Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Everquest 15+ servers -- Vanguard 2 servers -- Why?
arcsur
Member UncommonPosts: 37
Now that i am playing on the EQ progression server (8 years since i logged in on my EQ account) i can safely say that Vanguard is the new Everquest. All aspects of Vanguard for me is better, tho the game is still soo much similar. It's like a father and child relationship between the two games.
The release version of vanguard (no rifts, faction differences) were even better then today's Vanguard, but i think even in its current shape, Vanguard is the EverquestNext.
Im just interested in other players opinions. Those who played both recently. Do you agree with me? And if you do, why do you think Vanguard is a "fail" among the mass and why is EQ still a relative success. Just watch the server numbers 15+ vs 2. I don't care about the SOE betrayed Vanguard theory. Vanguard had 3 years to convince players that like EQ to play it, and still it didnt. Why? What is the real difference between the two games? What is the reason 10 times more players choose to play a game which is 12 years old, over a 4 years old fairly similar game.
I have no idea...
Comments
I have an idea, it's very simple.
Yes, you're right, Vanguard is more the true successor in spirit to Everquest than EQ2 ever was, Vanguard managed to capture the quintessential essence and soul of what EQ was.
However, Vanguard is the Cinderella with SOE the evil stepmother and EQ2 the stepsister getting all the goods to shine. Only problem is, there's no fairy godmother present to save the day, while Vanguard just gets used up and held captive by evil stepmom SOE.
It has no future, not under SOE, it has seen no improvements at all. If Vanguard had been under the hands of a caring dev company with the willingness to keep improving its world and give out expansions, then it would've been greater than EQ2. SOE realised this as well, that's why they bought it, to keep it out of the way of their own creation, EQ2.
edit: meh, I read EQ2 instead of EQ. Well, the basic premisse stands, VG gets no love from and has no future under SOE.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Just from my experiences in the two, EQ just has tons more content and much of that very soloable these days. In Vanguard I hit a level where I only had a couple places I could grind solo; and a couple places for grouping. They've added no content since release while EQ still keeps pumping out expansions..
Vanguard is more like early EQ with no expansions. After awhile there just really wasn't much for me to do there.
Sorry mate but i think this is bullshit.
If something is good then people buy it. You cannot stop them buying it.
I think the reason behind this issue is more like behind the mutation of the MMO playerbase, and the expectations of the new generation of paying costumers. At least thats my idea, but im not sure if its true, and i dont really want to believe it.
The reason of this thread is because im hoping somone can give me more believable reasons.
SOE being the bad stepmother is not one.
Edit: This was a reaction for Maverick ofc
.
Rofl, yup SOE is evil for not pumping money into a sinking ship, if your so confident in this game, then go get a nice fat loan and invest in it yourself.
Really, do you have any idea how companies work? you throw money at projects that actually have a half decent chance of making money.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
I loved that game..Vanguard. I played it for the first 6 months and had to quit for r/l reasons, but man...great game..freakin huge! beautiful! and deep! ( just like my ex-wife...*cough* don't ask, don't tell)
. Too bad more people don't play it and it gets such little attention from SOE.
Warmaster, now after you trolled poor Maverick try to focus on the topic of the post.
What do you think? Why is Vanguard sinking if a very similar and 8 years older game still has 15+ servers.
In my opion Sony saw the light and baught the game early and decided to focus its attention on eq2, that being said i believe they intend to make Vanguard a f2p game along with potbs and have item shops. Its a business and the bottom line will always rule.
MAGA
Think of the amount of time people have sank into Everquest. That alone is enough of a deterrent to immediately switch. Hell, how long was it before Everquest 2 had more subscribers than Everquest 1? I know it was at least 2 or 3 years. SOE created the ultimate carrot-on-a-stick. AAs, gear, money spent on expansions and subscription, familiar places...it's hard to leave if you've been there a long time.
This is honestly what I think, so take whatever you want from it - but I do think SOE was worried that Vanguard would overtake Everquest 2. Hot of the heels of the NGE and the debacle that Planetside turned into and you don't think they're capable of something as small as wrecking the competition? They drove their own games into the dirt - I don't think they'd have any hesitation to try something so out of line.
