Vanguard looks like EQ2 in almost every regard. The only difference might be a slightly better view range and a more polished game overall, but atm it's just like every other EQ clone out there - Grind for xp, farm for items and materials. There's pretty much no substantial support for anything else (yet), and setting the bar too high reminds me of that other time, when everyone was wondering who would win the duel "EQ2 vs WoW".
Vanguard will be pretty dissapointing, and if people are going to leave other games for it, most of them will be back soon. There's a reason why they have been playing those other games in the first place. You don't pay a monthly fee for a game you know you're not going to play in a month or 2.
Future MMO's are ridiculously shallow, most of them are simple variations on theme and gameplay of every other game before it. There's only a few bright spots, like Spellborn or Fury, but even those aren't really new or good enough to take a substantial playerbase away from other games. The problem is that every single MMO that's coming offers purely static content. Any interaction can be compared to how WoW world pvp works at the moment.
WoW is the ultimate first generation MMO. It's easy to get into, it's a nice setting and environment to play in, and if you find some nice players, it provides a good long term motivation. Many companies are trying to beat WoW, while they should look to another way of making an MMO. The only one who is doing that at the moment is CCP, and they're proving that it's working, albeit only appealing to a very hardcore audience. I wouldn't be surprised that at least for the nexy 2-3 years, EVE is the game most veterans of MMO's will end up in - Only UO actually offers a comparable experience, and it's the reason you see people still playing it in such large numbers, but that game doesn't really attract new people anymore.
I'm one of those people who rarely plays only a single MMO at a time. There are simply too many that I want to choose one over the other. Currently I play primarily D&D Online which has a couple of good points. I'm going to buy Vanguard sometime soon after release as I had some fun during the Beta and want to explore the Diplomacy option some more.
I'm also playing City of Heroes/Villains since we have one of the top notch SuperGroups still (Circle of the Tarot) and it's fun to see if we can stay ahead of the game. As I'm also a roleplayer, I find the community in City of Heroes to be interesting and friendly enough to keep me occupied even if I'm not too engrossed in the very simplistic game design.
I don't agree with ChromeBallz that states all future MMOs are shallow. I find that to be a comment that begs further elaboration since it reeks of generalisation. Shallow is also a very obscure assessment.
Does shallow refer to low user interaction like for instance EVE manufacturing?
Does shallow refer to background story? At least Vanguard has a colossal background story and both Warhammer or Age of Conan has so much background material that it would take MONTHS to read through. Or shallow as in EVE's "We travelled to stars. Oh no, we cannot go home. We make war. We ended up being Church, Tribe, Corporate, and Republic" rehashed off-the-shelf sci-fi story?
Another thing ChromeBallz has a problem with is the static nature of most MMOs. That's true. There has yet to be released a game that truly offers the player the driving seat but it is extremely tough to carry out in actuality without making the game totally uninteresting for people joining later on. Most games are content to go with the standard approach of having a Market that can be influenced by the Players, be that the Market as in EVE or the Auction House as in World of Warcraft, it is basically the same commercial arithmetic.
I'm one of those people who rarely plays only a single MMO at a time. There are simply too many that I want to choose one over the other. Currently I play primarily D&D Online which has a couple of good points. I'm going to buy Vanguard sometime soon after release as I had some fun during the Beta and want to explore the Diplomacy option some more.
I'm also playing City of Heroes/Villains since we have one of the top notch SuperGroups still (Circle of the Tarot) and it's fun to see if we can stay ahead of the game. As I'm also a roleplayer, I find the community in City of Heroes to be interesting and friendly enough to keep me occupied even if I'm not too engrossed in the very simplistic game design.
I don't agree with ChromeBallz that states all future MMOs are shallow. I find that to be a comment that begs further elaboration since it reeks of generalisation. Shallow is also a very obscure assessment.
Does shallow refer to low user interaction like for instance EVE manufacturing?
Does shallow refer to background story? At least Vanguard has a colossal background story and both Warhammer or Age of Conan has so much background material that it would take MONTHS to read through. Or shallow as in EVE's "We travelled to stars. Oh no, we cannot go home. We make war. We ended up being Church, Tribe, Corporate, and Republic" rehashed off-the-shelf sci-fi story?
Another thing ChromeBallz has a problem with is the static nature of most MMOs. That's true. There has yet to be released a game that truly offers the player the driving seat but it is extremely tough to carry out in actuality without making the game totally uninteresting for people joining later on. Most games are content to go with the standard approach of having a Market that can be influenced by the Players, be that the Market as in EVE or the Auction House as in World of Warcraft, it is basically the same commercial arithmetic.
If you want to generalize the story in eve, be my guest, i shall do the same for other games.
Warhammer: Chaos invades, world either joins or fights chaos.
Conan: Schwarzenegger.
Vanguard: "Insert LOTR quotes here"
I dare you to find another sci-fi setting which has a comparable story to EVE.
Future mmog's are shallow because they are all based on exactly the same concept, a concept which D&D invented 30 years ago. Kill stuff, level up - There's nothing more to it. DDO is exactly the same, only, here you have to kill stuff to finish the quest, and thus level up.
ATM there are only 2 CRPG's that deviate from this, namely, EVE and Elder Scrolls. Both offer alternative ways to develop your character, which in turn allows for alternative ways to play the game. You never have to fire a single gun in EVE, and you never have to swing a single sword in TES (which is admittedly a bit more difficult though).
There are tons of ways to deviate from the generic D&D RPG system. WoD, GURPS, pr whatever system you find lying around - Vampire: Bloodlines was a good example, although it was heavily action oriented, that it can be done differently.
MMO developers are scared. They are afraid that if they make something else than the generic type MMO, that they are not going to make enough money. That's all there is to it, and that's why pretty much any future MMO will fail to compete.
Vanguard looks like EQ2 in almost every regard. The only difference might be a slightly better view range and a more polished game overall, but atm it's just like every other EQ clone out there - Grind for xp, farm for items and materials. There's pretty much no substantial support for anything else (yet), and setting the bar too high reminds me of that other time, when everyone was wondering who would win the duel "EQ2 vs WoW".
