Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
is Vanguard really all that hardcore?
carrie01
Member Posts: 77
I see a lot of people on these forums explaining that Vanguard cannot be successful because it is "hardcore" and casual MMORPGs is where the money is. Personally, I have always been a little confused as to why Vanguard is considered hardcore. Admtitedly, I did not get to the level cap, and I got to level 30 before I was having a hard time finding groups and it was taking too long to level up by soloing; my point is I didn't find Vanguard to be particularly difficult. In fact, I thought it was a little more accessable than WoW in some ways. In VG, I was in groups that cleared dungeons using a monk as a tank. In WoW, if you use anything less than a proper tank then you're toast. In VG, there are dungeons that can be explored (with careful pulling and CC) and bosses that can be dealt with just two people! In WoW, it seems like it has to be 5 people and a perfectly balanced party (Tank, two DPS, and a healer) or the party doesn't have a chance (if the dungeon is in their level range anyway). I also thought VG was easier to get around in because of all the teleports and not only that, I got a free flying mount because I subscribed around Christmas time. I'm not saying WoW is superior to VG and in fact I prefer VG because I find it more enjoyable and flexible but I probably had a harder time in WoW which is considered "casual". I'm confused. I guess maybe WoW seemed harder because I always grouped with not-so-competent players through the dungeon finder when it seems that all the players in VG are fairly competent. Who knows? But I don't think VG is really all that hardcore.. is it?
Favorites: Vanguard SOH, Final Fantasy XI, Dungeons and Dragons Online
Future:
Final Fantasy XIV 2.0
EverQuest NEXT
Wizardry Online
Vanguard F2P edition (fingers crossed)
Comments
I wouldnt say that the current game that is Vanguard is hardcore. When the game came out it was hardcore according to the standards of to day
Today the only hardcore element is that you lose some xp when you die and that you have to run to your tomb...
Nah, not really. Back in 2007 'hardcore' was old-school EQ. Vanguard was never hardcore like that even when it was just "the vision." By the time it launched it had softened a bit, and it softened more post-release. Nowadays it's a bit more hardcore than Vanilla WoW was.
However, since then, the rest of the hobby has softened a lot more than Vanguard has, WoW included. Partly becuase of the ideas behnd Vanguard but also because there were those 2 years of no development. I suspect that some people who liked WoW back when it was looser, less structured, less polished and more open, slower-paced in leveing and somewhat more challenging would be pretty happy with Vanguard.
EDIT: Just realized that I agreed with you 100% here. Sorry for the mis-read the first time around.
Even that is going away, last I heard. The corpse running part, anyway. Far as I know the XP hit will stay.
Ardwulf's Lair | Ardwulf's YouTube Channel | Ardwulf on Twitter
Oh, that would be sad if they took away that thing as well. But I suppose they have to try every known trick in the book to lure the gamers to the game...
Has long travel times and is a big world. Thats about the only obvious difference it has but it's old school styled and you can play 5 different alts and they could never see the same place twice. The game is solo'able to level cap if you are patient. I wouldn't consider it hardcore because you don't lose your stuff when you die and you only get an xp penalty which can take awhile to work off at higher levels and you can't lose levels.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
As others have mentioned, in the beginning the penalties were more grave. Today, there's some XP loss with death.
I would say the game is more difficult than WoW is by quite a bit (perhaps only my opinion). The game is more immersive in my opinion than WoW, so when I was in a dungeon with a lower level group, you felt it. That could also add to my perception it's more difficult.
I'll either be subbing soon or going when its F2P, but still when I play...it feels like a vast untouched/unknown world to me. The low population I sort of enjoy, there are less people "in the know" with how everything works. Though I do admit, it would be nice when F2P comes with the influx of new players to quest with.
Hardcore? No, not at all. Tedious? Yes. Everything in Vanguard is just a bit more complicated than your standard themepark game. And that's not necessarily a knock. The game has a lot of depth. But it's certainly not as difficult to "pick up" as people claim it is.
