get equal rewards without raiding then how do the devs intend to motivate people to do raids?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from. It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before.
See, if they are putting raids in the game (and they are) they obviously want people to do it. So what will the motivation be?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from. It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before. It is possible to make the raids not boring.The simple fact of life is that people won't do raids unless raiding results in the best rewards. That's just the way it is. That is why the raiding playstyle and non-raiding playstlye cannot co-exist peacefully in the same game. If non-raiding results in equal rewards it kills raiding. And for raiding to result in the best rewards then non-raiding progression has to STOP at some point (otherwise the rewards would catch up to raid rewards)....so raiding kills non-raiding.Those are not facts. Those are just opinions based on past experiences with games that forced raiding.I would be fascinated to hear how the LotRO devs plan to work around this. How can they motivate people to do raids if people can get the same rewards with the same time investment without having to do raids.Ask their devs on their boards. They are quite friendly and interact frequently with their community. Otherwise you are just asking retorical questions and you are probably not all that interested in getting the real answers.
here's a quote from a LoTRO dev...
"Unique refers to the only place you can get said sword, armor, etc. We use comparable to say that while you may not be able to get the exact +400 uber sword of death that you can get in a Raid, you might get a +410 uber sword of smiting. And yes, crafters should be able to make some darn cool stuff..."
While items in LoTRO raids will be "unique" their power lvl won't be raid exclusive as per the quote. You may feel that this is bad design but it is what they are doing nontheless.
And hey, if playing a mmo where raid gear is equal to fellowship gear turns you or anyone else off....guess what?
Lord Of The Rings Online
is not
for you!
go support a game that is more to your liking because you will hate LoTRO.
I'm sure you've heard that before too.
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
in the above quote Evil Vision Lord Brad clearly states:
2. The best fire resistant vambraces may come from a raid zone
Now in a previous reply MX13 states definitively that there will almost always be similar gear availalbe in grouping /solo instances.
Yes, Brad has said that Vanguard will not follow the WoW model of bigger is ALWAYS better. But it seems pretty clear that he has said certain top tier items will be exclusive to certain places. Some group/solo, some raid.
I do not understand how MX13 can say that someone who only groups will have roughly equivalent gear when they will not get the best fire resisitance vambraces etc. Similarly someone who only raided will be lacking whatever best items come from group isntances.
Brad is very clear that if you do not participate in ALL playstyles, including crafting, you will miss out on some optimal items.
Clearly someone who does not raid will never have an optimal gear set. Given the Brad quote above is true, this must be true correct?
Are you KIDDING me??? Wow... just wow... so you're actually saying that if you don't have all of the best gear period, there's no point in playing, even though there will be bracers with resistances you may want more somewhere else... You're making up a problem that may not even exist. Brad just said for EVERYONE to read that the effect of not raiding in VSoH is at best that you'll have to get another set of bracers, not the "fire" ones... just come on...
Last, I'll leave you with this. Brad said you may be able to get that gear by trading or buying it, so I'll tell you what: Before you start complaining about something you have no idea will even BE an issue, why don't you WAIT for the problem to acutally arise, instead of making up problems just to complain about one tiny thing that probably wouldn't even be noticed IF it actually ever was a problem...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
Are you KIDDING me??? Wow... just wow... so you're actually saying that if you don't have all of the best gear period, there's no point in playing, even though there will be bracers with resistances you may want more somewhere else... You're making up a problem that may not even exist. Brad just said for EVERYONE to read that the effect of not raiding in VSoH is at best that you'll have to get another set of bracers, not the "fire" ones... just come on...
Last, I'll leave you with this. Brad said you may be able to get that gear by trading or buying it, so I'll tell you what: Before you start complaining about something you have no idea will even BE an issue, why don't you WAIT for the problem to acutally arise, instead of making up problems just to complain about one tiny thing that probably wouldn't even be noticed IF it actually ever was a problem...
No, I clearly never said if you can't get all the best gear there is no point in playing. At least not in this quoted post. I simply said I do not see how you can say people will be able to get comparable gear through grouping. Which you have now admitted is not possible.
However you have said it may be possible to be functionally equivalent through other means.
