Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why I will be passing on Vanguard..
Etcarr
Member Posts: 7
First of all, the guys over at Sigil have stated that they don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater... certain things will not be part of Vanguard. One of those things is instancing.
Well, I do NOT agree that instancing is a bad thing. IF a game was created with no instancing, the servers would need to be very localized so that players from +6 timezones do not get an unfair advantage to the game content. We learned in EQ1 that it is simply a bad design when players with a timezone advantage are able to have more fun and see more game content than other players.
Second of all, travel. Sigil says that travel should be fun, not trival. While I agree that SoE went overboard with portals and "hub zones" in EQ1, it is not my idea of fun having to hack through tons of content to get to any destination. EQ1 had classes (druid and wizard) that where rendered obolete by the hub zones. But to make all travel "interesting" by any standard will make the game too time intensive.
Thirdly... if the forums over at www.vanguardsoh.com are any indication of the type of players that this game will attract, count me out. I am not a power gamer with no life outside of the game. The Vanguard message forums are full of hard core gamers... and there is no way I want to get sucked into a compitition with hard core gamers. I learned my lesson with EQ1. No thanks, not making that mistake again.
Comments
*shrug*
You say you will be passing because you do not want to have competition.
Just don't pay attention to the competition, you dont have to be the best, you just have to have fun. Its a game.
--Nyture, Arc Convoker of fironia vie server (EQ) --Retired--
-- Nytur 39 Conjuror of Lucan D'lere (Quit due to low populations)
-- Currently playing WoW while waiting for vanguard
Explorer 66%
Socializer 60%
Killer 53%
Achiever 20%
PLEASE SOE MAKE A CLASSIC EQ SERVER. Shadow of luclin was a prick in EQs side. PoP Was a gun to the face.
I have to agree with Bobiin. Why treat it like a contest? Its all about having fun, not winning. Isn't that why we play persistant worlds? To have an experience and not to just "beat" the game?
I hate instancing. Funny how whenever someone has no point and are trying to prove their side they say "We" a lot. Like "We can all agree that.." and "We learned in...".
You say "We learned in EQ1 that it is simply bad design when players with a timezone avantage are able to have more fun and see more game content than other players." What do you mean we, white man? (that's an expression in case you don't know) You are not talking for anyone that I have ever heard speak about EQ1. I played on Kane Bayle, a euro server and am from the west coast of Canada, which couldn't be much farther away and had NO problem with lag or content.
And also, there are as many casual gamers on the Vanguard forums as "Hardcore". I am a casual gamer with not much time to play, yet I enjoy a challenge also. I might not have as much time as someone that doesn't have to work for a living or has tons of spare time, but I can compete with any other gamer out there. Period.
If you don't wanna play Vanguard, don't. But the fact that you have to broadcast your displeasure with it tells me something. What do you think that is?
I TOTALLY agree with Etcarr here.
I am *not* going to wait till beta to see how these things get implemented.
I am *not* going to try the game myself and see if I enjoy it
I am going to pass on this game because on the official forums of a game before beta with 20k people there are some hardcore people.
I'm also going to read a few FAQ quotes and decide this game is obviously going to suck, I'm not going to see if they can make travel fun, not tedious, I will just assume it will be.
SO BYE GUYS
Explorer 93%
Achiever 46%
Socializer 33%
Killer 26%
IF they make non-raiding servers, I will most likely call this game: Home.
If they dont, I will not even bother to try it as I will seek a place to be happy playing.
I know that Sigil games will have many hardcores flaws, but I am hardcore myself...and they want to please the casuals...so only them saying they try to encourage casuals is something I take for $, since it is not central to my fun. I wish the casuals would be happy in their game, but I would be quite doubtfull about that (to have fun, someone needs to achieve the TOP of something, with levels caps and gears caps such thing could be done, but dont think Sigil will be using those caps(higher then the cap drop you to the cap limit, rather then cutting access to the zone) and will just favorised 1 type of players on the whole server).
Again, I am looking toward their "specific servers rules". Many Sigil fans told me in the past that there will be no such things as "non-raiding servers", but Sigil staff never openly answer that question from what I read (althought I most certainly exaspered some, but I am a fan, I can do anything
), and they even got a few interested eyebrows, which mean I will know prolly 1 month before the game become GOLD...I am patient, I can give the game a second "uninterested" glance in the meanwhile...The staff like specific servers...and it is not players, neither me, nor uberguilds, that determines the specifics of every server.
On an emotional levels, the DDO answer about raiding stress me more then Sigil answer...after all DDO just say: Maybe we will screw you in all the game...Sigil leave a door open that maybe they wont screw non-raiders on some servers...kinda weird.