I'm not sold that "hardcore" == "difficult" in games. I think that's where your assumptions go awry. For the most part "hardcore" in MMOs has been a description of time spent to achieve goals. Just think about it what is the opposite of "hardcore" in MMOs... casual. It's about time, not "difficulty". now there can be arguments that if sometime is time-intensive then it is "difficult", but this isn't a concept that the West has really embraced.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
Vanguard was such a good and lovely idea on paper. I jumped on it when it was released and was overjoyed even though it was full of bugs and so very unfinished it felt more like a opened beta then finished release.
However, why did I love it? It was different from standard WoW and the clones that was starting to crawl out from under the rocks. Diplomacy, nice crafting and housing and ships and such. The different races could work together but you had better watch it when following a mate into his town, cuase the guards just might not like your kin and kill you on sight. Nothing new but lovely never the less. And death had penalty with loss of XP and corpse run. Not super hardcore death penalty but still, made you watch out and not go in over your head. Made you seek out company to have help, as a MMO community should.
However, in the end the bugs and unfinished gameplay got to be to much and I left for other worlds.
When last I looked at it, after it went F2P appearently the faction hostility was gone and death penality with it. And all start in the same place and so on. But hey, they had helmets
The games that is realsed nowadays are in my humble opinion all to mounted on rails. Almost like storydriven single games with other players running around in the background. Cant stand them. And is the reason why I at the moment am without MMORPG.
Well -- a lot of that came from the pathing in some of the dungeons -- most notably that one with the harpies etc where it was very easy to get the whole dungeon trained on you. Combine that with the fact that if you died you lost your stuff -- potentially permanently if you couldnt get to your corpse within a week. Yes again that was toned down, first with an altar that you could get your stuff back after a week if you couldnt get it back any other way and then with other options and then to what is currently there.
And yes it got to a point where many of the classes could NOT solo well at all from mid-game on. You had to choose specific classes if you wanted to continue down that path. Depending on which class you chose, your experience would vary.
Personally what got me with vanguard was the diplomacy system -- and they really dropped the ball at the end with the levers etc for buffs. There was a lot better planned for diplomacy... Also there were NOT those overpowered cards in the beta/early game.
I had wished they wouldn't of made it 'easier' or 'more accesible', but they did...I still thought it was a very good game, and it was the last MMO I played that I liked it all as a whole package (I last played on the pvp server, so it had been a while)...
I left when they decommited from PvP support and the server died, and SoE wasn't giving a lot of game support.
Still, best MMO in the last 5 years imo, and in my top 4-5 overall, and I have been playing since UO...
If they revive a pvp server, or even if not and it looks like it is going again, I may come back, can't say for certain atm.
The monk tanking thing is a hark back to Everquest where monks were quite effective tanks and had a few other tricks up their sleeves (such as feign death pulling).
It's comparable to early WoW, maybe, as far as difficulty goes. I find that was a good sweet spot to me. It wasn't overly annoying like later Everquest encounters that required everything to fall exactly into place for the encounter to go right and gave you a little wiggle room for error.
Diplomacy would send most current MMO players into fits, I think.
It is quite a bit easier than it was @ release time. For the mostpart it is due to the OP gear rewards that are now so easily aquired in game..
If you want some challenge, stay out of the frequently traveled areas ( especially sub 30 ) - Hunters league is especially bad at trivializing things for your 20-30 gameplay range.
Interesting, it seems like most people who are major fans of Vanguard, haven't played many other games. Seems very common to read "I loved UO, and I love Vanguard" or "Everquest was amazing, and then Vanguard came along..."
Honestly, if you didn't play DAOC back on release, or WoW on release, or even AC... You really haven't experienced MMO history. DAOC was amazing back in its day. WoW was/is still the largest MMO ever and while you may not really like it, how else you can judge how "good" something is other than how popular it is?
I remember jumping into Vanguard on release and powering my way through the levels. Unfortunately I also quit pretty early. I believe it was the first instance we attempted that really killed the game for me.
5 or 6 of us (I think) wandered down into the first instance and found ourselves dying constantly by aggro from stuff under the floor. Things from the end of the instance would randomly come running after you due to bugs. A number of exploits existed that really made PvP unenjoyable as well.
The game had good ideas, but it just wasn't ready for release. And because of that, not enough players stuck around to keep it alive long enough to see proper updates and patches. As most people will agree SOE all but abandoned the game.
