hmm the game may be a dead end to you! in your opinion but not to everyone. the OP made fair reveiw which was just his opinion. your comments were ridiculous though. sorry but to say the game is a dead end when it has an active player base that are enjoying every min of it ( no matter how small that player base is ) is a silly comment. By all means give an opinion but dont try to mislead people! the average person will see your posts for what they are. and please do me a favour....never come back even when there is a trial. we could really do without peple like you. Oh ye call me a fanboy or whatever trendy name were called now. i really dont care ( not even sure if it's meant to be n insult or not )
Sorry to disgaree but to say the game is at a dead end is not misleading. Month after month the games top criteria for fixing is perfomance (still!). Month after month a new issue comes up on the forum which makes more people leave or unhappy. The RP merge was a good example. Month after month most posts on here are expressing the opinion why they quit or review it with it at best average scores. Even when SOE fix the game, its present player base seem to get upset as they see it as their personal game and dont want any changes. Then there is tiny telling issues like bad animations and no helms. The devil is in the detail here.
The fact is VG is in this state and no one is really bashing it. The reality is pretty dire and we can list criteria as long as the bug list for the reason.
Tellingly, the game isn't even available in most high street outlets in the UK. Most people in the know with gaming sneer at VG, Anyone not in the know wont see it on high streets shelves.
So in light of this I dont think a dead end is a bad description. Station pass keeps this game going and the very small fan base (kudos to them). Maybe though this can be ignored and the dead end driven out of though I feel the change of direction will annoy many in the game already and everyone that tried the game is still annoyed with how it turned out. So EQ2 had a bad launch and it never really recovered but got better. I'm not even sure VG will achieve EQ2 status. The number influx to EQ2 after VG was a telling point. Is suspect EQ2 may still be a little higher.
As said before VG has potential but it needs some serious sucking up to do with those of us that took the majority opinion that the game was messed badly.
I can see why so many people talk about vanboys etc but what they dont really understand is that some of us actually like the game and still play it. Lets face it there are many games with even less subs that are still around. If SOE gave us indication that the game will be closing in the near future thn yes agreed it's a dead end. But again lets face it all they do is tell us the oposite.
Could you explain what you mean by people in the know! myself i have played mmo's for the last 10 years. ok given i am no tech expert but to play games, fact is you dont need to be. all you need is simple iniative....you decide if you like a game or not. now i am not knocking anyone who doesn't like the game, that's up to them.
A dead end to me is something that's going nowhere. but in VG soe are activly working on fixes, artwork and adding content. this to me is not a dead end and if i enjoy the game then even better. My advice to any who want to try it is make up your own mind, there are no unbiased opinions....and on a side note dont even look at who runs the games, leave polotics in polotics and have fun instead.
Shukes, there is nothing wrong with liking Vanguard. I enjoyed it and keep an eye on its progress... just in case it suprises me.
SOE isn't going to buy a game and then come out and say, well it just isn't going to work out. No company in their right mind will do that.
However, Vanguard does look to be at a sort of virtual dead end. The game is nearing its first anniversary and it doesn't even have a raid yet which is shocking for what was billed as a hardcore game. The SOE takeover hasn't produced much new, just finishing up stuff that the Sigil team already had in the works for the most part. With a huge laundry list of problems that need addressing, how much can a couple dozen developers actually accomplish? An expansion is most certainly out of the question for a long time to come and that is only if it gets more team.
Ask yourself what can SOE do to turn the game around and attract new players, because that is what Vanguard needs most. I think it will need to target the low hanging fruit if you will, which is the casual player. Keeping Vanguard going along its original visions just makes it compete with EQ1/EQ2 for the most part which doesn't do SOE much good except to hold onto its current subscribers. I don't yet understand what SOE plans for the game, but I don't see how it can be designed to please the current fan bases desires and try to attract new players without just cannibalizing the Everquest franchise.
you do have a point friend and the way you have put your response is offering your opinion rather than stating it like it is fact and i apreciate that. oe are adding content including raid content, which is more thn just APW that people may have heard about. There are also land based raid targets being added at the same time. You are right about Soe just fixing and adding what was supposed to there in the first place though! but as a player i have to try to see the game for what it is now and not what it was supposed to be at launch but wasn't.
You made an interesting comment about "where soe are heading with this game" and i have to admit you have me there! that's something i would like to know myself...a kind of direction. That way at least maybe new players could look and see if it's a direction they would like to be part of.
I wouldn't say they need to look towards the bottom of the tree, if i read that correct i think thats bit unfair. I class myself as a very good gamer and an experienced one at that. with 10+ years of exp in online gaming including casual, hardcore raiding and social grouping i think i am qualified to decide for myself what is a good/bad game. I may have read your intention wrong there and reading the rest of your post i think i have
All i do is simply compare games that are here at the moment and decide which i think is best, in my opinion i have the most fun playing VG others think the same. an interesting thing would be to be able to look at the current subs and compare them with the last recording i saw which was last august. To me playing at the current time it seems to be picking up but i may be wrong. It will never be comparable to the big games out there but as long as it's supported then thats fine with me. I dont need 10k+ people running around when i can only group with 6 at a time
Originally posted by Daffid011 SOE isn't going to buy a game and then come out and say, well it just isn't going to work out. No company in their right mind will do that.
Actually SOE may use VG not to make uber profit but as a training ground for their new programmers taking the best perfomers and moving them on to "real" projects. Why do this ? Well VG was most likely be bought for pittance, brings in little revenue, small fan base to annoy and putting untested staff on such a project is low risk whilst allowing new programmers to prove themselves.
Of course I cannot prove this, though it seems likely in VG case.
They also benefits from having VG as another Station pass game. The more games they can offer to that pass the more attractive that option becomes. Take me for example, I have a Station pass sub and I play VG and EQ2. I pay the pass price due to playing two of their games (and the extra character slots in EQ2), now they will also add Pirates of the burning sea to this pass. But do I play more hours then I would have done playing only one of the games? Hardly so, but I do pay more!
Interesting review, I subscribed a while ago and I like the game, it does need some work still, though. I can't wait for the character model re-vamp, because most of the characters look awkward (except the smaller ones.) But SOE has made great progress from what it used to be, I do believe that Vanguard has a solid future if they do promote it after these milestones are completed.