As for optimal sets, I never specified that the gear set was worn all at once. As with many other MMOs most people have a collection of many pieces for different roles. For example in WoW most raiders collect all sorts of resisitance sets used in different raid instances, ie. fire for Molten Core and nature of Ahn Qiraj.
It seems most likely to me that certain items will be the optimal piece in a particular slot for a paricular purpose, while certain slots/purposes may have some leeway with a few different options for a particular purpose.
The stat caps sound interesting, but I seriously doubt you can just cap them all. It is almost certainly the case that it will only ever be possible to to cap some subset of stats. Even if I can max my fire resisitance without raid gear and only grouping gear, it will almost certainly be the case that the raider&group equipped person will have higher stats in other things in addition to capped fire resisitance. The more optimal stat items you have the more you can buff up the non capped stats. The exact configuration will of course depend on what you are doing. Since it will almost certainly be imposssible to ever completely max all stats, and probably even half your stats, it is always at least somewhat advantageous to have as many optimal stat items as possible.
There is no functional equivalence between raiders and non-raiders. Unless all items are tradeable. That has its own problems, but theoretically everyone would be equivalent, since anyone could have any item. I would argue that when you get down to the practical it never turns out that way.
As for whether or not someone should or should not be penalized for not raiding. That is not the purpose of my post. It was merely asking how non-raiders could possibly be equivalent to raiders given the statements from BMQ.
I do not see how you can say gear is not a part of progression. It is a significant part of the power of your character and is obtained in a steadily increasing manner almost exactly analogous to levels (and may even be directly linked to levels). The only real difference is the mechanism to get them. XP is generic and obtained in a predictable manner. Items are individual rewards and are given in a sometimes predictable but often random manner. Certainly a tanker in level 10 gear will not be able to run a level 55 dungeon, no matter what his level. Both affect your overall effectiveness and your overall effectiveness determines your ability to get to the next tier of level and/or items.
At the very least you should be able to admit that the item set of someone who does not raid will not be functionally equivalent to someone who raids and groups. And that the raid&group item set will be at least slightly more effective. Even with item caps etc this must still be the case, because if caps are too easy to max then people won't be motivated to get the stuff and items sets will becomee trivial. Whether you think this is the way it should be or that the difference will be very small or negligible or that trade will equalize things out or whatever else. I think you must at least admit that the two item sets that would be available will not be functionally equivalent.
Having the best fire resistant vambraces means that your total stats are higher than someone who doesn't have them (assuming you need fire resisitance for whereever you are going), and therefore have more leeway. Perhops you can forego the FR buff that the person without them needs and can now use the parry buff instead. Or whatever else. Perhaps the best Frost resistance vambraces are in a grouping drop. Perhaps in that case the non-raider and raider are equivlaent against frost encounters. But either way, when you need your fire set the raider has some slight advantage.
You also asked if the raid-only people should complain like the non-raid people do. While that is not what my post was asking and I did specifically say that a raid-only person is in the same boat as a non-raider. Well actually their boat would be even worse numbers wise. So if there are any people who only want to raid, then sure I guess they should complain if that bugs them. I really doubt there are very many people who only raid, although I have occasionally seen some people claim such a thing. I personally think itemization rewards in MMOs like Vanguard/WoW/EQ should be similar to XP and should be not based on playstyle in any manner.
I don't really care, because my only point in this post was that there is not functional equivalence. Not that there should or should not be functional equivalence. I may have argued that in other posts in other threads. But I do not wish to argue that here as I am very very tired of such things. I am merely saying I cannot accept claims that there is functional equivalence between non-raiders and raid&groupers in Vanguard because there are basic statements by BMQ that do not support that.
Uh huh. And now you sound just like the Vanguard fans.
That was my intent. I sound like them because I'm also a Vanguard fan just to a slightly lesser extent. I'm definitely a Brad fan. And the intelligent Vanguard fans like MX13, make sense and I am happy to be compared to the likes of them.
Not much to respond to here. I could get all huffy because you offhandedly implied that I am not intelligent, but why bother. Anyone with any brains can figure out that a game with raiding WILL favor raiders (see I can imply things too).