I think I read about some possible upcoming patches? I expect they're getting ready for a Free 2 Play version and likely want to spark some interest in that.
When was the last time you played wow?
Because you can easily run a dungeon with a tank wearing leather heirlooms and wrong spec, I did it all the time when I was lvling my warrior in arms spec. I also healed heroics in wrath of the lich king with my newly dinged retribution paladin easy. The only encounters that requires right tanking gear and spec is raids more or less.
So no you don't need a proper tank or healer in wow, not until end game heroics or raids.
Like mentioned before, I also think VG is more of a deep and complex game than a "hardcore" one, which is hard to label these days. Can't wait for the f2p update.
Oh, I dont think you got that one right.
It is my understanding that WoW has multiple tanks - Warrior, Paladin, and Druid. All these classes can also be skilled for other tasks, though. Oh, and I think the recently added Monk has also a tank variant ? And there was some kind of Dark Knight as well.
Vanguard has 3 classes which are like the WoW Warrior - Warrior, Paladin, and Dread Knight. All these tanks are specialized tanks - they are all about as good for tanking. Which, apparently, the Warrior is best at in WoW.
However, in Vanguard there are also secondary tanks - Drunken Monks, Bear Shaman, and in practice also Disciple. These are pretty much like the WoW Paladin, Druid or Monk.
Drunken Monks ARE tanks - they have improved defenses and aggro abilities, just like a tank. Thus its very unlikely a Dragon Monk, Rogue, Ranger or Bard could have replaced that Monk you had a party with. Granted, a Monk cannot tank anymore in raid scenarios (except they are still great for lesser adds etc), and if there is really a lot of damage, a real tank will always have the advantage. But basically many Monks can tank very well in Vanguard.
The same is true for Bear Shaman, increased defenses and aggro.
Disciple also works well for a low to midlevel tank. They have quite good defenses, actually, and thanks to their massive ability to heal themselves, they also have quite high aggro. No ability to rescue though and no actual aggro abilities. Still a wellplayed and well equipped Disciple is an insane aggro magnet, even at maxlevel. My not so well equipped maxlevel DK recently tried unsuccessfully to tank with a really maxed Disciple in group - it was impossible. Even using everything, the Disc wouldnt leave aggro.
I cant say anything about average WoW skill in PUGs. The skill in Vanguard PUGs has been low too. I had some pretty horrible ones. Though not recently - the people who still play the game usually are quite able.
Err, what else ?
Nope. Hardcore means a game cant be done casual. Casual means you just play and dont pay attention. Maybe just want to get a nice story out of it. Hardcore is if the game offers real challenges that push you to the limits.
Okay. So what ? VG came along when I was looking for a good MMO. I cant stand these old games because of the outdated graphics, and I cant stand WoW graphics, and I dont like the idea of RvR at all (I want to be free to play any race I like).
Thats definitely not the case in Vanguard. The tougher dungeons need a full tank, though a Drunken Monk, as explained earlier, will suffice for many places. I've even had a Drunken Monk once tank Graystone. I was pretty impressed that was possible. The rest of the group was good, though - Cleric(me), Disciple, Bard, Dragon Monk, and another damage dealer class I cant recall.
To me, a game should meet at least one of these "requirements" to be considered hardcore:
* Huge time investment needed to enjoy and/or be successful in the game
* Complex game mechanics, requiring the player to do out-of-game research and/or lots of socializing to learn all the systems fully
* Harsh death penalties (huge exp loss, full loot, permadeath, etc)
* Open, free for all PvP
The only game I know of that really meets all those "requirements" is EVE (DFO and MO might come close but those games are huge failures in many ways).
I haven't played enough VG to judge its "hardcoreness", but it seems to have a pretty old school (i.e. harder and less hand-holding) approach to several features. But still the basics are pretty straightforward and typical - unlike EVE where you have to read forum guides and watch youtube tutorials from day one if you want to accomplish anything, or even avoid getting killed and looted by other players.
Hardcore means high challenge.
Too harsh death penalties in general only lead to people avoiding taking risk.
I recently experienced that as a level 50+ character in Vanguard - every death means I had to kill hundreds of mobs to compensate the xp loss, which got worse and worse the closer I got to maxlevel - thus I started quickly to avoid any risks at all. Finally getting to 55 (maxlevel) was a huge relief.