When does SOE plan on doing the character model revamp?? Its been approximately 14 months since Brad Mcquaid stated the "new" character models would be going live "soon" Waaaaaaaaaaaay back in beta 3 we were promised new character models and were still yet to see any.
I hope SOE does this soon because it really needs to be done. Not only do the character models need to be revamped, the armor graphics, weapon graphics, spell animations, etc all need to be redone to match the best looking landscape/terrain I've ever seen in any MMORPG.
I seen Khal was redone and imho, it looks alot better than before. Personally I think SOE should take Vanguard down for a few months to tweak and polish the game. Then after everything is finished, the game should have a second release. Perhaps even include a major content adventure pack/ minor expansion release that includes Inquisitors or Bezerkers as well. Personally, I think this will attract more people and cause many of us ex Vanboy's to come back and give the game a second or third try.
But the rate their going, it'll probably take double that time to finally get the game running and looking like it should have on release. But by that time, AoC and WAR will be released and Vanguard may not make it through the summer.
Rallithon Oakthornn (Retired Heirophant of the 60th season)
Originally posted by Daffid011 SOE isn't going to buy a game and then come out and say, well it just isn't going to work out. No company in their right mind will do that.
Actually SOE may use VG not to make uber profit but as a training ground for their new programmers taking the best perfomers and moving them on to "real" projects. Why do this ? Well VG was most likely be bought for pittance, brings in little revenue, small fan base to annoy and putting untested staff on such a project is low risk whilst allowing new programmers to prove themselves.
Of course I cannot prove this, though it seems likely in VG case.
You actually think that it is cheaper and better to buy a game and test new employes on that one. And that would be a serious idea.
This is a good game that got put out by a terrible team. I think that VSoH HAD the opportunity to be a great game and it failed...Does that mean that some might still enjoy it, yeah sure. But bottom line is that it is full of false promises and the things that have been put in were implemented poorly.
I, honestly, wanted nothing more than for this game to pwn all other mmorpgs. I played from first day of beta to 1 max level cleric and many other toons through their 30's....on all types of servers. This game has been given every chance I could possibly give it then I gave it one more. It, for me, is an EXTREME let down. I would in all honesty give this game a 3 out of 10. The only major props I can give it is graphics, it looks good.
Originally posted by Daffid011 SOE isn't going to buy a game and then come out and say, well it just isn't going to work out. No company in their right mind will do that.
Actually SOE may use VG not to make uber profit but as a training ground for their new programmers taking the best perfomers and moving them on to "real" projects. Why do this ? Well VG was most likely be bought for pittance, brings in little revenue, small fan base to annoy and putting untested staff on such a project is low risk whilst allowing new programmers to prove themselves.
Of course I cannot prove this, though it seems likely in VG case.
You actually think that it is cheaper and better to buy a game and test new employes on that one. And that would be a serious idea.
Oh my.
Well ... I wouldn't get untested staff and put them on my ultimate death star building project. I'd place them somewhere where risk is low yet any talent will show, I may also round robin them on tasks to see what the excel at. This is not as mad as you may think. As I say VG was most likely bought very cheaply, Most of its development costs will never be recovered. Sigil declared themselves bankrupt and sold off there assets from the potted plastic plants to VG source code to SOE....
So SOE gains a large and buggy (sorry fanboys) code base with which to test new programmers. This method is also useful as it shows how they adapt to reading and rewriting old code, which I have been told is 90% of programmers tasks. They simply don't often start with a blank sheet.
How else would you better test new staff members with minimal risk ?
I hope SOE does this soon because it really needs to be done. Not only do the character models need to be revamped, the armor graphics, weapon graphics, spell animations, etc all need to be redone to match the best looking landscape/terrain I've ever seen in any MMORPG.
Im not even going to start with you Truenorthbg, your not worth the attention. However I would love your comments about the review I wrote
It is difficult for me to critique your review becahuse I think it is 1) biased, 2) lacking analysis and likely written in 3) haste and 4) frustration. Overall, my theory is that you do not have enough experience (evidence by "impressions" and lack of knowledge about combat and other features) to write a review that is 5) comprehensive, 6) fair, and 7) accurate.
Bias (comments indicate you dislike VG)
Lack of analysis (reads too much of an opinion)
Haste (time played, experience in the game)
Frustration (has a history of quitting games)
Incomprehensive (many game features are totally absent)
Unfair (see, e.g., comments on VG's future)
Inaccurate (see, e.g., comments on combat)
The above factors makes a critique particularly difficult for me.
If you are fair, I will be try to be (as I always am) as a) fair and b) honest as I can be of yours.
I am going to take this a bit off the current line of **ahem** diologue and bring up something that I find interesting. I have seen many comments about a review being "bias". In my opinion ALL reviews are bias. Either the reviewer played the game (hopefully) and liked it, or they did not. In either case, even a fairly level review will reflect that.
While I agree that a good review will try to capture both sides of the coin, so to speak, it is the reviewers "opinion" you need to come to trust. Otherwise it is simply a features/ benefits (or lack thereof) blurb that anyone can write.
You are trusting a reviewer to rate the worthiness of a game based on a number of elements that make sense. Each one may have a different level of importance and appeal to the reviewer. Thus, no matter how hard a reviewer tries to cover all the bases the personal slant of the reviewer is unavoidable. You come to trust the reviewer's opinion (which assumes some bias in that) and that usually means the specific reviewer often times reflects your tastes.
Originally posted by Daffid011 SOE isn't going to buy a game and then come out and say, well it just isn't going to work out. No company in their right mind will do that.
Actually SOE may use VG not to make uber profit but as a training ground for their new programmers taking the best perfomers and moving them on to "real" projects. Why do this ? Well VG was most likely be bought for pittance, brings in little revenue, small fan base to annoy and putting untested staff on such a project is low risk whilst allowing new programmers to prove themselves.
Of course I cannot prove this, though it seems likely in VG case.
You actually think that it is cheaper and better to buy a game and test new employes on that one. And that would be a serious idea.
Oh my.
Well ... I wouldn't get untested staff and put them on my ultimate death star building project.
Oh... would there many (big) companys who puts a fresh newly graduated student as their CEO?
Quite shure tests already would be existing. They could be using a couple of templates suiting there business. That is not something new.
One can have a person that you are working with as a guide the first weeks/months.
