So far 56.9% of the people who voted give SOE a 50% or greater chance of turning Vanguard around.
I guess that means that half of the people on this board are glass half full people and the others are hanging-out-all-night-at-Denny's-drinking-coffee-until-their-teeth-turn-yellow-goths-who-aren't-actually-goths-but-they-hang-out-with-them-so-they-can-fuck-freaky-chicks kinda people.
who really knows I mean I kinda liked VG played for 2 months then got really bored with it it needs a lot of work but it could be great if done right we will see
It's really amazing to see there are people who actually believe SOE and Smedley will turn this game around for the better. Where have you guys been? Don't you know just about everything these clowns touch turn to shit? They are the Midas of crap, everything they touch they turn to garbage and you're pinning your hopes on them? With their history in the gaming world? You would think people who visit gaming forums as well as gaming sites would at least know better when it comes to this company. Incredible!!! It's nothing but wishful thinking at best.
Someone wrote, "SOE..is a stable proffesional group".. and their taking over this game is a very good thing. You really think so, huh? More like a stable group of nitwits who couldn't care less what its gamers think or want. Stop deluding yourselves into thinking otherwise. What makes anyone think these people will change from the way they've been throughout the years to a group that will listen to it's players and do what's best for them? Because Smedley said they would? Because as this person wrote, they are a company with money? So what? You can't be serious, you would have to be pretty much uninformed to think things will be better now that they took over. Actually, not pretty much uninformed, more like completely clueless.
Where have I been? I have played all their major SOE mmorpgs like EQ 1, EQ 2 and SWG. Some of which I have played for years. So I would say that I know a little bit about SOE.
- While I don't agree with all the changes to EQ(maybe I am just old school) but it is still a very good game and I did enjoy some of the changes they did to it.
-I don't think that they should have changed SWG as far as they did. So I do think they did a bad move there, but they realised that they made a mistake and are slowly changing it. But I don't really care too much about that because I never stayed real long with SWG *shrugs*.
-Finally we have EQ 2. The work that SOE's EQ 2 team has done with that game has been nothing but remarkable. Scott Hartsman(team lead) and co. have been very good about listening to the fanbase and have really turned that game into something great.
So yes I would say that Vanguard is in better shape now that SOE is helping out in my opinion.
The Vanguard staff went from 104 to somewhere around 45 or less. I don't see how anyone can equate that as being more productive.
Honestly it is the same people working on Vanguard now as it was prior to the SOE takeover, except there are now less people and some new management. In terms of comparing Vanguard to EQ2 for a turn around, Vanguard is in much much worse shape than EQ2 was at launch. EQ2 simply had bad elements of game play and sloppy coding. Vanguard is missing entire areas still and doesn't even have scripting tools according to an interview with an employee. Not to mention the performance issues and such.
I am very curious to see the final outcome, because Vanguard represents a style of game I would like to see more of and will set some tone in the industry. However I am not going to put blind faith in SOE as their track record isn't very good.
I voted 0%. Now that it is in SoEs hands (which i predicted since beta) its toast. Actually... ill go on a further prediction... it will go on as a station access "meh... its ok..." game.
Nice prediction, it was on the station access at launch.
Get a life you freaking Gamer.....no no, you don't understand, I'm a Gamer, I have many lives!!
Originally posted by Daffid011 The Vanguard staff went from 104 to somewhere around 45 or less. I don't see how anyone can equate that as being more productive.
When it comes to software development more is not always better. In fact in a lot of cases having less developers can be more productive and faster when it comes to development cycles. Especially when you need to audit and debug code that is produced or deal more peoples "visions" of how code should be written and implemented. 104 people means 104 ways of potentially messing up when implementing code or debugging code. Not to mention that not all of those people were code monkeys.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
The Vanguard staff went from 104 to somewhere around 45 or less. I don't see how anyone can equate that as being more productive.
When it comes to software development more is not always better. In fact in a lot of cases having less developers can be more productive and faster when it comes to development cycles. Especially when you need to audit and debug code that is produced or deal more peoples "visions" of how code should be written and implemented. 104 people means 104 ways of potentially messing up when implementing code or debugging code. Not to mention that not all of those people were code monkeys.