It's not to say that Vanguard could've had the same fate without SOE touching it, but you can't write off something with so much funk about it.
I think Warmaster is probably right. You have one game with a good retention rate, strong core community and decent population.The other game has a low population, fragmented community and very likely much higher churn. Add in that it costs less to retain customers than to acquire new ones, and you have a lot of reasons why it's a more financially sound decision to put money into EQ instead of Vanguard.
Keep in mind, this is not to slight Vanguard's graphics or gameplay in any way. Personally, I find both far superior to what EQ offers. At the end of the day, though, allocating more money to Vanguard offers a chance of greater return, whereas there is a long history of data proving that investing the money in EQ is the lower risk, greater return path to travel.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Support friend!
Vanguard is a very good game but people realise that it will never have an expansion or new content. I played Vanguard and once i reached max level ran out of things to do. In EQ there are so many expansions and reason to start a new chanracter. Then there are AA's etc.
Vanguard is an oppurtunity for someone to come in and make some cash from expanding the game.
If that is people can get over the awful launch and reputation it gathered due to this. I looked past it and found a great game...many wont touch it though which is a shame!
hes not saying SOE are evil! hes rather comparing the story of vanguard to the story of cinderella, and to be honest he hit it on the head. Most people came to the conclussion that SOE brought Vanguard to stop it being developed into an EQ2 beater.....and since then what have they invested into it? an end game dungeon that was already started and nothing else...nothing.
Not all companys work that simple way you describe, some involve politics...SOE are one of them.
Because SOE is the Debbil! Just like Vicky Valencourt.
H2O! Watersucks...oh sorry got carried away there, love that movie.
anyway, yeah this bites. just another example of SOE catering to it's flagship IP. SOE is one of THOSE companies that doesn't hide the fact that it likes money and wants to make it. At least other companies "pretend" to give a crap about their customers gaming. Not many, but some do. Or at least they aren't as transparent about the cost of their games etc.
Why SOE doesn't just make Planetside and Vanguard free is beyond me. It's not like they are developing for them any longer.
Lol, people having trouble understanding what an analogy is, I see
People are out of their mind if they can't observe and interpret simple facts (well, if we're going on that road, more people can play that game
)
If EQ2 and EQ are doing so well and Vanguard is so bad, then why the f*ck buy Vanguard in the first place?
But they bought it, then they put as good as no resources at all on it to improve it, for 3 years little has been done and who thinks that there'll ever be an expansion, needs to stop mixing their drugs.
The only reason that makes any kind of sense with such behaviour is to simply keep it out of the hands of the competition: as a company, take the game when it's cheap and before others can, then use it up until it's dry but don't invest further in it.
If you want/need to hear other reasons to tickle your ears of 'why oh why, why' poor Vanguard is so much less than EQ and EQ2 while it's soooo good a game, then try seeking it elsewhere or delude yourself some more, because this is the reason: if SOE can't be bothered to improve and invest their effort into the game, then why should I?
I as a MMO gamer don't like to spend my time with a game that has no future of becoming anything more than it is right now, and many think like that. If it would be improved continuously I think it'd be a great MMO to play and I'd be able to cope with its current flaws, but a dev company that can't be bothered to make the game better and a dwindling population?
No, thanks, waste of my time while there are other games that do have a future and healthier populations.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Well one reason is traction, EQ was successful enough at launch to gain traction in the marketplace, at its peak I believe it had over 500K sustained subs, VG lost almost all of its player base during the first 3 months due to it being largely unplayable by most people.
There were two reasons for this, first, they launched too early, meaning it was missing expected content and what was included was buggy and sometimes ill conceived.
Second, the game was designed for hardware that most players didn't have, I was one such person, my rig couldn't deliver the game very well, and while many feel its the players resposibility to upgrade, WOW proved its better to code to the current hardware level than some future state. (AOC made this same mistake a few years later)
There were some other issues as well. They designed a game that let people solo from 1-20 (which we've become accustomed to) and then flipped it to a grouping game at level 21. (at least for my class, Cleric and Warlocks could solo). So at level 22 I ran out of solo content, and could only group.