So SOE gains a large and buggy (sorry fanboys) code base with which to test new programmers. This method is also useful as it shows how they adapt to reading and rewriting old code, which I have been told is 90% of programmers tasks. They simply don't often start with a blank sheet. Old code would be old code just as long as it is old. Bad code is bad code is bad code... What am I saying here? You don't need Vanguard or anything to have code to test them on. You don't have to waste that much time to see if a new employee cuts it or not. Not if you know your work as a employer(lack of better word). If not maybe the person incharge of employing people would be out looking for a new job. If a person cut's to be in a team, whatever it would be, great. If not, bye bye. I'm quite sure that when SOE hires people they don't intend to educate them in the basics of their actual profession.
How else would you better test new staff members with minimal risk ? By employing people that seems fit for their job, by using normally tested and proven strategies. Including interviews, short term employment, a portfolio, tests, whatever.
I would think of that a new employee has to work themself up. What is new with advancing. That would not matter if they are working on EQ2, SWG or even the agent.
I also don't think that you would build another deathstar with the same parts, the same overhead as the first one to test new employees.
That would be like, pay for two get one.
Your point would imply that SOE are not interesting that VG would turn over, be rid of the bugs, being optimized etc. If not then it would be moot as it would be as worse to make faults in VG's code as in any of the other SOE games. They would need as good programmers on this one as on the next game. Which would bring the argumentation back to square one and as you suggested buying another game to test programmers on. Pay for two get one.
Interesting review but you only describe the dark side of vanguard. VG has also a bright side, craft, diplomacy, areas are really beautiful... you can make boats etc.... Even EQ2 doesn't propose these. I feel free, i mean, absolutely free in 2 games: Vanguard and Eve online. No more, no less. VG isn't an easy game. It's not a standard MMO with light craft or easy fighting. That's why VG is, IMO a MMORPG "only" for mature players, like Eve Online. Never forget EQ2 has been flamed 3 years ago...SOE made a nice work on it and now, EQ2 is a success. IMO, VG is EQ3, VG going to be the future of Everquest.
I'm sick and tired of people like you equating hardcore grinds with maturity. What a load of crap.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
VG isn't an easy game. It's not a standard MMO with light craft or easy fighting. That's why VG is, IMO a MMORPG "only" for mature players, like Eve Online.
I'm sick and tired of people like you equating hardcore grinds with maturity. What a load of crap.
What have hardcore grinding to do with a generall difficulty of a game?
That would make crafting in WoW quite difficult now wouldn't it.
Oh I'm so sorry to the reference on crafting in wow... but that was there for the retorics.
That's because the only thing difficult about this game is the grind. I found it no more engaging than WoW or EQ2 despite all of it's vaunted game mechanics. You point out all of these processes that are suppose to add depth to the game and yet to my mind it plays like every other MMO out there only much more bug ridden with much slower rate of progression and a lot less content. And yet, you people have the gall to call yourselves more mature than the average gamer, what a crock.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
That's because the only thing difficult about this game is the grind. I found it no more engaging than WoW or EQ2 despite all of it's vaunted game mechanics. Aww, so you don't like the game and it's mechanics. But that can't motivate equating difficulty as grind.
A game being difficult is a relative thing. So saying for instance that crafting is more difficult in Vanguard then in [RANDOM GAME] do not actually need to mean that it is difficult... even while it is difficult.
You point out all of these processes that are suppose to add depth to the game and yet to my mind it plays like every other MMO out there only much more bug ridden with much slower rate of progression and a lot less content. A lot less content? There is alot of content in Vanguard. You just don't like the content do you. Every game plays like the other one. You always have alot of similarity. One can't get away from that. What would they do. Make you kill mobs by not fighting and make you die when you try fight them. That was bringing things to the extremes, ok. The difference would be in the details. The details have been posted over and over by alot of guys here, they don't lie, it's just that you don't care for the details in themself. And yet, you people have the gall to call yourselves more mature than the average gamer, what a crock. You just wanted to say that you don't think the playerbase in Vanguard are more mature. EDIT: Duh, that was obviuos as you wrote that initialy. But that was not what I asked/argued about.
Oh... would there many (big) companys who puts a fresh newly graduated student as their CEO? If a company puts a tried and untested CEO in place. Good luck to them. I would supposed old boys school type affairs might do this but still good luck to them.
Quite shure tests already would be existing. They could be using a couple of templates suiting there business. That is not something new.
One can have a person that you are working with as a guide the first weeks/months.
Test are one thing but to have a real live code base is another. This isnt a test its a real albeit one with little risk. I think you fail to recognise the complexity of game coding and no one is really an expert in it all, quite often only there small corner.
Old code would be old code just as long as it is old. Bad code is bad code is bad code...
We dont know what Vg code is like though most would say it is not suited to its task. Even if its bad code maybe that could be a test in itself. Will the programmer identify the problem ? WIll they say anything ? Will the identify and proposed a solution ? Programming is all about problem solving, if you fail to spot the problem and properly delimit it then all is lost from the onset. Even bad code can be a good example. The beauty of VG is that SOE were not even responsible for whatever unfinished rushed madness is in the code. Again its all about risk and potential gain.
What am I saying here? You don't need Vanguard or anything to have code to test them on. You don't have to waste that much time to see if a new employee cuts it or not. Not if you know your work as a employer(lack of better word). If not maybe the person incharge of employing people would be out looking for a new job. Actually if its a large company and low risk project coupled with low pay graduates little time/money is wasted, much is gained in recruting valuable If a person cut's to be in a team, whatever it would be, great. If not, bye bye. Yup there you go you got it! Its called temportary contracts. Here in the UK most people start on a temporary contract which is then reviewed and finailised after X amount of time. The US is much worse. It part of what makes this cheaper to do as a process too. Believe me this is harsh I'm far too left wing for this crap BUT I have seen some of the quality of self proclaimed programming guru's.... part of my reluctance to enter the programming arena is my understanding of how deep it can be to do it RIGHT. Eveything I've read about how the software gaming industry turns over new programmers suggests I shouldnt change my mind. Many potential game programmers move elsewherein IT or to non games programming or at the very least to another company in 12 months. I'm quite sure that when SOE hires people they don't intend to educate them in the basics of their actual profession.
Actually I would hope that any large gaming development company is very interested in ongoing staff development. Technology moves crazily fast and some one is always finding some clever to do with old tricks making brand new ones. You dont stop learning you just try and keep up. By employing people that seems fit for their job, by using normally tested and proven strategies. Including interviews, short term employment, a portfolio, tests, whatever.