I am a fan of instancing...but what they propose may be acceptable to keep griefing at a minimum level and favorised players interactions...we will see. Despite my signature, I am a grouper before been a soloer...soloing is something they will screw...but well...to bad...*sigh*, it is always fun to be motivated to do something even if you dont group for any reason...given the choice I always group if I can commit to a group, but somedays I am unable to be a good asset to a group, so I dont group...if those days I cant earn something nice that I care, I just log off...would be nice to keep me log on and motivated, as sometimes some groups will want you even if you cant commit seriously(like many afk or whatever)...bah, to much talking...we will see
(You must all remembers in old EQ, when a group leader tells you, the chanter, "at this point our group is about to call it a day, so having a good and efficient chanter that does AFK half the time is a MUCH better option then logging off or chain wiping", then off course you feels guilty everytime you AFK even if they dont complain, so it can be a blast both for you and them as you keep the AFK to a minimum...and then comes the time to log off and they keep telling you, 1 more please(or sleep is overated and the like)...and you say, okay...then realised you have been saying okay for 3 hours
).
PS: IMO, if Sigil would have the choice between correcting Instancing flaws like they try now, OR put 200 levels caps and gear caps that bring back the player above to the limit, they would do better for the game with the second...having casuals happy and reaching mini level caps is MUCH more vital then fixing the few flaws in existing instancing...of course doing both could be better...All this is a question or priorities...and the flaws in instancing are not that critical IMO...the casuals unmotivated is a critical flaw in any game...so they needs to have many mini-level caps so they can reach 1, then another, then another...and no matter if you are like me level 94732954 and coming into Crushbone, you are not better then the casual in Crushbone...maybe the casual is even better because inside Crushbone there should be something to raise you level cap by 1 if you complete the quest...and I would prolly not complete such a quest for Crushbone uberness (I would prolly complete the quest inside Sebilis however hehe).
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Here here. Fully agree. Alot of them at Vanguard are a bunch of elitest lifers. And if you dont agree with them and developers 100% you get flamed out pretty much everytime. The only other board I have encountered that was that bad was the original counterstrike boards back during the 1.5 days. Nothing but Llamas and flamers.
If that is any indication of what the game community will be like then I dont want to haev anything to do with it.
Kai
Yikes they flamed you? I do agree that the odd person there is a bit of a stuffed shirt, but I have posted there about 20 times and I was actually kinda rough with them once: they already had a get together called
"Fanguard"
in Vegas and the friggin game isn't even out yet and someone had posted *wishes the next Fanguard will be in my hometown*, so I posted *wishes you people would donate some money to charity and make the world a better place instead of spending money on trips to a fan meeting for a game that isn't even out yet* LOL and I didn't get flamed.
Don't judge them by the few bad apples that post ad nauseam; there are a ton of nice people that are already dedicated to this game. I will admit though the elitist attitude I can do without, but some of them are awesome peeps too. Just like every game.
This statement pretty much explains all the nonesense you post Ano.
YOU might NEED to reach the TOP. But making the assumption that all players are like that is wholly false, and rather arrogant.
There are plenty of people out there that aren't so egocentric to feel that they've failed if they aren't number one. They can be perfectly satisfied knowing that they are advancing, and knowing that they've earned something. For plenty of players, their comparison to anyone else is meaningless. They do what they do for themselves, and not because they feel some need to participate is some e-penis contest.
-Feyshtey-
Vanguard will still have instancing -- just that it's server-wide instancing, like most MMORPGs.
I've always wondered about zone instancing. Why instance zones when you already instance the server? If you design a dungeon that can handle 50 players, then the server should be sized, thinking of the game flow and leveling rate, so that no more than 50 people will ever want to be in that dungeon at any given time (or vice-versa -- make zones to handle predetermined server pops). Maybe you can't accurately predict it, but that's what years of game design experience should be hinting at! Once you've designed the whole world, the server-wide flow should be established and the server capacity assigned appropriately. All that is left is to make enough of those servers for all the players who buy the game.
But instead, devs seem to be going toward the idea that they shouldn't have to figure out flow through their world. They use zone instancing as a buffer, or margin for their design errors. It's much easier to design a dungeon from an abstract idea without having to think of practical application and capacities. Figure that stuff out later and just instance the zone based on how crowded it seems at any given time.
So I guess instancing is more like an insurance policy, in that respect. Devs still attempt to design based on expected flows. Then they throw in instancing as a safety measure. Just to make sure that any way-off estimates don't sink the ship. This is also good in case server pops go beyond capacity like they always seem to do. That's smart, I suppose.