I've heard the same thing from fans of Vangaurd and fans of AoC and now I'm hearing it from a LotRO fan.
My "heritage" (fandom) has no bearing on the validity of my information. The mere fact that you've heard others say similar about other games does not automatically discredit my info.
No...it doesn't automatically discredit your info. But it also does not automatically validate it. My point is; why should I believe you and not them? Why...just because it's YOU who is telling me this?
Tell me something...if raiding does not result in better rewards then what will motivate raiders to do raids? If you can come up with a good explanation for that I would be amazed.
My ability or inability to come up with a good explaination for you has no bearing on the validity of my information. Besides a "good" explaination is subjective to the audience.
Oh, but your ability to explain your claims very much does have a bearing on their validity. For example: if you wanted to convince me that Christmas presents really do come from Santa Claus you would have to give me a pretty solid explanation of how he gets to every house all in one night.
You are telling me to believe you just because you tell me to believe you. Well sorry, I don't much go in for the blind faith thing. Back up your claims with rational, logical reasoning or don't expect me to believe you.
Don't tell me that people will go on raids just for the hell of it. If people can get equal rewards without raiding then how do the devs intend to motivate people to do raids?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from.
I'm asking you. You're the one who came here talking about it so I'm asking you.
It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before.
This has no bearing on my question. I didn't ask you what the raids would be like.
See, if they are putting raids in the game (and they are) they obviously want people to do it. So what will the motivation be?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from.
You're here, I'm asking you. Are you incapable of even trying to think for yourself about this? Speak hypothetically if nothing else. How do you think they might motivate people to do raids other than putting the best rewards in raiding.
It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before. It is possible to make the raids not boring.
I didn't ask if raids would be boring or not.
The simple fact of life is that people won't do raids unless raiding results in the best rewards. That's just the way it is. That is why the raiding playstyle and non-raiding playstlye cannot co-exist peacefully in the same game. If non-raiding results in equal rewards it kills raiding. And for raiding to result in the best rewards then non-raiding progression has to STOP at some point (otherwise the rewards would catch up to raid rewards)....so raiding kills non-raiding.
Those are not facts. Those are just opinions based on past experiences with games that forced raiding.
Those facts have indeed been demonstrated in previous games. It not only makes logical sense but there is observable evidence for it. Which, I must say, is more than you have offered so far. So far all you've done is tell people to believe you because you say so.
I would be fascinated to hear how the LotRO devs plan to work around this. How can they motivate people to do raids if people can get the same rewards with the same time investment without having to do raids.
Ask their devs on their boards.
I'm talking to you so I'm asking you.
They are quite friendly and interact frequently with their community.
This irrelevant to my question.
Otherwise you are just asking retorical questions and you are probably not all that interested in getting the real answers.
I would love to get a real answer but from what I've seen so far I very much doubt that I will get one.
here's a quote from a LoTRO dev...
"Unique refers to the only place you can get said sword, armor, etc. We use comparable to say that while you may not be able to get the exact +400 uber sword of death that you can get in a Raid, you might get a +410 uber sword of smiting. And yes, crafters should be able to make some darn cool stuff..."
playing eq2 and two worlds
However you have said it may be possible to be functionally equivalent through other means.
As for whether or not someone should or should not be penalized for not raiding. That is not the purpose of my post. It was merely asking how non-raiders could possibly be equivalent to raiders given the statements from BMQ. And I pointed out that they not only could be equal, they could possibly exceed, depending on thier view of what they want in equipment, which is something you are ignoring.
I do not see how you can say gear is not a part of progression. Gear is, elite gear IS NOT, which is what you were refering to.
At the very least you should be able to admit that the item set of someone who does not raid will not be functionally equivalent to someone who raids and groups. It can EXCEED it, you just don't want to admit it.