However, there were poor grouping mechanics implemented coupled with a vast game world so I could never seem to find anyone to group with on a regular basis. I really tried btw, I'd cast about in chat channels regularly, but frequently I'd find willing partners but by time we all gathered together (could take an hour to travel easily) somone would lose interest and we'd start the process again.
I joined guilds (apparently the wrong ones) and tried other ways to get involved and if I wasn't have system problems I might have worked through it, but I decided to quit which is a decision most of my guildmates made for the same reasons.
Why does EQ still have 12 servers? Well, nostaligia, probably costs them nothing to keep them going, I think they have low pops on most but can't confirm. They're adding new ones for this new release as well, while as someone said, VG hasn't had decent Dev team working on it since SOE took it over. (yes, no matter what, they are to blame for not continuing to invest in the product, but then, why would they want to?)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
They stopped supporting it 1 year ago.
For the first year, after release, they were fixing it.
Why did people stop playing in the 2nd and 3rd year then?
Now, in the 4th year its a good reason not to play it: SOE is not supporting so i am not playing it. But what happened for 2 years? While SOE was supporting itl People were still leaving. Servers were still merged. The real reason is not SOE stopping the support. I am sure.
Momentum.
Some MMOs have positive momentum and some have negative. I think you can guess what Vanguard has/had. The momentum of a launch is hard to change and Vanguard had a very powerful negative momentum.
--John Ruskin
Yes Vanguard is the true successor to EQ and I personally think that anyone thinking of playing the EQ1 'classic' server should just choose Vanguard instead.
But to answer the question. EQ1 was a big hit at launch and grew a massive subscription level in an era when the masses didn't live on the internet as they do now. There were also few other choices in the genre around (UO, Meridian 59). It has since been constantly supported with expansions, spin off games etc.
Vanguard was launched too early in the age where there were many other MMO choices and flopped. It had serious issues at launch and the bad press from this and the infamous firing of Sigil staff, keep the masses away. Since then it has had some would say an half-assed attempt to promote it (Isle of Dawn) and nowhere near the same amount of support and promotion that EQ1/2 have gotten. It also has had no content updates in a long time and SOE stay silent on the subject of it's future.
For that reason, people will obviously choose the game they feel is not about to be shut down for investing time in.
That's a shame since Vanguard is a great. playable game that really just needs polish, some updating, bug fixing and a firm future content map. None of which SOE will give to it. So it just remains as 'filler' for them to charge Station Access.
The obvious answers:
1. Vanguard had a bad launch, and the game now is nothing like what Brad McQuaid sold & envisioned. Those that liked VG in beta have a good chance of not liking the actual Vanguard that it ended up being. You usually only get one chance to get it right in this genre.
2. SOE staffed Vanguard with lots of developers, coders, and graphic artists for 2 years after its launch. Two years later, the game still did not attract enough players, it only went downhill. So you can say either gamers simply didn't like what Vanguard has to offer, or you can say the lead developer / producer of the game took the game in the wrong direction. One way or the other, most companies do not staff this many developers after a game is out. Especially not a game as less populated as Vanguard. Nobody should say Vanguard has no support. It did, it was SOE's support that Vanguard was able to stay in beta for 6 more months. It was SOE's support that Vanguard kept so many people staffed for 2 years for a game that failed at launch. It is SOE's support that this game is even still running as Sigil ran out of money within 2 months if people forgot.
3. Four years, Vanguard is 4 years old, and it still has yet to release an expansion, and it hasn't had a game patch in a year. And before you go off about SOE this SOE that, read above. SOE did staff & support this game, it simply wasn't enough. There was never that many players playing Vanguard except the few months after launch. You can't justify, in a business sense, to keep spending money & resources on a game that just can't seem to gain enough fanbase.
The not-so-obvious answers:
1. There's something no new games can take away from Everquest, and that is its 12 years worth of history, lore, and nostalgia. You can not reproduce any of that in any new games, not even in EQ2. People get really attached to their characters over the years. EQ will always have a spot in people's memories & heart.