Vanguard will be pretty dissapointing, and if people are going to leave other games for it, most of them will be back soon. There's a reason why they have been playing those other games in the first place. You don't pay a monthly fee for a game you know you're not going to play in a month or 2.
Future MMO's are ridiculously shallow, most of them are simple variations on theme and gameplay of every other game before it. There's only a few bright spots, like Spellborn or Fury, but even those aren't really new or good enough to take a substantial playerbase away from other games. The problem is that every single MMO that's coming offers purely static content. Any interaction can be compared to how WoW world pvp works at the moment.
WoW is the ultimate first generation MMO. It's easy to get into, it's a nice setting and environment to play in, and if you find some nice players, it provides a good long term motivation. Many companies are trying to beat WoW, while they should look to another way of making an MMO. The only one who is doing that at the moment is CCP, and they're proving that it's working, albeit only appealing to a very hardcore audience. I wouldn't be surprised that at least for the nexy 2-3 years, EVE is the game most veterans of MMO's will end up in - Only UO actually offers a comparable experience, and it's the reason you see people still playing it in such large numbers, but that game doesn't really attract new people anymore.
Why does everyone refer to games that came out after EQ an "EQ clone?" Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Just because a game includes Experience points, levels, and a fictional theme doesn't mean its cloning or copying something else. Thats what people enjoy, so they make a more entertaining, visual stimulating, and detailed game. That would be like me seeing a Porche down the street and saying "hey look at that car, what a clone of my 95 Thunderbird..." Why? Because they both have wheels and a front bumper?
BTW. I'm really enjoying Vanguard after playin WoW for 2 years...
E8400@ 4.0Ghz ~ Saphire HD 4870 ~ 6GB DDR2@ 860MhZ
Vanguard looks like EQ2 in almost every regard. The only difference might be a slightly better view range and a more polished game overall, but atm it's just like every other EQ clone out there - Grind for xp, farm for items and materials. There's pretty much no substantial support for anything else (yet), and setting the bar too high reminds me of that other time, when everyone was wondering who would win the duel "EQ2 vs WoW".
Vanguard will be pretty dissapointing, and if people are going to leave other games for it, most of them will be back soon. There's a reason why they have been playing those other games in the first place. You don't pay a monthly fee for a game you know you're not going to play in a month or 2.
Future MMO's are ridiculously shallow, most of them are simple variations on theme and gameplay of every other game before it. There's only a few bright spots, like Spellborn or Fury, but even those aren't really new or good enough to take a substantial playerbase away from other games. The problem is that every single MMO that's coming offers purely static content. Any interaction can be compared to how WoW world pvp works at the moment.
WoW is the ultimate first generation MMO. It's easy to get into, it's a nice setting and environment to play in, and if you find some nice players, it provides a good long term motivation. Many companies are trying to beat WoW, while they should look to another way of making an MMO. The only one who is doing that at the moment is CCP, and they're proving that it's working, albeit only appealing to a very hardcore audience. I wouldn't be surprised that at least for the nexy 2-3 years, EVE is the game most veterans of MMO's will end up in - Only UO actually offers a comparable experience, and it's the reason you see people still playing it in such large numbers, but that game doesn't really attract new people anymore.
Why does everyone refer to games that came out after EQ an "EQ clone?" Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Just because a game includes Experience points, levels, and a fictional theme doesn't mean its cloning or copying something else. Thats what people enjoy, so they make a more entertaining, visual stimulating, and detailed game. That would be like me seeing a Porche down the street and saying "hey look at that car, what a clone of my 95 Thunderbird..." Why? Because they both have wheels and a front bumper?
BTW. I'm really enjoying Vanguard after playin WoW for 2 years...
Because concept is the same. You farm monsters to gain levels, you go to dungeons to get named gear, etc. The games follow the same template, you do exactly the same thing to advance your character; the same thing to get better equipment. Essentially 90% of all games that came after EQ followed the same system some innovations were adopted but the core of the game stayed the same.
Don't get me wrong though, EQ was not original either, it was the first MMO to take basic concepts of DnD board game. So in every game that followed EQ pattern there are always characters that simply kill monsters for EXP, so the only thing that changes is skins and models.
I have played eve for 3 years now, i have also tried EQ/ EQ II and will most likely try Vanguard..... BUT it`ll not move focus from the main game the thing about eve is .... either u like the gameplay and stick with it or u dont , i dont think there`s alot of in betweens......
The only thing more accurate than enemy fire is.... friendly fire
I'm one of those people who rarely plays only a single MMO at a time. There are simply too many that I want to choose one over the other. Currently I play primarily D&D Online which has a couple of good points. I'm going to buy Vanguard sometime soon after release as I had some fun during the Beta and want to explore the Diplomacy option some more.
I'm also playing City of Heroes/Villains since we have one of the top notch SuperGroups still (Circle of the Tarot) and it's fun to see if we can stay ahead of the game. As I'm also a roleplayer, I find the community in City of Heroes to be interesting and friendly enough to keep me occupied even if I'm not too engrossed in the very simplistic game design.
I don't agree with ChromeBallz that states all future MMOs are shallow. I find that to be a comment that begs further elaboration since it reeks of generalisation. Shallow is also a very obscure assessment.
Does shallow refer to low user interaction like for instance EVE manufacturing?
Does shallow refer to background story? At least Vanguard has a colossal background story and both Warhammer or Age of Conan has so much background material that it would take MONTHS to read through. Or shallow as in EVE's "We travelled to stars. Oh no, we cannot go home. We make war. We ended up being Church, Tribe, Corporate, and Republic" rehashed off-the-shelf sci-fi story?
Another thing ChromeBallz has a problem with is the static nature of most MMOs. That's true. There has yet to be released a game that truly offers the player the driving seat but it is extremely tough to carry out in actuality without making the game totally uninteresting for people joining later on. Most games are content to go with the standard approach of having a Market that can be influenced by the Players, be that the Market as in EVE or the Auction House as in World of Warcraft, it is basically the same commercial arithmetic.
If you want to generalize the story in eve, be my guest, i shall do the same for other games.
Warhammer: Chaos invades, world either joins or fights chaos.
Conan: Schwarzenegger.
Vanguard: "Insert LOTR quotes here"
I dare you to find another sci-fi setting which has a comparable story to EVE.