Having the best fire resistant vambraces means that your total stats are higher than someone who doesn't have them (assuming you need fire resisitance for whereever you are going), and therefore have more leeway. Perhops you can forego the FR buff that the person without them needs and can now use the parry buff instead. Or whatever else. Perhaps the best Frost resistance vambraces are in a grouping drop. Perhaps in that case the non-raider and raider are equivlaent against frost encounters. But either way, when you need your fire set the raider has some slight advantage. You're missing the main point in gear: Sure, maybe you can't have the fire resistant bracers, but you CAN have the cold resistant bracers that may havehigher cold resist than fire resist, which may be called BETTER gear. This is not a game where there are 3 sets of highend bracers, this is a game with HUNDREDS of DIFFERENT highend bracers. That is not an overestimation. Only 20% of those are available by raids, which makes the remaining 80% available to you.
I don't really care, because my only point in this post was that there is not functional equivalence. Yes there is, you just won't admit it.
I'm sorry, but at this point you're whining that you can't have high-end bracers #45 IF they are not tradeable, IF they are the best for your gear, IF they offer stats that aid you, IF your class can wear them, IF your race can wear them, IF you decide the other #300+ high-end bracers don't suit your needs any better, and the whole time you MAY be able to get them anyway... come on...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
Uh huh. And now you sound just like the Vanguard fans.
That was my intent. I sound like them because I'm also a Vanguard fan just to a slightly lesser extent. I'm definitely a Brad fan. And the intelligent Vanguard fans like MX13, make sense and I am happy to be compared to the likes of them.
Not much to respond to here. I could get all huffy because you offhandedly implied that I am not intelligent, but why bother. Anyone with any brains can figure out that a game with raiding WILL favor raiders (see I can imply things too).
I didn't imply you were not intellignet but if you wish to take it as such I won't attempt to stop you. Saying one person is smart is not tantamount to calling someone ellse unintelligent. Nice try though.
I've heard the same thing from fans of Vangaurd and fans of AoC and now I'm hearing it from a LotRO fan.
My "heritage" (fandom) has no bearing on the validity of my information. The mere fact that you've heard others say similar about other games does not automatically discredit my info.
No...it doesn't automatically discredit your info. But it also does not automatically validate it. My point is; why should I believe you and not them? Why...just because it's YOU who is telling me this?
I didn't ask you to believe me. But perhaps you can read the actual quotes from the devs I posted and judge them and even examine the sources of the information (which I didn't invent) and judge it on it's own merit rather than judge me.
Tell me something...if raiding does not result in better rewards then what will motivate raiders to do raids? If you can come up with a good explanation for that I would be amazed.
My ability or inability to come up with a good explaination for you has no bearing on the validity of my information. Besides a "good" explaination is subjective to the audience.
Oh, but your ability to explain your claims very much does have a bearing on their validity. For example: if you wanted to convince me that Christmas presents really do come from Santa Claus you would have to give me a pretty solid explanation of how he gets to every house all in one night.
You are telling me to believe you just because you tell me to believe you. Well sorry, I don't much go in for the blind faith thing. Back up your claims with rational, logical reasoning or don't expect me to believe you.
I didn't ask you to believe me. But perhaps you can read the actual quotes from the devs I posted and judge them and even examine the sources of the information (which I didn't invent) and judge it on it's own merit rather than judge me.
Don't tell me that people will go on raids just for the hell of it. If people can get equal rewards without raiding then how do the devs intend to motivate people to do raids?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from.
I'm asking you. You're the one who came here talking about it so I'm asking you.
It is a logical fallacy to ask me to give you the contents of another individuals mind. I'm a reader, not a mind reader.
It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before.
This has no bearing on my question. I didn't ask you what the raids would be like.
You cannot explain a motivation to do something without at least to some small extent explaining what an experience would be like. Secondly my statements are not limited to being purrely answers to your questions. If I wish to include additional thoughts I am free to do just that. Doing so does not invalidate my direct answers.
See, if they are putting raids in the game (and they are) they obviously want people to do it. So what will the motivation be?
Ask the dev that I got the quote from.
You're here, I'm asking you. Are you incapable of even trying to think for yourself about this? Speak hypothetically if nothing else. How do you think they might motivate people to do raids other than putting the best rewards in raiding.
You should have said that in the first place. Don't try to backpeddle it now. You should have specified that you wanted a hypothetical answer. I think for myself just fine but you must admit you didn't ask me to hypothesize so you are to blame for your dissatisfaction on that count. The motivation is fun.