Well I can't agree with that viewpoint. It isn't like the more people you have to delegate tasks to, the more problems you create. That is a rather silly view. So by that degree, more would get done if it was cut down to 10 people?
Getting rid of some management that was being obstructive could go a good deal to getting things done, but not cutting your staff by 55% or more. I can't imagine the work of 59+ people wasn't productive every month and now that they are gone somehow things will go faster. All cliches aside, less isn't more.
Comments
So far 56.9% of the people who voted give SOE a 50% or greater chance of turning Vanguard around.
I guess that means that half of the people on this board are glass half full people and the others are hanging-out-all-night-at-Denny's-drinking-coffee-until-their-teeth-turn-yellow-goths-who-aren't-actually-goths-but-they-hang-out-with-them-so-they-can-fuck-freaky-chicks kinda people.
Life of an MMORPG "addict"
For 7 years, proving that if you quote "fuck" you won't get banned.
They already stated officially that VG is to have the same size team as EQ2 - that's well over 50 devs.
heh
we'll see that about that. A little voice inside my head tells me that wont happen.
50 DEVs on the Vanguard project? Not in your wildest dreams
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
who really knows I mean I kinda liked VG played for 2 months then got really bored with it it needs a lot of work but it could be great if done right we will see
Where have I been? I have played all their major SOE mmorpgs like EQ 1, EQ 2 and SWG. Some of which I have played for years. So I would say that I know a little bit about SOE.
- While I don't agree with all the changes to EQ(maybe I am just old school) but it is still a very good game and I did enjoy some of the changes they did to it.
-I don't think that they should have changed SWG as far as they did. So I do think they did a bad move there, but they realised that they made a mistake and are slowly changing it. But I don't really care too much about that because I never stayed real long with SWG *shrugs*.
-Finally we have EQ 2. The work that SOE's EQ 2 team has done with that game has been nothing but remarkable. Scott Hartsman(team lead) and co. have been very good about listening to the fanbase and have really turned that game into something great.
So yes I would say that Vanguard is in better shape now that SOE is helping out in my opinion.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Honestly it is the same people working on Vanguard now as it was prior to the SOE takeover, except there are now less people and some new management. In terms of comparing Vanguard to EQ2 for a turn around, Vanguard is in much much worse shape than EQ2 was at launch. EQ2 simply had bad elements of game play and sloppy coding. Vanguard is missing entire areas still and doesn't even have scripting tools according to an interview with an employee. Not to mention the performance issues and such.
I am very curious to see the final outcome, because Vanguard represents a style of game I would like to see more of and will set some tone in the industry. However I am not going to put blind faith in SOE as their track record isn't very good.
Get a life you freaking Gamer.....no no, you don't understand, I'm a Gamer, I have many lives!!
When it comes to software development more is not always better. In fact in a lot of cases having less developers can be more productive and faster when it comes to development cycles. Especially when you need to audit and debug code that is produced or deal more peoples "visions" of how code should be written and implemented. 104 people means 104 ways of potentially messing up when implementing code or debugging code. Not to mention that not all of those people were code monkeys.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Game(s) I Am Currently Playing:
GW2 (+LoL and BF3)
When it comes to software development more is not always better. In fact in a lot of cases having less developers can be more productive and faster when it comes to development cycles. Especially when you need to audit and debug code that is produced or deal more peoples "visions" of how code should be written and implemented. 104 people means 104 ways of potentially messing up when implementing code or debugging code. Not to mention that not all of those people were code monkeys.
Well I can't agree with that viewpoint. It isn't like the more people you have to delegate tasks to, the more problems you create. That is a rather silly view. So by that degree, more would get done if it was cut down to 10 people?Getting rid of some management that was being obstructive could go a good deal to getting things done, but not cutting your staff by 55% or more. I can't imagine the work of 59+ people wasn't productive every month and now that they are gone somehow things will go faster. All cliches aside, less isn't more.