A real hardcore game can thus not have too harsh death penalties. For hardcore means there is a challenge - thus, if the game forces you to avoid challenges, obviously its not hardcore.
Specifically, permadeath definitely makes a game casual. In fact, massively so. You cannot accumulate any progress, you can only make a highscore list - how long has your character survived. Thus, it cannot get more casual than that. Permadeath results in tetris gaming.
Full loot simply means the game cannot be itemfocussed, removing one possible variable of progress. Thus the game turns simpler and less challenging. Thus again not a factor for "hardcore".
FFA PvP is not hardcore. Its just pure chaos. Most of the time it will just result in highlevels ganking lowlevels at zero risk. There is zip challenge for the highlevel and zip chance to fight back for the lowlevel. Thus, no challenge at all and not hardcore.
In my opinion, the word "Hardcore" simply referred to the length of time it takes to level. Atleast this is what it meant back in the day. With EQ1, you would be killing mobs that was only killable in a full group for hours for small amounts of XP. When WoW & EQ2 hit, you could level so quickly it was laughable.
However, times change and leveling no longer serves as a time sink as such, its easily done these days. Since WoW & EQ2 and then on after, "Hardcore", to me, relates to the Raid/PvP difficulty. Though, not many people want difficulty in this gaming industry, hence why so many raids are a walk in the park and PvP is completely pointless other than grinding tokens or something like that.
Playing: Nothing
Played: EQ1, EQ2, VG:SoH, WoW, AoC, LoTRO, Aion, L2, DF, WAR.
Favourites: EQ1, VG:SoH, Original WoW.
Waiting: Pantheon: ROTF
Your logic seems to be all upside down. Harsh death penalties are signs of casual gameplay? I don't think so. Losing hours of in-game work (by losing exp, loot and gear - or even your char - upon death) means you have to spend more time in-game to get it back = bigger time investment = a more "hardcore" game.
No death penalties = less time investment = a more casual game.
The fact that you personally avoid challenges does not mean that the challenges don't exist; hardcore does not necessarily mean that only one playstyle is possible. It's all about risk vs reward, especially in FFA PVP games like EVE; you can play it safe and grind away for months in high sec, or you can go into null sec and get the same reward in a couple of hours, of course risking your ship and your char in the process.
In VG you risk losing exp by taking risks, but apparently you can also chose to play it safe - which means more time is needed to reach level cap. The challenge is there, but so is the option to avoid it. To me that's good design.
I played Vanguard at launch and, as a fan of EQ, I thought it was pretty entertaining, yet kind of buggy. It wasn't quite as easyI left because of the bugs and decided I'd come back another time.
I came back and it was deserted, so I left again.
I just tried the trial a few days ago, and all I can think so far of it from the starter island is that they just took WoW and made it prettier.
I'm really hoping this isn't what the rest of the game is like.
Sorry, but your definition of hardcore compiles to "boring".
I dont consider it hardcore if a game bores me. I consider it boring.
Really! so WOW has Diplomacy and WOW has the crafting system that Vanguard has and WOW has a vast non instanced dungeon world and WOW has open world housing where everything is made by the player,from the mortar to the bricks to the wallpaper and carpets and everythinbg else you can see.
WOW has ships that are all player made,WOW has 19 playable races and 15 classes,right?
WOW has vast Guild Houses in the open world,right?
The Isle is a trail,it does not reflect the main world of Vanguard at all,are you sure you have actually played the game before or have you just tried it for a couple of weeks and left.
WOW like Vanguards,dont make me laugh.
His post wasn't even worth a response mate, probably a troll.
Anyone that has played the two know the only similarities between the game is that they are both online and are both fantasy. As far as I'm concerned, pretty much everything else in-game is much different.
Two good games, for different reasons, IMO.
PS: Would love to see FrostWyrm answer your questions, but he should run for the hills with his tail between his legs!
Playing: Nothing
Played: EQ1, EQ2, VG:SoH, WoW, AoC, LoTRO, Aion, L2, DF, WAR.
Favourites: EQ1, VG:SoH, Original WoW.
Waiting: Pantheon: ROTF