Future mmog's are shallow because they are all based on exactly the same concept, a concept which D&D invented 30 years ago. Kill stuff, level up - There's nothing more to it. DDO is exactly the same, only, here you have to kill stuff to finish the quest, and thus level up.
ATM there are only 2 CRPG's that deviate from this, namely, EVE and Elder Scrolls. Both offer alternative ways to develop your character, which in turn allows for alternative ways to play the game. You never have to fire a single gun in EVE, and you never have to swing a single sword in TES (which is admittedly a bit more difficult though).
There are tons of ways to deviate from the generic D&D RPG system. WoD, GURPS, pr whatever system you find lying around - Vampire: Bloodlines was a good example, although it was heavily action oriented, that it can be done differently.
MMO developers are scared. They are afraid that if they make something else than the generic type MMO, that they are not going to make enough money. That's all there is to it, and that's why pretty much any future MMO will fail to compete.
There is a common formula in every Computer roleplaying game and that is: "Spend time being successful at the task set before you, and gain rewards". You are correct this most often simply boils down to "Kill stuff" as made popular by the original Dungeons & Dragons many years ago. This also means that the person that has been at the game longest will invaribly be better than the newcomer, if he is successful at what he does, time invested + success = advancement.
To be fair to Vanguard, you can actually become a formidable person in the world without ever focusing on your Adventuring sphere. You can focus on your Harvesting, Crafting, or Diplomacy spheres instead and unless you're extremely clumsy (or insidious) I'm reluctant to think that working as a carpenter will result in too many deaths.
But you still have to invest time and be good at what you do. You can go on countless quests, try to build innumerable buildings, or do whatever you want, but if you are not good at it, you will never get better because you'll never succeed and therefore never get any Experience.
The formula is different in EVE, that's true. Here you have taken away the requirement for players to know what they are doing. They can simply work through the skills available one by one and they will get training. Players having played longer will be better than those who have only just started and player skill is non-consequential. So in effect, in EVE you get your experience points by paying your monthly fee and selecting new skills as the old ones are getting maxed out.
The difference is not exactly huge.
The core of the matter is that Computer Roleplaying Gamers are focused on advancement (in every shape or form) and MMO developers are focused on keeping the gamers attracted (and paying their subscription). This means that the formula of time spent = better character has to be included somewhere in the formula.
If that's what you're defining as "shallow" then I expect we can agree that every game by and large wil be shallow and that's fine with me. Shallow is then not a negative thing but just a consequence of necessary design and implementation.
i know they are completely different games but do u think VG will take players away? please post ur comments here. please place ur vote, thanks for ur time.
This must be the dumbest thing I have ever read. You stated yourself you know they are COMPLETELY different.
Thats like asking if a new snowboard will take away F1 drivers.
Eve is living strong. People have been saying since release it will fail, yet here it is soon 4 years old, and winning awards (winning all them), AND still growing. NO mmo game can say after 4 years they are still pulling in new customers. None.
There is a common formula in every Computer roleplaying game and that is: "Spend time being successful at the task set before you, and gain rewards". You are correct this most often simply boils down to "Kill stuff" as made popular by the original Dungeons & Dragons many years ago. This also means that the person that has been at the game longest will invaribly be better than the newcomer, if he is successful at what he does, time invested + success = advancement.
That's incorrect. In most GOOD RPG's you play through to uncover the storyline, gaining XP and levels is just something that happens along the way.
To be fair to Vanguard, you can actually become a formidable person in the world without ever focusing on your Adventuring sphere. You can focus on your Harvesting, Crafting, or Diplomacy spheres instead and unless you're extremely clumsy (or insidious) I'm reluctant to think that working as a carpenter will result in too many deaths.
But the act of harvesting and crafting is useless if all but the crappiest drops are vendor trash. If a crafter is going to build something it should be because there is a DEMAND for the item from the rest of the population, not just to gain another tick on an xp bar.
But you still have to invest time and be good at what you do. You can go on countless quests, try to build innumerable buildings, or do whatever you want, but if you are not good at it, you will never get better because you'll never succeed and therefore never get any Experience.
What's to be good at? You're clicking a couple of buttons and item x pops out. Don't confuse something that is time consuming with something that takes skill.
The formula is different in EVE, that's true. Here you have taken away the requirement for players to know what they are doing. They can simply work through the skills available one by one and they will get training. Players having played longer will be better than those who have only just started and player skill is non-consequential. So in effect, in EVE you get your experience points by paying your monthly fee and selecting new skills as the old ones are getting maxed out.
You have no clue of what it takes to succeed as a manufacturer in EVE. Sure at the most basic level you just plug in the BP and the mins into a factory slot and wait for the items to pop out, but there is a LOT more involved in it then that. For each item you build you have to factor in mineral cost (which fluctuates), factory rental cost (which fluctuates), demand, price competition from other players and many other variables. And that's just for the T1 market.
The difference is not exactly huge.
The core of the matter is that Computer Roleplaying Gamers are focused on advancement (in every shape or form) and MMO developers are focused on keeping the gamers attracted (and paying their subscription). This means that the formula of time spent = better character has to be included somewhere in the formula.
If that's what you're defining as "shallow" then I expect we can agree that every game by and large wil be shallow and that's fine with me. Shallow is then not a negative thing but just a consequence of necessary design and implementation.
Reply to Minsc (I didn't quote you to save some space)
Some might play for storyline advancement not being interested in their character's advancement in prowess. I doubt that most players see the advancement as more or less inconsequential stuff that "happens along the way", but there are propably some. Either way, the reward in that case is still based on active involvement, their reward would then be story / plot line advancement instead of being able to fly the next class of spaceship or wield the larger more powerful weapon.
You are right that crafting should mean something. But as in real life you will in most MMOs have to learn before your skill are at a level where your services are requested from other players. I don't care if that means you're sewing belts in WoW or creating some noob ammo in EVE. You train to get better and some of it will just be sold to NPC vendors.
There is nothing more or less advanced about the market mechanisms in EVE or any other MMO. The market in EVE functions identically to the auction houses in WoW. It is governed by supply and demand, the people who can put the most desired items up for sale when the demand is highest will be able to ask the best prices, likewise, if you can control the flow of items to the market you can in some way regulate the price development. It is Economics 101 and it is never complicated unless you find the whole concept of market dynamics a bit obscure (and that's fine, we all have different skills).