It is quite possible that a raid can be made that doesn't follow the same formats and implememtations of older existing titles. That line of logic would be like saying I can't wear a pink shirt just because I've never worn one before. It is possible to make the raids not boring.
I didn't ask if raids would be boring or not.
Again I'm not obligated to limit myself from adding additional input. The fact that you didn't ask is a given.The simple fact of life is that people won't do raids unless raiding results in the best rewards. That's just the way it is. That is why the raiding playstyle and non-raiding playstlye cannot co-exist peacefully in the same game. If non-raiding results in equal rewards it kills raiding. And for raiding to result in the best rewards then non-raiding progression has to STOP at some point (otherwise the rewards would catch up to raid rewards)....so raiding kills non-raiding.
Those are not facts. Those are just opinions based on past experiences with games that forced raiding.
Those facts have indeed been demonstrated in previous games. It not only makes logical sense but there is observable evidence for it. Which, I must say, is more than you have offered so far. So far all you've done is tell people to believe you because you say so.
The past is not the future and is not always an accurate representation of reality. Something that was traditionally dont a certain way does not mean not other ways are possible. To claim that is to commit the appeal to tradition fallacy. I never at any point told anybody to believe me just because I say so. Quote me saying that...quote the entire paragraph so as to leave the context in tact.
I would be fascinated to hear how the LotRO devs plan to work around this. How can they motivate people to do raids if people can get the same rewards with the same time investment without having to do raids.
Ask their devs on their boards.
I'm talking to you so I'm asking you.
It is a logical fallacy to ask me to give you the contents of another individuals mind. I'm a reader, not a mind reader.
They are quite friendly and interact frequently with their community.
This irrelevant to my question.
It is. Logically if you want to know what a dev intends to do you would ask an actual dev and not a guy who doesn't even work for turbine. If you dont ask the devs then evidently you don't really want to receive an authentic and authoritative answer. The devs availability is relevent to anyone interested in getting the true authoritative answer because it lets them know that obtaining a response from them is possible.
Otherwise you are just asking retorical questions and you are probably not all that interested in getting the real answers.
I would love to get a real answer but from what I've seen so far I very much doubt that I will get one.
To get a real answer ask a question that doesnt involve mind reading and divination and psychic phenomena.
here's a quote from a LoTRO dev...
None of this means a goddamned thing. What's the difference between a "sword of death" and a "sword of smiting"? What does "darn cool" mean?If that's all you have to say you've missed the numbers part. The numbers in the devs example clearly illustrate the devs intent to make raid and non-raid gear equal."Unique refers to the only place you can get said sword, armor, etc. We use comparable to say that while you may not be able to get the exact +400 uber sword of death that you can get in a Raid, you might get a +410 uber sword of smiting. And yes, crafters should be able to make some darn cool stuff..."
While items in LoTRO raids will be "unique" their power lvl won't be raid exclusive as per the quote. Sounds nice...except that the quote doesn't actually say a damn thing about the relative power levels of raid and non-raid items.If that's all you have to say you've missed the numbers part. The numbers in the devs example clearly illustrate the devs intent to make raid and non-raid gear equal. You may feel that this is bad design but it is what they are doing nontheless. Prove it. Or at least try to back up your arguments with a little logic."The simple fact of life is that people won't do raids unless raiding results in the best rewards. That's just the way it is. That is why the raiding playstyle and non-raiding playstlye cannot co-exist peacefully in the same game. If non-raiding results in equal rewards it kills raiding. And for raiding to result in the best rewards then non-raiding progression has to STOP at some point (otherwise the rewards would catch up to raid rewards)....so raiding kills non-raiding."The above are your words are they not? So basically anything that goes against that would be bad or wrong in your opinion? You did say a little logic...there, you've got it. BTW...I did in fact say "may" which implies that my statement in question was by no means authoritative.
And hey, if playing a mmo where raid gear is equal to fellowship gear turns you or anyone else off....guess what? Ok, I'll take a guess.......Mmmmmmm, my guess is that no such game exists. Do I get a cookie for being right? Because I am right you know. Why am I right, you ask? I'll take a page from your book and tell you that I'm right just because I say so. So there!I never at any point told anybody to believe me just because I say so. Quote me saying that...quote the entire paragraph so as to leave the context in tact.