Yeah interviews cause you can cover every aspect of games programming in twenty miniutes and still have time for milk and cookies. Again even in th UK few people get a job with a probation period. Some people are just great at interviews and tests and major suckage in the real world
I would think of that a new employee has to work themself up. What is new with advancing. That would not matter if they are working on EQ2, SWG or even the agent.
I also don't think that you would build another deathstar with the same parts, the same overhead as the first one to test new employees.
Welcome to whole idea of OO programming and re useable parts ? I mean as an extreme example you do realised that few games use there own
That would be like, pay for two get one.
As I have stated on here before SOE purchase of Vg was more likley nearer zero than the cost of its overall development. It will never be recouped. Not two not even one.. not even half of one plus staff costs.
Your point would imply that SOE are not interesting that VG would turn over, be rid of the bugs, being optimized etc. If not then it would be moot as it would be as worse to make faults in VG's code as in any of the other SOE games. They would need as good programmers on this one as on the next game. Which would bring the argumentation back to square one and as you suggested buying another game to test programmers on. Pay for two get one.
Even if SOE fixes Vg they may never fix VG reputations. I think SOE keep sVG perhaps for something more than direct profit. Which is why I think its more a testing ground for new programmers.
As I have stated on here before SOE purchase of Vg was more likley nearer zero than the cost of its overall development. It will never be recouped. Not two not even one.. not even half of one plus staff costs.
You still have the overhead cost amongst others. For example the cost for the personal that only works with VG. You have just as good options on equal "tests" that can be done with the same result without no need for this. If they bougth the code for this example why keep the cost that it brings by haveng the servers live, paying the above overhead etc etc. When they just could have the game running internaly.
Bad code is still badcode even if it's not Vanguard.
This is just plain common sense.
Career opportunities always exists withing a company.
I wouldn't say they need to look towards the bottom of the tree, if i read that correct i think thats bit unfair. I class myself as a very good gamer and an experienced one at that. with 10+ years of exp in online gaming including casual, hardcore raiding and social grouping i think i am qualified to decide for myself what is a good/bad game. I may have read your intention wrong there and reading the rest of your post i think i have
My comment about SOE possibly targeting low hanging fruit wasn't a statement about the quality of players at all nor was I trying to tell you what game to enjoy. I respect that people play what they enjoy regardless of the state of the game they play. I get the impression you aren't one of those people who is playing based on the potential of the what the game might be someday which is cool.
What I meant by that was the more than likely Sony will make changes to the game based on the easiest marketshare to attract. IE: you pick the lowest hanging fruit because it is the easiest to get.
If Sony really keeps in line with the original goals of vanguard: long travel times, harsh death penalties, contested boss mobs, etc the customer base they are most likely to attract will come from EQ and EQ2.
I suspect the game will either remain on life support to keep station pass members content or it will start receiving small design changes over time that eventually shy away from what the original game was billed as.
I think you are really missing the point, and I am grateful SOE will probably not listen to you. Death Peanlty and Travel Times have very little at best if nothing at all to do with attracting more customers. You can pursue two strategies in business: 1) differentiate or 2) (let's just say whatever it is you suggested: copy WoW and/or EQ 2).
Vanguard's high system requirements prevents lower-middle-class consumers and the Asian populations in China and Thailand from playing the game. In order to play Vanguard, you probably have the resources to purchase an advanced system. I am not suggesting that they are subscribers to Worth magazine but that they are people with resources to buy advanced PC parts.
More to the point, the people drawn to Vanguard are not looking for a WoW-clone or EQ 2-clone with beefed up graphics. People want a more challenging game, without bots. People want a better community, without the WoW-speak and harassment. [If you can tell, I can deal with a lot of personal attacks*; but a reason why I quit WoW is that I could no longer hold my nose and play the game.] People want a dangers, open, and diverse world, unlike in LotR.
Additional reasons why I quit WoW: no world immersion, linear, graphics, faction-grind at end-game (you should have to pay me to do this) but community was a large factor.
The market has a need and demand for Vanguard. The problem is performance.
Free advice: SOE, do not listen to people bouncing from WoW to EQ 2 to LotR to Eve and back to LotR. SOE must 1) fix the game (which is just about completed), 2) finish the game (which is just about completed with raid content and additional classes, and 3) enhance the game (which will be its biggest opportunity for growth). [The reason why I know people/friends in real-life and online returning to Vanguard as I write this is because EQ 2, WoW, LotR, EvE, et al. are not acceptable. Vanguard is quite acceptable, very fun when your system can perform it.]
----- WoW and fast food = commercial successes. I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.
I play VG. I even enjoy playing VG. Sometimes it is frustrating (CTD's have been hitting me lately), but it is still generally fun. But I still find myself looking for something better... something more fun... something that captures my imagination.
VG could be alot more fun. How? NOT by getting new content into the game from the Devs. The Ancient Port Warehouse is all well and good, but there are some more fundamental changes that would do more to make the game fun. First, VG needs things to improve the in-game community. The community in VG is alot less than what I experienced in SWG which was in turn alot less that what I was accustomed to in Ultima Online. That is not the trend we need to be following folks. We need more player involvement, more player run events, and a better community. Only then will we have a game that will keep us playing for year after year after year.
I have played VG for almost 10 months now (usually for a few hours each night ) and I have yet to see a single global tell or other advertisement for something as simple as a live auction house, an impromtu public dungeon crawl (beyond the typical LFG requests), a scavenger hunt, an in-game wedding or other social event, etc. Has anyone else? Maybe I haven't been looking in the right place.
To me though, there is simply no community involvement beyond grouping, questing, and leveling. So, VG feels like a game!! Boring!! Which is the last thing you want in an MMORPG!! A good MMORPG should feel like a living world in which each player has a very small role in the greater workings of the world. One of the main reasons that feeling is lacking in VG is because the game mechanics are inherently impersonal. Beyond groups and guilds, player interaction seems to be minimal and many of the game elements make it worse. There are no physical player-run vendors (everything is on a global exchange broker), so players don't have to travel the world looking for items they need and merchants don't have to maintain and advertise their shops. Equipment repair is done by NPCs instead of requiring players to seek out a crafter in a town to make repairs for them. Player houses are typically very far from where most players spend their in-game time working on skills, quests, etc. There are very few opportunities for one player to offer a service (bodyguard, making items like scrolls, gathering resources, hosting vendors, decorating a house, selling realestate, etc.) of any kind to another player beyond the designed crafting stuff. There are also very few random quests to create community events and share with others (like those offered in the old UO treasure map days).