The difference between for instance WoW and EVE is that in EVE you can train the skills you need by choosing the desired skills and paying your subscription (time will do everything for you) and in WoW you have to take part in the skill development, if you do not practice a skill, you can never master it.
Personally I would like an Elder Scrolls based advancement system but I can see how that would not work too well within a MMO setting. Unless you introduced detoriation due to lack of continued focus on old skills, technological development in the contemporary era, possible age problems, trauma induced brain damage due to battle, accidents, or similar or simply accept that people who weren't there at launch day will forever be at an disadvantage.
I played EvE for a while, and the game wasn't for me (yet, it always seems to be progressing), but I highly doubt Vanguard could be a viable replacement for a game like EVE. They address different interests and communities for the most part. Other than being "MMO's" they have nothing in common.
Played (more than a month): SWG, Second Life, Tabula Rasa, Lineage 2, Everquest 2, EvE, MxO, Ryzom.
The formula is different in EVE, that's true. Here you have taken away the requirement for players to know what they are doing. They can simply work through the skills available one by one and they will get training. Players having played longer will be better than those who have only just started and player skill is non-consequential. So in effect, in EVE you get your experience points by paying your monthly fee and selecting new skills as the old ones are getting maxed out.
The difference is not exactly huge.
The core of the matter is that Computer Roleplaying Gamers are focused on advancement (in every shape or form) and MMO developers are focused on keeping the gamers attracted (and paying their subscription). This means that the formula of time spent = better character has to be included somewhere in the formula.
If that's what you're defining as "shallow" then I expect we can agree that every game by and large wil be shallow and that's fine with me. Shallow is then not a negative thing but just a consequence of necessary design and implementation.
(Edited for better readability and some grammar)
I think "shallow" refers to the gameplay as a whole, not only the leveling process.
Thus I agree that EVE's leveling process is shallow (as in most MMORPGs), but that does not mean the entire game is shallow. Even as a noob of two months I can see that fitting your ship and fleet coordination allow for a lot of tactical depth.
In general, I have yet to see a MMORPG where leveling requires real skill. In all cases I've found that killing monsters of similar or slightly lower level is easy enough and will give the required XP. I guess that could be changed by giving XP only for killing hard opponents and providing those with a reasonable AI, but to the best of my knowledge such a MMORPG does not exist yet.
Fleet composition will of course take some consideration (at least if you want to maximize your chance of success, which by and large is what I consider "skill" in a computer game to be, making it more certain that you will win than you will loose).
Raid composition in World of Warcraft takes consideration.
Group composition in Dungeons & Dragons Online takes consideration.
[Insert relevant large-scale conflict/obstacle] in [Insert relevant MMO] takes consideration.
Whether you're talking about outfitting a battleship in EVE or tooling up a Warrior in World of Warcraft you will do some considerations concerning what your role is going to be, what obstacles you're likely to encounter, what sort of backup plan is going to be potentially needed and what to watch out for especially (what is your number 1 weakness and possible reactions to this).
In EVE your class is basically your current ship (and of course your Skills play a part too in determining what you can use with any degree of success) so in EVE you can sort of change roles as long as you're prepared to spending a lot of time training new skills. In World of Warcraft your Class is set when you start out the game but you can alter your strength, weaknesses and preferred role by taking various Talents and equipping your toon in a certain way.
I am of the oppinion that it takes the same sort of understanding to play either game and if one is harder to master it is more due to poor interface (too cluttered/hard to understand/bothersome/abstract/non-customizable) than game content.
Note: I chose EVE and World of Warcraft as comparisons since this is the EVE forum and World of Warcraft is the best MMO in the world (as determined by the only rating that makes any sense, ie subscribers. Any other rating is to some degree influenced by personal feelings/oppinion and that is basically worthless in any sort of comparative exercise).
I played eve for a few months to give it a decent try, but found that although i had fun at times it wasn't really my cup of tea. Ive only just started playing VG but my initial impressions are that VG will be my MMo home for quite a while.
VG will definately not kill Eve, but like any new MMO release some players will migrate over.
Probably some but no significant amount. Personally I think the effect of TBC has been bigger than Vanguard will ever have.
What impact? I haven't seen any significant drop in players online since TBC released. Most people I know in EVE don't even like WOW. Those that play both... still play both... those that left WoW haven't even reactivated. I'm sure some are playing both still but I honestly have not noticed a drop in players online since TBC hit. And I certainly don't expect Vanguard to trigger any drops either.
Why?
Simple: EVE is sci-fi, PVP, Skill Based
both TBC and Vanguard are Fantasy, PVE and Level Based
Different, for the most part, player bases altogether. Some people DO play both games. But leave for Vanguard or WoW:TBC? Nah, don't see it happening.
"A ship-of-war is the best ambassador." - Oliver Cromwell
There are tons of ways to deviate from the generic D&D RPG system. WoD, GURPS, pr whatever system you find lying around - Vampire: Bloodlines was a good example, although it was heavily action oriented, that it can be done differently.
MMO developers are scared. They are afraid that if they make something else than the generic type MMO, that they are not going to make enough money. That's all there is to it, and that's why pretty much any future MMO will fail to compete.
Interestingly:
CCP & White Wolf are doing exactly this They are developing an online WOD based MMORPG (Vampire: Bloodlines is based on the WOD campaign ruleset)
Personally I can't wait. It's a project I will be following with great interest while continuing to play and love EVE. I suspect I'll wind up subscribed to both games once CCP releases the new MMO, whatever they decide to name it.
As to other MMORPG developers:
Mythic's Warhammer Online will be a nice change. From what I gather SO FAR it won't be strictly level based, which is good, but rather will be a blend of level and skill system of some kind (probably something akin to DAOC but not exactly the same) which will be a nice game to play. Darkfall, another game I'm watching intently, is going to be using a pure skill based system as well (Actually the systems they plan to use appear to be very akin to the UO model other than the Graphics, which are fully 3D like other modern MMORPG's today).