But is that fun? Games are meant to be fun, not easy to make. Easy to make is all good when it doesn't affect gameplay. Some say instancing makes their game more enjoyable, some say that it detracts due to fewer opportunities to have unplanned interaction with other players (good or bad). I say that toil is part of the human experience. If we make everything too easy without any confrontation or challenge -- what will we have in the end?
As far as Vanguard goes, these guys designed EQ1. They experienced the pitfalls that bad level design can bring. EQ1 was in no way perfect, and the VSOH team will be the first to admit it. By admitting it, they will learn from those mistakes. For me, that's the biggest reason to check Vanguard out.
Etcarr, you are probably the only person in the whole world that doesn't complain about the instancing and actually encourage it.......and that makes you already one of a kind in itself, making your post a bit redundant (/joke
)
Anyway, your point for not liking Vanguard are a bit weak.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing bad in not liking a game at first "sight".
I usually decide if I like a game from the FAQs and from the few news available, and usually I decide if i like it or not straight away.
So if you decide that Vanguard is not the game for you, because there is no "chemistry", that's only fair.
The only difference is that I don't start threads about my dislike of a game unless I know the subject well and I can bring valid point of discussion.
I would like to discuss your criticism about the forum, though.
Sorry but you are talking bollocks. (and that's as far as I will go close to a flame).
The forum is well moderate by the iron fist of "Glip the gnome".
No way you can flame or worse insult someone, without getting yourself a permanent ban.
Is it a partial Forum? Of course.
It is a fansite forum for Christ sake.
You wanna see a messy forum? Go and post negative opinions about WOW, EQ2, GW, L2 or RYL in their respective forums, but don't forget to wear your anti-flame cloak.
Usually the posts in the Vanguard forum are quite mature, and people let other people express themselves, as long they do it with criteria, and don't post things like "Vanguard will SUXX".
In conclusion there is nothing wrong in not liking a game but when you explain your reasons try to be a little bit more honest and give proper reasons.
Anyway good luck with your quest for the hunt of your ideal game
PS: A suggestion for you.
You should play DDO, there is lots of instancing, therefore the ping is good.......according to you that's what makes the difference between a good game and a bad game.
So good luck with it
I forgot to add something: I am more and more apt to ignore my feelings on specific features I hear about in a future game. One thing we tend to forget is that a new game has a whole new context. Specific features that are in current games may not work in future games, at least in the form that we are used to. Also, features that would be horrible in current games may be a dream in a future game. Goes without saying, but we forget about this too often not to remind ourselves once in a while...
So when someone says "no instances", "perma-death", "lootable player corpses", or whatever. I tend to refrain from making a judgement until time comes that the entire rule-set is revealed to me in practice. FAQs don't count either. I've been surprised too many times by crappy sounding features in an FAQ that end up working really well when I actually play the game.
If anything, a questionable-sounding feature makes me a bit more intrigued by the game.... Unless it's "Mow the lawn in your very own virtual house!" or something like that.
Vanguard is not gonna suck because Sigil has said they will not be using instancing.....
The point that I am trying to make is this.... If a game does not have instanced raid encounters and players must compete for desired encounters, the clear advantage goes to those that can start first and mobilize faster. The euro players have a clear advantage because they have a +6-8 hour time differential. If those raid encounters are not instanced, the servers need to be localized.
This was one of the things about EQ that sucked bad. SoE instanced many encounters (PoTime for example) and it was a good solution. Getting beat out on a spawn that your guild needs over and over and over is just not fun. No fun, no game. Lots of players quit in frustration or put up with this because there was no other game to play. Times have changed....
Vanguard looks to be hard core. Sigil looks to be hard core. Sigil has already addressed the "right to content" issue by saying there is no such thing.
A lot of us hated EQ but played it because we had limited options. No way I want to play a game for a year just to find the end game a huge frustration like EQ was.
-e
Vanguard, while not instanced, will still have that encounter system they've touched on. Something about chained events and spawns that only your party can engage. Definitely paraphrasing, but I think it's something like that.
They said that camping won't be like EQ.
First of all the Boss or Named is not going to spawn in the same place, so guild waiting for hours on the spot to get hold of the mob are things of the past, you need to look for it.
Second, the Boss will be only targeteable by the group/raid that activate a certain item that make the mob spawn.
Others can see the Mob but they cannot target him.
So there will not be Named theft anymore.
As you can see Sigil has realised how frustrating was for small guilds to see their mob stolen by more powerful Guilds, and has done something about in an alternative way, without turning to massive instancing (that's called collateral thinking).