I am not bashing VG... at least not totally. It is fun. It still has bugs that need fixing. But I am really hoping that Devs throughout the industry don't continue to follow the footsteps of VG and it's predecessors in alot of the game design and machanics. The players themselves could make a much better world and game if only they were given the flexibility and core game elements to build from.
Playing WoT now.
Favorite All-Time Games: Ultima Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Lord of the Rings Online
Excellent points. I agree. Vanguard has many opportunities to enhance world immersion, which I think is its single greatest asset. I have suggest more land ownership opportunities such as player shops and farms. Player-operated taverns would be great as well. PvP castle-sieges owned by players with NPC guards and siege weaponry.
People want to embrace community in other ways besides grouping, crafting, trading, etc. People just sort-of want to log-in sometimes to socialize, have fun. I think player-owned taverns could even be a zone or instance-like in which you click on a door inside of an actual city such as Targanor (is that the human city?) and zone-in. You can have card games, drinking contests, different beers on tap (made by various players with stamina bonuses, etc.). It is time to think outside of the box on world immersion. Look at SWG, too.
----- WoW and fast food = commercial successes. I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.
If you cared to read what I wrote you would see these aren't my suggestions of what SOE should do. It is what I think SOE will do. There is a very distinct difference if you cared to actually pay attention. So please save me another dissertation of what you are looking for in a video game, because I don't care and neither does SOE if you read between the lines. For the record I would rather play the game that Brad/Sigil designed.
I don't know where you see VG going, but I have my suspicions after seeing a few changes and reading the producers letter. The Sigil team isn't in charge anymore and it is a whole new playing field. If SOE stays true to its mantra of "make the game more accessible to a wider audience" then you can see where the game is most likely going.
Maybe I am wrong and they just maintain the game to help retain station players against the first real wave of competition coming in the next few months. Who knows, but on its current path the game is going nowhere fast and it doesn't matter how much you prefer SOE to follow your advice.
How is the game going to rebound from the horrible launch and all the bad press it has? EQ2 didn't even do that in terms of subscribers and it had far more manpower and marketing behind it and Vanguard is in much much worse shape than EQ2 was. If you cared to put your personal desires aside for a moment and look at the games health objectively you might see the troubles for what they are.
I don't know where you see VG going. [I completely agree with you. You don't.]
As an aside, you do not see to be a very fun, pleasant, or happy individual.
I do not fully understand what you wrote there, but I did not see any analysis and it read like a letter addressed to me but to me only. You have an apparent vendetta against me. If by your reading this you experience anger or the need to be reactionary, you should probably place me on ignore.
I agree you do not know where Vanguard is going because you do not play the game. You post on MMORPG and visit about twelve times a day. If you were involved in the game, I think you would know where Vanguard is going. Travel, death penalty, flying mounts, raiding and other aspects are not preventing people from joining and enjoying Vanguard. 20,000 customers will not cancel because of death penalty! It is rare for a customer to jump from TR to Vanguard back to LotR because of a mere frustration. Performance is the salient issue, and I am pleased that with Update 3 they are continuing to focus on just that.*
*Your points on death penalty and travel are at best wrong. My view is that you entirely miss the point about accessibility and gameplay.
----- WoW and fast food = commercial successes. I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.
Comments
Sorry to disgaree but to say the game is at a dead end is not misleading. Month after month the games top criteria for fixing is perfomance (still!). Month after month a new issue comes up on the forum which makes more people leave or unhappy. The RP merge was a good example. Month after month most posts on here are expressing the opinion why they quit or review it with it at best average scores. Even when SOE fix the game, its present player base seem to get upset as they see it as their personal game and dont want any changes. Then there is tiny telling issues like bad animations and no helms.
The devil is in the detail here.
The fact is VG is in this state and no one is really bashing it. The reality is pretty dire and we can list criteria as long as the bug list for the reason.
Tellingly, the game isn't even available in most high street outlets in the UK. Most people in the know with gaming sneer at VG, Anyone not in the know wont see it on high streets shelves.
So in light of this I dont think a dead end is a bad description. Station pass keeps this game going and the very small fan base (kudos to them). Maybe though this can be ignored and the dead end driven out of though I feel the change of direction will annoy many in the game already and everyone that tried the game is still annoyed with how it turned out. So EQ2 had a bad launch and it never really recovered but got better. I'm not even sure VG will achieve EQ2 status. The number influx to EQ2 after VG was a telling point. Is suspect EQ2 may still be a little higher.
As said before VG has potential but it needs some serious sucking up to do with those of us that took the majority opinion that the game was messed badly.
I can see why so many people talk about vanboys etc but what they dont really understand is that some of us actually like the game and still play it. Lets face it there are many games with even less subs that are still around. If SOE gave us indication that the game will be closing in the near future thn yes agreed it's a dead end. But again lets face it all they do is tell us the oposite.
Could you explain what you mean by people in the know! myself i have played mmo's for the last 10 years. ok given i am no tech expert but to play games, fact is you dont need to be. all you need is simple iniative....you decide if you like a game or not. now i am not knocking anyone who doesn't like the game, that's up to them.
A dead end to me is something that's going nowhere. but in VG soe are activly working on fixes, artwork and adding content. this to me is not a dead end and if i enjoy the game then even better. My advice to any who want to try it is make up your own mind, there are no unbiased opinions....and on a side note dont even look at who runs the games, leave polotics in polotics and have fun instead.
Shukes, there is nothing wrong with liking Vanguard. I enjoyed it and keep an eye on its progress... just in case it suprises me.
SOE isn't going to buy a game and then come out and say, well it just isn't going to work out. No company in their right mind will do that.
However, Vanguard does look to be at a sort of virtual dead end. The game is nearing its first anniversary and it doesn't even have a raid yet which is shocking for what was billed as a hardcore game. The SOE takeover hasn't produced much new, just finishing up stuff that the Sigil team already had in the works for the most part. With a huge laundry list of problems that need addressing, how much can a couple dozen developers actually accomplish? An expansion is most certainly out of the question for a long time to come and that is only if it gets more team.