"A ship-of-war is the best ambassador." - Oliver Cromwell
I play both WoW and EVE. I've been playing WoW since release and am still in love with the game. I am a retired Everquest veteran and a fan of the Fantasy MMO genre. While all video games have their flaws, it's the fact that they're a game that makes them fun. Yeah, sometimes killing stuff, looting, leveling can get tedious, it is the people that can make it fun (or not so in some cases). I have TBC and an enjoying working through the content. Many of my peers have seen fit to rush to level 70 in a week, forgoing many basic human needs in the process...I'm just fine with taking a month or two and exploring.
In regards to EVE vs WoW, I don't even see them as being competitors in any sense other than they are MMOs seeking subscriptions. In addition to being a Fantasy fan, I am also a Sci-Fi fan. I Started playing EVE about a year ago. I had leveled 2 characters to level 60 (then the maximum level) in WoW and had worked a 3rd near to 60. I raided 3 times a week with my guild. Pretty much the standard WoW experience. I began to want something different for my off nights. I saw a banner add for EVE Online and decided to take their 14 day trial. I've been playing ever sense.
EVE offers a nice change of pace from other MMOs. I like the fact that my character can gain abilities even while I am not in the game. I have a very busy work schedule working for a University and advising several student groups. Between the workday, after hours meetings and after hours work calls, I don't ever really have a regular play schedule. EVE lets me feel like I've accompished something with less "effort". They're not just handing out skills though. I do have to earn the funds to buy the skill books for the skills I want, but that's nothing a couple hours of mining or mission running can't help.
So I guess if you just skim my above rant, the point I want to make from it all is that WoW and EVE are fun for different reasons and are in different genres. Do you like donning a sword and shield and slaying goblins and dragons? Or do you like climbing into a massive spaceship for interstellar travel, trade and combat?
When it comes down to it, they're both just games. If you don't like them, don't pay for them! Just have fun!
I play both WoW and EVE. I've been playing WoW since release and am still in love with the game. I am a retired Everquest veteran and a fan of the Fantasy MMO genre. While all video games have their flaws, it's the fact that they're a game that makes them fun. Yeah, sometimes killing stuff, looting, leveling can get tedious, it is the people that can make it fun (or not so in some cases). I have TBC and an enjoying working through the content. Many of my peers have seen fit to rush to level 70 in a week, forgoing many basic human needs in the process...I'm just fine with taking a month or two and exploring.
In regards to EVE vs WoW, I don't even see them as being competitors in any sense other than they are MMOs seeking subscriptions. In addition to being a Fantasy fan, I am also a Sci-Fi fan. I Started playing EVE about a year ago. I had leveled 2 characters to level 60 (then the maximum level) in WoW and had worked a 3rd near to 60. I raided 3 times a week with my guild. Pretty much the standard WoW experience. I began to want something different for my off nights. I saw a banner add for EVE Online and decided to take their 14 day trial. I've been playing ever sense.
EVE offers a nice change of pace from other MMOs. I like the fact that my character can gain abilities even while I am not in the game. I have a very busy work schedule working for a University and advising several student groups. Between the workday, after hours meetings and after hours work calls, I don't ever really have a regular play schedule. EVE lets me feel like I've accompished something with less "effort". They're not just handing out skills though. I do have to earn the funds to buy the skill books for the skills I want, but that's nothing a couple hours of mining or mission running can't help.
So I guess if you just skim my above rant, the point I want to make from it all is that WoW and EVE are fun for different reasons and are in different genres. Do you like donning a sword and shield and slaying goblins and dragons? Or do you like climbing into a massive spaceship for interstellar travel, trade and combat?
When it comes down to it, they're both just games. If you don't like them, don't pay for them! Just have fun!
Cheers!
I agree
Eve is a game that takes hours and hours to play. WOW you can log on for ten minutes have a blast log off go to work beat off then get your daily ritual on.
I agree Eve is a game that takes hours and hours to play. WOW you can log on for ten minutes have a blast log off go to work beat off then get your daily ritual on.
The above is only true for WOW until level 60. After level 60 WoW is all about raiding. Which cannot be done in '10 minutes'.
As to EVE? I can log in for 15-20 minutes and have more fun than I ever could in WoW. Sure it's MORE fun to play longer but I can hop on, throw a couple ships in the cooker, go kill some NPC Rats to get loot & money, mine a rock or two if that mood strikes, return to station and either sell the loot, melt it for minerals to make more ships (thus more money) or I can just shoot the breeze with friends.
Nothing in EVE takes a long time unless you're hell bent on travelling 10+ systems away. Even that can be done in about 12 minutes with Warp to Zero.
So I dissagree. EVE can be very fun for just a few minutes a day, IF you enjoy it. If you don't enjoy EVE then even 3 hours of playing isn't going to be "fun" though
"A ship-of-war is the best ambassador." - Oliver Cromwell
I didn't mean to imply that you have to have "hours" to play when sitting down to EVE. You can log in for 5 minutes or 5 hours and get something done. The same for WoW pre-max level. I love that fact about these games. If I feel inclined to take my lunch break at home, I can log into either and have fun. It is true though, that unless you are crazy about tradeskills in WoW, once you've hit the top, raiding is the only way to go, unless you roll a new character. Games = For fun.
Vanguard will never kill EVE. I can safely say that when Vanguard dies, EVE will still stand.
EvE is not as populated as WOW or in fact most mainstream MMOs but the community is solid, loyal and CCP is still on top of their game. Even after 3 or 4 years, CCP is still the best when it comes to customer support, innovation and such. They still care and love their community. As for the game itself, many are totaly in love with the genre and many more will in the future. People would be surprise on how strong and solid some MMOs are... heck.. even www.mankind.net is still up and that came out in 1998. (ok it's not as strong as it was lol)
The point is, Vanguard is an amazing MMO but don't be fooled by it's grandeur. Fantasy is starting to lose it's charm on many players... Vanguard also punish players with Mid-End computers and let's not neglect the fact that the word Sony scares alot of potential customer.
I've often thought about that simple question... Why did Microsoft and Sigil split? We might all hate Microsoft but the fact is this: They are NOT stupid and they didn't do much to keep Sigil affiliated with them. (I don,t know enough to actually give a full opinion on that but that's what I personaly think)
Still, I am still heading to Vanguard... :P But deep down, i'm just waiting on EVE Avatar expansion!