That's the reason I like Vanguard, Brad & Co learned from EQ what worked and what didn't and they gonna change it for the better, without ruining immersion and diminishing the challenge factor.
Give those guys a chance, they really know what they are doing.
They better know what they are doing. I've pinned my last hopes of finally discovering the holy grail of MMORPGs on Vanguard. They better not let me down...
Nah, who am I kidding -- I will always hunger for the carrot.
The Holy Grail is not out there yet. EQ2 was a huge joke, WoW was much better but with no real end game, and everything else misses the mark because of the "fun factor". WoW is fun.... but when you have been at level 60 for a while the only thing to do is start another toon.
-e
Key word being "was". Don't know if you have been back to EQ2 but it has drastically improved in about every department! Too many improvements to list here without going on and on, let's just say the injected it with fun.
And I'm waiting for Vanguard too and it is my last hope really to recapture the magic that I knew as Everquest. When that game comes out I'm not coming to this site again untill I have beaten it as I think sites like these sort of kill some of the magic. I love this site don't get me wrong, but I think all the talk makes us jaded as you can see from some of the posts.
"Here here. Fully agree. Alot of them at Vanguard are a bunch of elitest lifers. And if you dont agree with them and developers 100% you get flamed out pretty much everytime. The only other board I have encountered that was that bad was the original counterstrike boards back during the 1.5 days. Nothing but Llamas and flamers."
Were you on the right forum? Because I am registered there since 1 year ago and I never found such a mature, civilized and respectfull bunch of people as in there. Strange, very strange....
I played EQ2 when it first came out. If you are right, I need to fire up my station account and give it another look
Maybe I will do just that.....
-e
-----------------Censored------------------
This statement pretty much explains all the nonesense you post Ano.
YOU might NEED to reach the TOP. But making the assumption that all players are like that is wholly false, and rather arrogant.
There are plenty of people out there that aren't so egocentric to feel that they've failed if they aren't number one. They can be perfectly satisfied knowing that they are advancing, and knowing that they've earned something. For plenty of players, their comparison to anyone else is meaningless. They do what they do for themselves, and not because they feel some need to participate is some e-penis contest.
Been at the TOP is hardly a comparaison, you assume it is, but it is not. And non-raiders are denied their legitimate TOP in the actual system, which is denying them their deserved rewards, they deserve to rule some aspect of the game...yes, for me I am a competitor, so I will always compare, but even if you dont compare, you need to reach the TOP...and to reach the TOP in crushbone, you need level 70 and the new raiding gear...it is pointless to be that uber in Crushbone, but it is still the top in Crushbone.
The day someone stop to want to excell and to reach the TOP, that person might as well just die. Humans strive for the TOP of what we do...it is in our nature, and not necessarily in a competitive way. Raiding denied this. Raiding will be under fire as long as it denied this.
The best plumber is...a plumber, not a raider or a scientist.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
You dont change persons...especially not when they get older! I am an achiever. They build a game to appeal to achievers, then they denied any non-raiders...this is pure crap, this is an achiever trap (an achiever is unlikely to be a raider, simply because achiever value solo worth, individuality and that type of stuff that the so called superiors raiders scorn upon...but raiding is a game for my grandma, not for me, I am to young and valuable to raid)
I dont care to compete as much as I care to COMPLETE! And those games dont let me feel I complete it, and worser, they twist it...if I dont complete because it is to long or to hard, fine, I can deal with that. If I dont complete because the game change and it is not longer FUN, then we got a problem and I wont change...I am like I am. I need to complete what I start or to fail, completely exhausted...to be denied my legetimate accomplishment by hiding it behind a raiding game? Eternal flaming guaranted. In fact, I am more burning then ever...it is not cooling inside, it is growing!
There is no redemption for me in games with raiding.
I dont care if powergamers beat me...that is fine...as long as I can play and enjoy it to my heart content! If I come to an artificial raiding barrier, it drive me insane because I complete the game but dont have the feeling of completing it, so I start this new raiding game that I hate...and the more I play it, the more I hate it. (but yes, I am also a competitor...but completing is central, and raiding deny me my completing of grouping and soloing...yet I reach the level cap, I cant reach it...it is driving me insane I know)
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I know you dont like raiding, and I'm not trying to change your mind or anything, just pointing out the practicality of raiding and why it's not so evil as you seem to think it to be. Being somewhat stuck in the middle (that is to say, I'm not a raider, but I've raided before and enjoyed it) I guess I just have trouble understanding why people seem to think raiders and non-raiders cant co-exist in the same game. In any case you have every right to enjoy a game however you like, and as long as people remember that others do also, everyone should be ok.