Lord Of The Rings Online
is not
for you!
go support a game that is more to your liking because you will hate LoTRO.
I'm sure you've heard that before too.
is not
for you!
You've missed my entire point. Which is rather than complain about a game not being to your liking find a game that is more to your liking. Devs of LoTRO have already said that their game will not force raiding. That is an official statement from Jared Hall one of the devs of LoTRO. I never asked you to believe me but I am asking you to believe the devs. If MX13's info is correct (and it seems so) Vanguard might not force raiding either. But my point..I repeat my point still stands. rather than suggest they change the vision or philosophy of a game that they don't agree with just find another game you do agree with. You may not agree with what the lotro devs have said about how raids will be reletive to non-raid content but I do. Accorrding to the dev Jared Hall <---click the link.) LoTRO will not force raiding. If you think he is not being honest you need to argue with him not me because if anything I was fooled by him if he's being anything less than honest. I didn't make up the stuff I'm saying, he said those things and I'm just conveying what he has said and recommending based on his assertion which I have chosen to believe. Likewise my quote from Brad McQuaid is from Brad, I am not the author but I believe everything he said, he is the lead designer..he would know. Now if the devs are liars and I was just foolhardy enough to believe what they said then I stand corrected. Read the entire post by Jared Hall in the link and then come back and claim that he didn't say LoTRO would not force raiding. Of course feel free to pretend I never backed my claims with quotes from the official staff of Turbine and Sigil and after the quotes were questioned supplied links to my dev-written sources. Feel free to continue to act as if I invented the information as opposed to have gotten it straight from the officials.
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
Ryzom is bankrupt and is trying to sell its IP. Not a great reccomendation at this point.
Hey please stop talking about Lord of rings Online, this is vanguard not LOtr.
Lotr is for kiddies.
80% of the game isn't about raiding.
Asking to be free from it still leave a 80% that is droolicious. I have no doubt I would enjoy the game a LOT if I can just be made completely impervious to raiding, which is only going to happen on a raid-free server. I am a customer, you can't change me, you either make me happy or lose me. Most customers don't talk even a tiny fraction that I do, nor do they care. As the OP, they move on. Me, for some reasons, I believe that Vanguard would be awesome with raid-free servers.
Granted, BioWare and Stargate "will Pwns" on the design level for groupers, but in case you didn't notice, they doesn't even have a release date. They may be cancelled along the way or release in 2011...do you want to chat with me up to 2011 or are you hoping that I will find a good MMO that would keep me quiet until BioWare save us all?
Vanguard, with a raid-free server, would make me at home and extremely happy.
Peoples saying no to a raid-free server, I invite you to read my signature and consider that, you are leaning heavily toward the "individuals" I am talking about! Raid-free servers REMOVE NOTHING from other servers, it just make a very sweet, some would say easier, gaming experience that would outmatch all other servers combine, making Vanguard an incredibly successfull game rather than a competitor for EvE and Mxo. I know that some raiders reveal in the misery of others, however such attitude would kill Vanguard if the dev abide to it completely.
The creation of raid-free servers has everything to do with the peoples WANTING it, not the peoples harboring hate toward it. I think it was clearly displayed, many times, that the peoples are vocally supporting these raid-free servers...a LOT. The lack of raid-free servers would be like if Brad wouldn't have create PvE servers because the gankers where crying.
Raid-free servers or die!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
...oh wait
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
trust me, you'll see that you are in error.
==========================
Spiritglow
No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
Possible Grouping item set = item1, item2,item3, item4
Possible raid item set = item5, item6
possible raid&grouping item set = item1,item2,item3,item4, item5, item,6
How can either of the first two sets exceed the third. They cannot. The most than can ever acheive is equivalence. And that will only be possible if every single item is non-bind on pick up and tradeable or the raid item set is completely redundant.