2. Everquest paved way and pioneered many features that are the bread & butter of today's MMORPG's. Vanguard on the other hand, did not bring anything new. It tried to be different, with diplomacy and crafting. But ultimately, it's no contest. EQ has more features than Vanguard does, despite its older engine and older character graphics. Each expansion EQ adds more and more features, it's never ending. Two years ago it was the mercenaries, like guild war's henchmen. A year ago it was extended target windows & player achievements. Last expansion it was player housing, one of the most well done & flexible in the genre. This old giant keeps chugging forward despite its age, got to credit the EQ1 coders & developers for their abilities to keep adding new things to this game.
3. If you log into EQ and head to Kelethin, your first reaction would probably be "oh wow look, I remember...." When you log into EQ and level up a character in Unrest or Mistmoore, you'll say things like "remember the trains in those zones?!", or "damn I forgot how cool Mistmoore Castle is, having vampires in a MMO, the whole Mayong Mistmoore lore". Maybe you're out running along and there comes a griffon in Commonlands, you curse at it because it used to kill you so many times. Or say you are running around in Dreadlands and you bump into Gorenaire. It scared you at first, but then you step back and remember the good 'ol days of getting a raid to try & take this pretty dragon down.
Now, if you log into Vanguard, are there as many zones, sites, dungeons, npc's, and landmarks that would give you such reaction?
4. This is the important one, players & community. Everquest is the only old school original that still sports 16 servers, decent server population, and still getting expanded upon once a year and patched once a month. Nothing would matter without the players that make the game. Without the community, without the people good & bad, EQ would not have lasted this long. Vanguard simply doesn't have that, it doesn't have that sort of player history, it doesn't have that sort of...volume of players. People make games fun, and if you've been on the new progression servers lately you'll understand. Hitting on a snake, wolf, pig, whether you're questing or not, it's all the same. You're still going through the motions of just hitting things for exp. But if you add players into the mix, you are grouped together with others, you all of a sudden add a new dynamic to the game outside of just killing mobs.
Especially with the progression servers, imitating the classic days where you want to group with people as soon as you enter the game. I saw people grouping at level 1, and they level much faster than those soloing, which was the point to old school EQ. Grouping up at level 1 is unheard of in most MMO's today, you don't even do that with Vanguard either. Vanguard for the most part is a very quest on a rail game just like most themepark games out there. You quest up until your quests don't let you solo anymore, so you group harder content. Where as the progression servers right now make grouping attractive even at such low level. So again, instead of just killing mobs, you add a whole new dynamic to the gameplay when you are playing with people and making friends.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
Mardy, this i s something i have been waiting for! Thanks for the nice anwser!
One more question came to my mind tho. Could you tell me some of the nice differences between today's vanguard and the BETA vangard back 5 years ago? I never played it in beta but im very interested what are the things that you mentioned in your post.
For one, Vanguard's beta character models looked much better, and customizations were more flexible.
There were no riftway teleports, ship sails were supposed to play a bigger part of the game.
Beta visions were to have regional trades, not a global trade it has right now.
Beta vision had plans to implement PvP battlegrounds & PvP rewards, but all that got scrapped after launch.
Beta had Equipment Expertise, but after launch it was changed to bind on equip / bind on pickup style that other MMO's use.
There are more, those were just off the top of my head.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
I agree with a good chunk of the above, but the thing that took me off the wagon and quit, was the fact they took off the FFA PvP server, and stopped working on the game.
It is sad, because it could've easily killed WoW, and EQ2 with a fraction of the money SoE was pumping into EQ2, but of course that is all personal opinions, even if you go to the game now, that really didn't get any significiant updates for over 2-3 years you can see how polished it is, and well beautiful.
The world is huge, and there is so many places in the game that were amazing and fun, too bad this one died off.
Honestly ? PvP never made much sense for Vanguard.
Classes should never be able to oneshot other classes.
Thank you Mardy what a fantastic answer. Yes you said it all and I am so sick of people continuously putting down SOE for what had happened to Vanguard and how they contiue to harp on it despite being shown the evidence to the contrary. SOE has done stuff to SWG but this game had a hand in its own situation.
Just to let you guys know, EQ2 just went through a round of server merges..They are now down to 9 servers.