Ask yourself what can SOE do to turn the game around and attract new players, because that is what Vanguard needs most. I think it will need to target the low hanging fruit if you will, which is the casual player. Keeping Vanguard going along its original visions just makes it compete with EQ1/EQ2 for the most part which doesn't do SOE much good except to hold onto its current subscribers. I don't yet understand what SOE plans for the game, but I don't see how it can be designed to please the current fan bases desires and try to attract new players without just cannibalizing the Everquest franchise.
you do have a point friend and the way you have put your response is offering your opinion rather than stating it like it is fact and i apreciate that. oe are adding content including raid content, which is more thn just APW that people may have heard about. There are also land based raid targets being added at the same time. You are right about Soe just fixing and adding what was supposed to there in the first place though! but as a player i have to try to see the game for what it is now and not what it was supposed to be at launch but wasn't.
You made an interesting comment about "where soe are heading with this game" and i have to admit you have me there! that's something i would like to know myself...a kind of direction. That way at least maybe new players could look and see if it's a direction they would like to be part of.
I wouldn't say they need to look towards the bottom of the tree, if i read that correct i think thats bit unfair. I class myself as a very good gamer and an experienced one at that. with 10+ years of exp in online gaming including casual, hardcore raiding and social grouping i think i am qualified to decide for myself what is a good/bad game. I may have read your intention wrong there and reading the rest of your post i think i have
All i do is simply compare games that are here at the moment and decide which i think is best, in my opinion i have the most fun playing VG others think the same. an interesting thing would be to be able to look at the current subs and compare them with the last recording i saw which was last august. To me playing at the current time it seems to be picking up but i may be wrong. It will never be comparable to the big games out there but as long as it's supported then thats fine with me. I dont need 10k+ people running around when i can only group with 6 at a time
Actually SOE may use VG not to make uber profit but as a training ground for their new programmers taking the best perfomers and moving them on to "real" projects. Why do this ? Well VG was most likely be bought for pittance, brings in little revenue, small fan base to annoy
and putting untested staff on such a project is low risk whilst allowing new programmers to prove themselves.
Of course I cannot prove this, though it seems likely in VG case.
They also benefits from having VG as another Station pass game. The more games they can offer to that pass the more attractive that option becomes. Take me for example, I have a Station pass sub and I play VG and EQ2. I pay the pass price due to playing two of their games (and the extra character slots in EQ2), now they will also add Pirates of the burning sea to this pass. But do I play more hours then I would have done playing only one of the games? Hardly so, but I do pay more!
When does SOE plan on doing the character model revamp?? Its been approximately 14 months since Brad Mcquaid stated the "new" character models would be going live "soon" Waaaaaaaaaaaay back in beta 3 we were promised new character models and were still yet to see any.
I hope SOE does this soon because it really needs to be done. Not only do the character models need to be revamped, the armor graphics, weapon graphics, spell animations, etc all need to be redone to match the best looking landscape/terrain I've ever seen in any MMORPG.
I seen Khal was redone and imho, it looks alot better than before. Personally I think SOE should take Vanguard down for a few months to tweak and polish the game. Then after everything is finished, the game should have a second release. Perhaps even include a major content adventure pack/ minor expansion release that includes Inquisitors or Bezerkers as well. Personally, I think this will attract more people and cause many of us ex Vanboy's to come back and give the game a second or third try.
But the rate their going, it'll probably take double that time to finally get the game running and looking like it should have on release. But by that time, AoC and WAR will be released and Vanguard may not make it through the summer.
Rallithon Oakthornn
(Retired Heirophant of the 60th season)
Actually SOE may use VG not to make uber profit but as a training ground for their new programmers taking the best perfomers and moving them on to "real" projects. Why do this ? Well VG was most likely be bought for pittance, brings in little revenue, small fan base to annoy
and putting untested staff on such a project is low risk whilst allowing new programmers to prove themselves.
Of course I cannot prove this, though it seems likely in VG case.
You actually think that it is cheaper and better to buy a game and test new employes on that one. And that would be a serious idea.
Oh my.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
This is a good game that got put out by a terrible team. I think that VSoH HAD the opportunity to be a great game and it failed...Does that mean that some might still enjoy it, yeah sure. But bottom line is that it is full of false promises and the things that have been put in were implemented poorly.
I, honestly, wanted nothing more than for this game to pwn all other mmorpgs. I played from first day of beta to 1 max level cleric and many other toons through their 30's....on all types of servers. This game has been given every chance I could possibly give it then I gave it one more. It, for me, is an EXTREME let down. I would in all honesty give this game a 3 out of 10. The only major props I can give it is graphics, it looks good.
Actually SOE may use VG not to make uber profit but as a training ground for their new programmers taking the best perfomers and moving them on to "real" projects. Why do this ? Well VG was most likely be bought for pittance, brings in little revenue, small fan base to annoy
and putting untested staff on such a project is low risk whilst allowing new programmers to prove themselves.
Of course I cannot prove this, though it seems likely in VG case.
You actually think that it is cheaper and better to buy a game and test new employes on that one. And that would be a serious idea.
Oh my.
Well ... I wouldn't get untested staff and put them on my ultimate death star building project. I'd place them somewhere where risk is low yet any talent will show, I may also round robin them on tasks to see what the excel at. This is not as mad as you may think. As I say VG was most likely bought very cheaply, Most of its development costs will never be recovered. Sigil declared themselves bankrupt and sold off there assets from the potted plastic plants to VG source code to SOE....
So SOE gains a large and buggy (sorry fanboys) code base with which to test new programmers. This method is also useful as it shows how they adapt to reading and rewriting old code, which I have been told is 90% of programmers tasks. They simply don't often start with a blank sheet.
How else would you better test new staff members with minimal risk ?
What is so generally bad with:
Character models
Armor graphics
Weapon graphics
Spell animations
And what would be the rest?
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
It is difficult for me to critique your review becahuse I think it is 1) biased, 2) lacking analysis and likely written in 3) haste and 4) frustration. Overall, my theory is that you do not have enough experience (evidence by "impressions" and lack of knowledge about combat and other features) to write a review that is 5) comprehensive, 6) fair, and 7) accurate.
The above factors makes a critique particularly difficult for me.