I have specifically referred to raid&grouping in the above posts and not raid-exclusive players. You cannot seriously claim someone who raids and groups won't get at least the same set for dungeon X that someone who groups does. In addition he has the extra options of whatever raid gear there is, some of which may eclipse any grouping equivalent.
The best you can hope to argue is that someone who raids and groups will simply not have time to work on an optimal set of gear for dungeon X because he is too busy working on his set of gear for raid Y. It is always the case that a raid&grouper can have the exact same gear as a grouper. It is not always the case that a non-raider can have the same gear as a raid&grouper. If you assume two people of equal competence and time commitments they are not functionally equivalent. And the grouper will not exceed that raid&grouper, because if that were the case the raid&grouper would simply do the same thing.
Further given historical trends in MMORPGs it is not reasonable to assume that people will be perpetually occupied. It is almost always the case that a fairly substanital subset of customers go through content faster than it is released(10-25%). Trying to argue that the raid&groupers will simply not have enough time to obtain both good grouping sets and good raid sets, and therefore exceed a grouper, does not seem reasonable to me. And to assume the raid gear will not be advantageous in at least some subset of group instances is also unreasonable.
Is it possible that some individual grouper could exceed some individual raid&grouper. Sure if that grouper has a ton of items and the raid&grouper has three. But that means nothing.
Z80,
That is the most ridiculous request I've ever heard anyone ask before.. Vanguard clearly follows the roots of EQ my friend..What was EQ famous for exactly??? RAIDING END GAME CONTENT FOR UNIQUE AND GREAT TREASURES!!!!
Vanguard will live and die based on how good the end game "RAID" content is.. This game is for hardcore power gamers,not casual gamers with little time to play.. "TRUST ME" Once you get high enough level,ALL of the faithful Vanguard gamers will EXPECT more.. This is where the END GAME content comes into play.. If there is no raiding,well the game will have no followers except for maybe u and a few other pansies.. It will be considered a failure if there were no raiding.. And theres no way there would ever be a "no raiding server" lol The best advice I can give u fella is, Instead of presenting us with ridiculous ideas to suite "your gaming schedule/style whatever" DO NOT PLAY VANGUARD.. Its definitely not for the likes of you.. Thanks
Rallithon Oakthornn
(Retired Heirophant of the 60th season)
No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
Possible Grouping item set = item1, item2,item3, item4
Possible raid item set = item5, item6
possible raid&grouping item set = item1,item2,item3,item4, item5, item,6
How can either of the first two sets exceed the third. They cannot. The most than can ever acheive is equivalence. And that will only be possible if every single item is non-bind on pick up and tradeable or the raid item set is completely redundant.
I have specifically referred to raid&grouping in the above posts and not raid-exclusive players. You cannot seriously claim someone who raids and groups won't get at least the same set for dungeon X that someone who groups does. In addition he has the extra options of whatever raid gear there is, some of which may eclipse any grouping equivalent.
The best you can hope to argue is that someone who raids and groups will simply not have time to work on an optimal set of gear for dungeon X because he is too busy working on his set of gear for raid Y. It is always the case that a raid&grouper can have the exact same gear as a grouper. It is not always the case that a non-raider can have the same gear as a raid&grouper. If you assume two people of equal competence and time commitments they are not functionally equivalent. And the grouper will not exceed that raid&grouper, because if that were the case the raid&grouper would simply do the same thing.
Further given historical trends in MMORPGs it is not reasonable to assume that people will be perpetually occupied. It is almost always the case that a fairly substanital subset of customers go through content faster than it is released(10-25%). Trying to argue that the raid&groupers will simply not have enough time to obtain both good grouping sets and good raid sets, and therefore exceed a grouper, does not seem reasonable to me. And to assume the raid gear will not be advantageous in at least some subset of group instances is also unreasonable.
Is it possible that some individual grouper could exceed some individual raid&grouper. Sure if that grouper has a ton of items and the raid&grouper has three. But that means nothing.
Look, this is the last I'll explain this, because your ignorance on this issue is ASTOUNDING. The thing you're not getting is that there are HUNDREDS of other HIGH-END options available to players for item5 & item6, so the FACT that a player can obtain a item5 & item6 is ABSOLUTE.