You said customer support is the best? I disagree, I think their customer support sucks. I'd avoid Eve or expect eventually to be disappointed/cheated.....
It sounds like your waiting on an expansion from Eve, so you haven't been playing their bugfest game.....if its so great and your not playing the game?
========================== The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.
Comments
MMOGChart is the most accurate site for comparing mmog's, at least in terms of subscriber numbers. A lot of companies support it.
Playing: WF
Played: WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL (2005), GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH (RIP), STO, TSW, TERA, EVE, ESO, BDO
Tried: EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus, AA
Vanguard looks like EQ2 in almost every regard. The only difference might be a slightly better view range and a more polished game overall, but atm it's just like every other EQ clone out there - Grind for xp, farm for items and materials. There's pretty much no substantial support for anything else (yet), and setting the bar too high reminds me of that other time, when everyone was wondering who would win the duel "EQ2 vs WoW".
Vanguard will be pretty dissapointing, and if people are going to leave other games for it, most of them will be back soon. There's a reason why they have been playing those other games in the first place. You don't pay a monthly fee for a game you know you're not going to play in a month or 2.
Future MMO's are ridiculously shallow, most of them are simple variations on theme and gameplay of every other game before it. There's only a few bright spots, like Spellborn or Fury, but even those aren't really new or good enough to take a substantial playerbase away from other games. The problem is that every single MMO that's coming offers purely static content. Any interaction can be compared to how WoW world pvp works at the moment.
WoW is the ultimate first generation MMO. It's easy to get into, it's a nice setting and environment to play in, and if you find some nice players, it provides a good long term motivation. Many companies are trying to beat WoW, while they should look to another way of making an MMO. The only one who is doing that at the moment is CCP, and they're proving that it's working, albeit only appealing to a very hardcore audience. I wouldn't be surprised that at least for the nexy 2-3 years, EVE is the game most veterans of MMO's will end up in - Only UO actually offers a comparable experience, and it's the reason you see people still playing it in such large numbers, but that game doesn't really attract new people anymore.
Playing: WF
Played: WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL (2005), GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH (RIP), STO, TSW, TERA, EVE, ESO, BDO
Tried: EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus, AA
I'm also playing City of Heroes/Villains since we have one of the top notch SuperGroups still (Circle of the Tarot) and it's fun to see if we can stay ahead of the game. As I'm also a roleplayer, I find the community in City of Heroes to be interesting and friendly enough to keep me occupied even if I'm not too engrossed in the very simplistic game design.
I don't agree with ChromeBallz that states all future MMOs are shallow. I find that to be a comment that begs further elaboration since it reeks of generalisation. Shallow is also a very obscure assessment.
Does shallow refer to low user interaction like for instance EVE manufacturing?
Does shallow refer to background story? At least Vanguard has a colossal background story and both Warhammer or Age of Conan has so much background material that it would take MONTHS to read through. Or shallow as in EVE's "We travelled to stars. Oh no, we cannot go home. We make war. We ended up being Church, Tribe, Corporate, and Republic" rehashed off-the-shelf sci-fi story?
Another thing ChromeBallz has a problem with is the static nature of most MMOs. That's true. There has yet to be released a game that truly offers the player the driving seat but it is extremely tough to carry out in actuality without making the game totally uninteresting for people joining later on. Most games are content to go with the standard approach of having a Market that can be influenced by the Players, be that the Market as in EVE or the Auction House as in World of Warcraft, it is basically the same commercial arithmetic.
Warhammer: Chaos invades, world either joins or fights chaos.
Conan: Schwarzenegger.
Vanguard: "Insert LOTR quotes here"
I dare you to find another sci-fi setting which has a comparable story to EVE.
Future mmog's are shallow because they are all based on exactly the same concept, a concept which D&D invented 30 years ago. Kill stuff, level up - There's nothing more to it. DDO is exactly the same, only, here you have to kill stuff to finish the quest, and thus level up.
ATM there are only 2 CRPG's that deviate from this, namely, EVE and Elder Scrolls. Both offer alternative ways to develop your character, which in turn allows for alternative ways to play the game. You never have to fire a single gun in EVE, and you never have to swing a single sword in TES (which is admittedly a bit more difficult though).
There are tons of ways to deviate from the generic D&D RPG system. WoD, GURPS, pr whatever system you find lying around - Vampire: Bloodlines was a good example, although it was heavily action oriented, that it can be done differently.
MMO developers are scared. They are afraid that if they make something else than the generic type MMO, that they are not going to make enough money. That's all there is to it, and that's why pretty much any future MMO will fail to compete.
Playing: WF
Played: WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL (2005), GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH (RIP), STO, TSW, TERA, EVE, ESO, BDO
Tried: EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus, AA
BTW. I'm really enjoying Vanguard after playin WoW for 2 years...
E8400@ 4.0Ghz ~ Saphire HD 4870 ~ 6GB DDR2@ 860MhZ
BTW. I'm really enjoying Vanguard after playin WoW for 2 years...
Because concept is the same. You farm monsters to gain levels, you go to dungeons to get named gear, etc. The games follow the same template, you do exactly the same thing to advance your character; the same thing to get better equipment. Essentially 90% of all games that came after EQ followed the same system some innovations were adopted but the core of the game stayed the same.
Don't get me wrong though, EQ was not original either, it was the first MMO to take basic concepts of DnD board game. So in every game that followed EQ pattern there are always characters that simply kill monsters for EXP, so the only thing that changes is skins and models.
The only thing more accurate than enemy fire is.... friendly fire
Warhammer: Chaos invades, world either joins or fights chaos.
Conan: Schwarzenegger.
Vanguard: "Insert LOTR quotes here"
I dare you to find another sci-fi setting which has a comparable story to EVE.
Future mmog's are shallow because they are all based on exactly the same concept, a concept which D&D invented 30 years ago. Kill stuff, level up - There's nothing more to it. DDO is exactly the same, only, here you have to kill stuff to finish the quest, and thus level up.
ATM there are only 2 CRPG's that deviate from this, namely, EVE and Elder Scrolls. Both offer alternative ways to develop your character, which in turn allows for alternative ways to play the game. You never have to fire a single gun in EVE, and you never have to swing a single sword in TES (which is admittedly a bit more difficult though).