You can critique my review, which I think is, comparatively, refreshingly terse: www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/157317/page/1
If you are fair, I will be try to be (as I always am) as a) fair and b) honest as I can be of yours.
I am going to take this a bit off the current line of **ahem** diologue and bring up something that I find interesting. I have seen many comments about a review being "bias". In my opinion ALL reviews are bias. Either the reviewer played the game (hopefully) and liked it, or they did not. In either case, even a fairly level review will reflect that.
While I agree that a good review will try to capture both sides of the coin, so to speak, it is the reviewers "opinion" you need to come to trust. Otherwise it is simply a features/ benefits (or lack thereof) blurb that anyone can write.
You are trusting a reviewer to rate the worthiness of a game based on a number of elements that make sense. Each one may have a different level of importance and appeal to the reviewer. Thus, no matter how hard a reviewer tries to cover all the bases the personal slant of the reviewer is unavoidable. You come to trust the reviewer's opinion (which assumes some bias in that) and that usually means the specific reviewer often times reflects your tastes.
Actually SOE may use VG not to make uber profit but as a training ground for their new programmers taking the best perfomers and moving them on to "real" projects. Why do this ? Well VG was most likely be bought for pittance, brings in little revenue, small fan base to annoy
and putting untested staff on such a project is low risk whilst allowing new programmers to prove themselves.
Of course I cannot prove this, though it seems likely in VG case.
You actually think that it is cheaper and better to buy a game and test new employes on that one. And that would be a serious idea.
Oh my.
Well ... I wouldn't get untested staff and put them on my ultimate death star building project.
Oh... would there many (big) companys who puts a fresh newly graduated student as their CEO?
So SOE gains a large and buggy (sorry fanboys) code base with which to test new programmers. This method is also useful as it shows how they adapt to reading and rewriting old code, which I have been told is 90% of programmers tasks. They simply don't often start with a blank sheet.Quite shure tests already would be existing. They could be using a couple of templates suiting there business. That is not something new.
One can have a person that you are working with as a guide the first weeks/months.
Old code would be old code just as long as it is old. Bad code is bad code is bad code...
What am I saying here? You don't need Vanguard or anything to have code to test them on. You don't have to waste that much time to see if a new employee cuts it or not. Not if you know your work as a employer(lack of better word). If not maybe the person incharge of employing people would be out looking for a new job.
If a person cut's to be in a team, whatever it would be, great. If not, bye bye.
I'm quite sure that when SOE hires people they don't intend to educate them in the basics of their actual profession.
How else would you better test new staff members with minimal risk ?
By employing people that seems fit for their job, by using normally tested and proven strategies. Including interviews, short term employment, a portfolio, tests, whatever.
I would think of that a new employee has to work themself up. What is new with advancing. That would not matter if they are working on EQ2, SWG or even the agent.
I also don't think that you would build another deathstar with the same parts, the same overhead as the first one to test new employees.
That would be like, pay for two get one.
Your point would imply that SOE are not interesting that VG would turn over, be rid of the bugs, being optimized etc. If not then it would be moot as it would be as worse to make faults in VG's code as in any of the other SOE games. They would need as good programmers on this one as on the next game. Which would bring the argumentation back to square one and as you suggested buying another game to test programmers on. Pay for two get one.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
I'm sick and tired of people like you equating hardcore grinds with maturity. What a load of crap.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
I'm sick and tired of people like you equating hardcore grinds with maturity. What a load of crap.
What have hardcore grinding to do with a generall difficulty of a game?
That would make crafting in WoW quite difficult now wouldn't it.
Oh I'm so sorry to the reference on crafting in wow... but that was there for the retorics.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
That's because the only thing difficult about this game is the grind. I found it no more engaging than WoW or EQ2 despite all of it's vaunted game mechanics. You point out all of these processes that are suppose to add depth to the game and yet to my mind it plays like every other MMO out there only much more bug ridden with much slower rate of progression and a lot less content. And yet, you people have the gall to call yourselves more mature than the average gamer, what a crock.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
I would think of that a new employee has to work themself up. What is new with advancing. That would not matter if they are working on EQ2, SWG or even the agent.
I also don't think that you would build another deathstar with the same parts, the same overhead as the first one to test new employees.
Welcome to whole idea of OO programming and re useable parts ? I mean as an extreme example you do realised that few games use there own
That would be like, pay for two get one.
As I have stated on here before SOE purchase of Vg was more likley nearer zero than the cost of its overall development. It will never be recouped. Not two not even one.. not even half of one plus staff costs.
Your point would imply that SOE are not interesting that VG would turn over, be rid of the bugs, being optimized etc. If not then it would be moot as it would be as worse to make faults in VG's code as in any of the other SOE games. They would need as good programmers on this one as on the next game. Which would bring the argumentation back to square one and as you suggested buying another game to test programmers on. Pay for two get one.
Even if SOE fixes Vg they may never fix VG reputations. I think SOE keep sVG perhaps for something more than direct profit. Which is why I think its more a testing ground for new programmers.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
My comment about SOE possibly targeting low hanging fruit wasn't a statement about the quality of players at all nor was I trying to tell you what game to enjoy. I respect that people play what they enjoy regardless of the state of the game they play. I get the impression you aren't one of those people who is playing based on the potential of the what the game might be someday which is cool.
What I meant by that was the more than likely Sony will make changes to the game based on the easiest marketshare to attract. IE: you pick the lowest hanging fruit because it is the easiest to get.
If Sony really keeps in line with the original goals of vanguard: long travel times, harsh death penalties, contested boss mobs, etc the customer base they are most likely to attract will come from EQ and EQ2.
I suspect the game will either remain on life support to keep station pass members content or it will start receiving small design changes over time that eventually shy away from what the original game was billed as.
I think you are really missing the point, and I am grateful SOE will probably not listen to you. Death Peanlty and Travel Times have very little at best if nothing at all to do with attracting more customers. You can pursue two strategies in business: 1) differentiate or 2) (let's just say whatever it is you suggested: copy WoW and/or EQ 2).
Vanguard's high system requirements prevents lower-middle-class consumers and the Asian populations in China and Thailand from playing the game. In order to play Vanguard, you probably have the resources to purchase an advanced system. I am not suggesting that they are subscribers to Worth magazine but that they are people with resources to buy advanced PC parts.