And to argue that someone who would spent hundreds of hours of play to raiding would have the time to gain EVERY OTHER High-End item in the game is ABSURD. There WILL be a High-End FULL set for everyone available, PERIOD... please stop this, you're just WRONG. It's PROVEN ALL players will have access to High-End items for every possible slot, even IF they don't raid...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
EXACTLY. It is FACT "core" gamers can aquire gear to equal or near level of the Hardcore Gamers that will be part of this game. That is how it is designed: For the Adventure, not the 1337.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
Possible Grouping item set = item1, item2,item3, item4
Possible raid item set = item5, item6
possible raid&grouping item set = item1,item2,item3,item4, item5, item,6
How can either of the first two sets exceed the third. They cannot. The most than can ever acheive is equivalence. And that will only be possible if every single item is non-bind on pick up and tradeable or the raid item set is completely redundant.
I have specifically referred to raid&grouping in the above posts and not raid-exclusive players. You cannot seriously claim someone who raids and groups won't get at least the same set for dungeon X that someone who groups does. In addition he has the extra options of whatever raid gear there is, some of which may eclipse any grouping equivalent.
The best you can hope to argue is that someone who raids and groups will simply not have time to work on an optimal set of gear for dungeon X because he is too busy working on his set of gear for raid Y. It is always the case that a raid&grouper can have the exact same gear as a grouper. It is not always the case that a non-raider can have the same gear as a raid&grouper. If you assume two people of equal competence and time commitments they are not functionally equivalent. And the grouper will not exceed that raid&grouper, because if that were the case the raid&grouper would simply do the same thing.
Further given historical trends in MMORPGs it is not reasonable to assume that people will be perpetually occupied. It is almost always the case that a fairly substanital subset of customers go through content faster than it is released(10-25%). Trying to argue that the raid&groupers will simply not have enough time to obtain both good grouping sets and good raid sets, and therefore exceed a grouper, does not seem reasonable to me. And to assume the raid gear will not be advantageous in at least some subset of group instances is also unreasonable.
Is it possible that some individual grouper could exceed some individual raid&grouper. Sure if that grouper has a ton of items and the raid&grouper has three. But that means nothing.
Look, this is the last I'll explain this, because your ignorance on this issue is ASTOUNDING. The thing you're not getting is that there are HUNDREDS of other HIGH-END options available to players for item5 & item6, so the FACT that a player can obtain a item5 & item6 is ABSOLUTE.
And to argue that someone who would spent hundreds of hours of play to raiding would have the time to gain EVERY OTHER High-End item in the game is ABSURD. There WILL be a High-End FULL set for everyone available, PERIOD... please stop this, you're just WRONG. It's PROVEN ALL players will have access to High-End items for every possible slot, even IF they don't raid...
Exactly what this statement says. Too bad many casual players cant understand that. Sigil has developed an immersive game that caters to all kind of players, and they give the casual players many options to obtain really good equipments.
I'm not going to requote all that crap again. Look, Paranoia, it's like this:
You started a thread claiming that LotRO will be a great game for solo and group players who want to be able to progress just as much as raiders.
I put you on the spot about it and you:
1. decline to offer any explanation of why we should believe your claim. In effect, telling people to believe you just because you say so.
2. Tell me to ask the devs because you can't read their minds. In other words, you don't know anything.
3. Won't even attempt to discuss the issue at hand, which you brought up, and instead prefer to bombard the thread with lengthy posts expounding on why I shouldn't be asking you questions.
To sum up: You don't know. You can't or won't tell me anything. And you don't want to talk about it.
So why did you bother starting this thread in the first place? Why did you feel qualified to announce that LotRO will be such a great game for solo and group players if you don't have any information to back it up and you won't even try to speculate rationally why it might be?
The best you did was offer a link. I went to it and read it (I had read it before, by the way) and all I saw was a lot of hype about how great raiding would be in LotR.
This all seems pointless to me so far. You make a claim about a game and you won't even try to back it up. I would love it if you were right about this. I desparately want a good fantasy game that doesn't favor raiders. But I don't believe that LotR will be that game and you haven't offered me anything that even tempts me to change my mind.