There are tons of ways to deviate from the generic D&D RPG system. WoD, GURPS, pr whatever system you find lying around - Vampire: Bloodlines was a good example, although it was heavily action oriented, that it can be done differently.
MMO developers are scared. They are afraid that if they make something else than the generic type MMO, that they are not going to make enough money. That's all there is to it, and that's why pretty much any future MMO will fail to compete.
There is a common formula in every Computer roleplaying game and that is: "Spend time being successful at the task set before you, and gain rewards". You are correct this most often simply boils down to "Kill stuff" as made popular by the original Dungeons & Dragons many years ago. This also means that the person that has been at the game longest will invaribly be better than the newcomer, if he is successful at what he does, time invested + success = advancement.
To be fair to Vanguard, you can actually become a formidable person in the world without ever focusing on your Adventuring sphere. You can focus on your Harvesting, Crafting, or Diplomacy spheres instead and unless you're extremely clumsy (or insidious) I'm reluctant to think that working as a carpenter will result in too many deaths.
But you still have to invest time and be good at what you do. You can go on countless quests, try to build innumerable buildings, or do whatever you want, but if you are not good at it, you will never get better because you'll never succeed and therefore never get any Experience.
The formula is different in EVE, that's true. Here you have taken away the requirement for players to know what they are doing. They can simply work through the skills available one by one and they will get training. Players having played longer will be better than those who have only just started and player skill is non-consequential. So in effect, in EVE you get your experience points by paying your monthly fee and selecting new skills as the old ones are getting maxed out.
The difference is not exactly huge.
The core of the matter is that Computer Roleplaying Gamers are focused on advancement (in every shape or form) and MMO developers are focused on keeping the gamers attracted (and paying their subscription). This means that the formula of time spent = better character has to be included somewhere in the formula.
If that's what you're defining as "shallow" then I expect we can agree that every game by and large wil be shallow and that's fine with me. Shallow is then not a negative thing but just a consequence of necessary design and implementation.
(Edited for better readability and some grammar)
This must be the dumbest thing I have ever read. You stated yourself you know they are COMPLETELY different.
Thats like asking if a new snowboard will take away F1 drivers.
Eve is living strong. People have been saying since release it will fail, yet here it is soon 4 years old, and winning awards (winning all them), AND still growing. NO mmo game can say after 4 years they are still pulling in new customers. None.
There is a common formula in every Computer roleplaying game and that is: "Spend time being successful at the task set before you, and gain rewards". You are correct this most often simply boils down to "Kill stuff" as made popular by the original Dungeons & Dragons many years ago. This also means that the person that has been at the game longest will invaribly be better than the newcomer, if he is successful at what he does, time invested + success = advancement.
That's incorrect. In most GOOD RPG's you play through to uncover the storyline, gaining XP and levels is just something that happens along the way.
To be fair to Vanguard, you can actually become a formidable person in the world without ever focusing on your Adventuring sphere. You can focus on your Harvesting, Crafting, or Diplomacy spheres instead and unless you're extremely clumsy (or insidious) I'm reluctant to think that working as a carpenter will result in too many deaths.
But the act of harvesting and crafting is useless if all but the crappiest drops are vendor trash. If a crafter is going to build something it should be because there is a DEMAND for the item from the rest of the population, not just to gain another tick on an xp bar.
But you still have to invest time and be good at what you do. You can go on countless quests, try to build innumerable buildings, or do whatever you want, but if you are not good at it, you will never get better because you'll never succeed and therefore never get any Experience.
What's to be good at? You're clicking a couple of buttons and item x pops out. Don't confuse something that is time consuming with something that takes skill.
The formula is different in EVE, that's true. Here you have taken away the requirement for players to know what they are doing. They can simply work through the skills available one by one and they will get training. Players having played longer will be better than those who have only just started and player skill is non-consequential. So in effect, in EVE you get your experience points by paying your monthly fee and selecting new skills as the old ones are getting maxed out.
You have no clue of what it takes to succeed as a manufacturer in EVE. Sure at the most basic level you just plug in the BP and the mins into a factory slot and wait for the items to pop out, but there is a LOT more involved in it then that. For each item you build you have to factor in mineral cost (which fluctuates), factory rental cost (which fluctuates), demand, price competition from other players and many other variables. And that's just for the T1 market.
The difference is not exactly huge.
The core of the matter is that Computer Roleplaying Gamers are focused on advancement (in every shape or form) and MMO developers are focused on keeping the gamers attracted (and paying their subscription). This means that the formula of time spent = better character has to be included somewhere in the formula.
If that's what you're defining as "shallow" then I expect we can agree that every game by and large wil be shallow and that's fine with me. Shallow is then not a negative thing but just a consequence of necessary design and implementation.
(Edited for better readability and some grammar)
Reply to Minsc (I didn't quote you to save some space)
Some might play for storyline advancement not being interested in their character's advancement in prowess. I doubt that most players see the advancement as more or less inconsequential stuff that "happens along the way", but there are propably some. Either way, the reward in that case is still based on active involvement, their reward would then be story / plot line advancement instead of being able to fly the next class of spaceship or wield the larger more powerful weapon.
You are right that crafting should mean something. But as in real life you will in most MMOs have to learn before your skill are at a level where your services are requested from other players. I don't care if that means you're sewing belts in WoW or creating some noob ammo in EVE. You train to get better and some of it will just be sold to NPC vendors.
There is nothing more or less advanced about the market mechanisms in EVE or any other MMO. The market in EVE functions identically to the auction houses in WoW. It is governed by supply and demand, the people who can put the most desired items up for sale when the demand is highest will be able to ask the best prices, likewise, if you can control the flow of items to the market you can in some way regulate the price development. It is Economics 101 and it is never complicated unless you find the whole concept of market dynamics a bit obscure (and that's fine, we all have different skills).
The difference between for instance WoW and EVE is that in EVE you can train the skills you need by choosing the desired skills and paying your subscription (time will do everything for you) and in WoW you have to take part in the skill development, if you do not practice a skill, you can never master it.