More to the point, the people drawn to Vanguard are not looking for a WoW-clone or EQ 2-clone with beefed up graphics. People want a more challenging game, without bots. People want a better community, without the WoW-speak and harassment. [If you can tell, I can deal with a lot of personal attacks*; but a reason why I quit WoW is that I could no longer hold my nose and play the game.] People want a dangers, open, and diverse world, unlike in LotR.
Additional reasons why I quit WoW: no world immersion, linear, graphics, faction-grind at end-game (you should have to pay me to do this) but community was a large factor.
The market has a need and demand for Vanguard. The problem is performance.
*www.amazon.com/Psychological-Body-Armor-Resiliency-Firefighter/dp/1883581176/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1
Free advice: SOE, do not listen to people bouncing from WoW to EQ 2 to LotR to Eve and back to LotR. SOE must 1) fix the game (which is just about completed), 2) finish the game (which is just about completed with raid content and additional classes, and 3) enhance the game (which will be its biggest opportunity for growth). [The reason why I know people/friends in real-life and online returning to Vanguard as I write this is because EQ 2, WoW, LotR, EvE, et al. are not acceptable. Vanguard is quite acceptable, very fun when your system can perform it.]
-----
WoW and fast food = commercial successes.
I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.
I play VG. I even enjoy playing VG. Sometimes it is frustrating (CTD's have been hitting me lately), but it is still generally fun. But I still find myself looking for something better... something more fun... something that captures my imagination.
VG could be alot more fun. How? NOT by getting new content into the game from the Devs. The Ancient Port Warehouse is all well and good, but there are some more fundamental changes that would do more to make the game fun. First, VG needs things to improve the in-game community. The community in VG is alot less than what I experienced in SWG which was in turn alot less that what I was accustomed to in Ultima Online. That is not the trend we need to be following folks. We need more player involvement, more player run events, and a better community. Only then will we have a game that will keep us playing for year after year after year.
I have played VG for almost 10 months now (usually for a few hours each night ) and I have yet to see a single global tell or other advertisement for something as simple as a live auction house, an impromtu public dungeon crawl (beyond the typical LFG requests), a scavenger hunt, an in-game wedding or other social event, etc. Has anyone else? Maybe I haven't been looking in the right place.
To me though, there is simply no community involvement beyond grouping, questing, and leveling. So, VG feels like a game!! Boring!! Which is the last thing you want in an MMORPG!! A good MMORPG should feel like a living world in which each player has a very small role in the greater workings of the world. One of the main reasons that feeling is lacking in VG is because the game mechanics are inherently impersonal. Beyond groups and guilds, player interaction seems to be minimal and many of the game elements make it worse. There are no physical player-run vendors (everything is on a global exchange broker), so players don't have to travel the world looking for items they need and merchants don't have to maintain and advertise their shops. Equipment repair is done by NPCs instead of requiring players to seek out a crafter in a town to make repairs for them. Player houses are typically very far from where most players spend their in-game time working on skills, quests, etc. There are very few opportunities for one player to offer a service (bodyguard, making items like scrolls, gathering resources, hosting vendors, decorating a house, selling realestate, etc.) of any kind to another player beyond the designed crafting stuff. There are also very few random quests to create community events and share with others (like those offered in the old UO treasure map days).
I am not bashing VG... at least not totally. It is fun. It still has bugs that need fixing. But I am really hoping that Devs throughout the industry don't continue to follow the footsteps of VG and it's predecessors in alot of the game design and machanics. The players themselves could make a much better world and game if only they were given the flexibility and core game elements to build from.
Playing WoT now.
Favorite All-Time Games: Ultima Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Lord of the Rings Online
aerograd,
Excellent points. I agree. Vanguard has many opportunities to enhance world immersion, which I think is its single greatest asset. I have suggest more land ownership opportunities such as player shops and farms. Player-operated taverns would be great as well. PvP castle-sieges owned by players with NPC guards and siege weaponry.
People want to embrace community in other ways besides grouping, crafting, trading, etc. People just sort-of want to log-in sometimes to socialize, have fun. I think player-owned taverns could even be a zone or instance-like in which you click on a door inside of an actual city such as Targanor (is that the human city?) and zone-in. You can have card games, drinking contests, different beers on tap (made by various players with stamina bonuses, etc.). It is time to think outside of the box on world immersion. Look at SWG, too.
-----
WoW and fast food = commercial successes.
I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.
Why do you keep saying I miss the point?
If you cared to read what I wrote you would see these aren't my suggestions of what SOE should do. It is what I think SOE will do. There is a very distinct difference if you cared to actually pay attention. So please save me another dissertation of what you are looking for in a video game, because I don't care and neither does SOE if you read between the lines. For the record I would rather play the game that Brad/Sigil designed.
I don't know where you see VG going, but I have my suspicions after seeing a few changes and reading the producers letter. The Sigil team isn't in charge anymore and it is a whole new playing field. If SOE stays true to its mantra of "make the game more accessible to a wider audience" then you can see where the game is most likely going.
Maybe I am wrong and they just maintain the game to help retain station players against the first real wave of competition coming in the next few months. Who knows, but on its current path the game is going nowhere fast and it doesn't matter how much you prefer SOE to follow your advice.
How is the game going to rebound from the horrible launch and all the bad press it has? EQ2 didn't even do that in terms of subscribers and it had far more manpower and marketing behind it and Vanguard is in much much worse shape than EQ2 was. If you cared to put your personal desires aside for a moment and look at the games health objectively you might see the troubles for what they are.
As an aside, you do not see to be a very fun, pleasant, or happy individual.
I do not fully understand what you wrote there, but I did not see any analysis and it read like a letter addressed to me but to me only. You have an apparent vendetta against me. If by your reading this you experience anger or the need to be reactionary, you should probably place me on ignore.
I agree you do not know where Vanguard is going because you do not play the game. You post on MMORPG and visit about twelve times a day. If you were involved in the game, I think you would know where Vanguard is going. Travel, death penalty, flying mounts, raiding and other aspects are not preventing people from joining and enjoying Vanguard. 20,000 customers will not cancel because of death penalty! It is rare for a customer to jump from TR to Vanguard back to LotR because of a mere frustration. Performance is the salient issue, and I am pleased that with Update 3 they are continuing to focus on just that.*
*Your points on death penalty and travel are at best wrong. My view is that you entirely miss the point about accessibility and gameplay.
-----
WoW and fast food = commercial successes.
I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.