Personally I would like an Elder Scrolls based advancement system but I can see how that would not work too well within a MMO setting. Unless you introduced detoriation due to lack of continued focus on old skills, technological development in the contemporary era, possible age problems, trauma induced brain damage due to battle, accidents, or similar or simply accept that people who weren't there at launch day will forever be at an disadvantage.
Played (more than a month): SWG, Second Life, Tabula Rasa, Lineage 2, Everquest 2, EvE, MxO, Ryzom.
Tried: WoW, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, Everquest, WWII Online, Planetside
Beta: Lotro, Tabula Rasa, WAR.
Thus I agree that EVE's leveling process is shallow (as in most MMORPGs), but that does not mean the entire game is shallow. Even as a noob of two months I can see that fitting your ship and fleet coordination allow for a lot of tactical depth.
In general, I have yet to see a MMORPG where leveling requires real skill. In all cases I've found that killing monsters of similar or slightly lower level is easy enough and will give the required XP. I guess that could be changed by giving XP only for killing hard opponents and providing those with a reasonable AI, but to the best of my knowledge such a MMORPG does not exist yet.
Raid composition in World of Warcraft takes consideration.
Group composition in Dungeons & Dragons Online takes consideration.
[Insert relevant large-scale conflict/obstacle] in [Insert relevant MMO] takes consideration.
Whether you're talking about outfitting a battleship in EVE or tooling up a Warrior in World of Warcraft you will do some considerations concerning what your role is going to be, what obstacles you're likely to encounter, what sort of backup plan is going to be potentially needed and what to watch out for especially (what is your number 1 weakness and possible reactions to this).
In EVE your class is basically your current ship (and of course your Skills play a part too in determining what you can use with any degree of success) so in EVE you can sort of change roles as long as you're prepared to spending a lot of time training new skills. In World of Warcraft your Class is set when you start out the game but you can alter your strength, weaknesses and preferred role by taking various Talents and equipping your toon in a certain way.
I am of the oppinion that it takes the same sort of understanding to play either game and if one is harder to master it is more due to poor interface (too cluttered/hard to understand/bothersome/abstract/non-customizable) than game content.
Note: I chose EVE and World of Warcraft as comparisons since this is the EVE forum and World of Warcraft is the best MMO in the world (as determined by the only rating that makes any sense, ie subscribers. Any other rating is to some degree influenced by personal feelings/oppinion and that is basically worthless in any sort of comparative exercise).
I played eve for a few months to give it a decent try, but found that although i had fun at times it wasn't really my cup of tea. Ive only just started playing VG but my initial impressions are that VG will be my MMo home for quite a while.
VG will definately not kill Eve, but like any new MMO release some players will migrate over.
Why?
Simple: EVE is sci-fi, PVP, Skill Based
both TBC and Vanguard are Fantasy, PVE and Level Based
Different, for the most part, player bases altogether. Some people DO play both games. But leave for Vanguard or WoW:TBC? Nah, don't see it happening.
"A ship-of-war is the best ambassador." - Oliver Cromwell
CCP & White Wolf are doing exactly this
Personally I can't wait. It's a project I will be following with great interest while continuing to play and love EVE. I suspect I'll wind up subscribed to both games once CCP releases the new MMO, whatever they decide to name it.
As to other MMORPG developers:
Mythic's Warhammer Online will be a nice change. From what I gather SO FAR it won't be strictly level based, which is good, but rather will be a blend of level and skill system of some kind (probably something akin to DAOC but not exactly the same) which will be a nice game to play. Darkfall, another game I'm watching intently, is going to be using a pure skill based system as well (Actually the systems they plan to use appear to be very akin to the UO model other than the Graphics, which are fully 3D like other modern MMORPG's today).
"A ship-of-war is the best ambassador." - Oliver Cromwell
In regards to EVE vs WoW, I don't even see them as being competitors in any sense other than they are MMOs seeking subscriptions. In addition to being a Fantasy fan, I am also a Sci-Fi fan. I Started playing EVE about a year ago. I had leveled 2 characters to level 60 (then the maximum level) in WoW and had worked a 3rd near to 60. I raided 3 times a week with my guild. Pretty much the standard WoW experience. I began to want something different for my off nights. I saw a banner add for EVE Online and decided to take their 14 day trial. I've been playing ever sense.
EVE offers a nice change of pace from other MMOs. I like the fact that my character can gain abilities even while I am not in the game. I have a very busy work schedule working for a University and advising several student groups. Between the workday, after hours meetings and after hours work calls, I don't ever really have a regular play schedule. EVE lets me feel like I've accompished something with less "effort". They're not just handing out skills though. I do have to earn the funds to buy the skill books for the skills I want, but that's nothing a couple hours of mining or mission running can't help.
So I guess if you just skim my above rant, the point I want to make from it all is that WoW and EVE are fun for different reasons and are in different genres. Do you like donning a sword and shield and slaying goblins and dragons? Or do you like climbing into a massive spaceship for interstellar travel, trade and combat?
When it comes down to it, they're both just games. If you don't like them, don't pay for them! Just have fun!
Cheers!
I agree
Eve is a game that takes hours and hours to play. WOW you can log on for ten minutes have a blast log off go to work beat off then get your daily ritual on.
As to EVE? I can log in for 15-20 minutes and have more fun than I ever could in WoW. Sure it's MORE fun to play longer but I can hop on, throw a couple ships in the cooker, go kill some NPC Rats to get loot & money, mine a rock or two if that mood strikes, return to station and either sell the loot, melt it for minerals to make more ships (thus more money) or I can just shoot the breeze with friends.
Nothing in EVE takes a long time unless you're hell bent on travelling 10+ systems away. Even that can be done in about 12 minutes with Warp to Zero.
So I dissagree. EVE can be very fun for just a few minutes a day, IF you enjoy it. If you don't enjoy EVE then even 3 hours of playing isn't going to be "fun" though
"A ship-of-war is the best ambassador." - Oliver Cromwell
Cheers!
You said customer support is the best? I disagree, I think their customer support sucks. I'd avoid Eve or expect eventually to be disappointed/cheated.....
It sounds like your waiting on an expansion from Eve, so you haven't been playing their bugfest game.....if its so great and your not playing the game?
==========================
The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.
.