I can co-exist perfectly well with raiders...as long as they dont have the best grouping/soloing edges.
If raiders get the best grouping edges, I am off the game, it is a piece of lame trash wasting my time and denying me the most basic concept of achievement.
If to reach the TOP of grouping I need to raid, then raiding is enforced and as an achiever, I have no choice but to raid.
You obviously dont know the same raiders I do, and you never listen to Afterlife guildchat, or any Uberguild guildchat. There is very little team work in that, it is all drama, bullshitting, politics to get the loot rather then a fair and worthy system (and they are even taking pride in this drama and bullshitting, EQboards show this pride). Team work mean you listen to every person idea and you try to work as a team...those guilds has a STFU approach and they order folks to do this or that, there is no team work in that, this is a domination system. Don't be afraid, I was not been ordered much myself, maybe because the Guildleader has to honey talk me for weeks before I join them. Officers where generally enforcing what I suggest, which I find pathetic the way they do it, little soldiers without ideas, that read on the net or listen to others and then act like jerks(not all officers, some where greats and could have been guild leaders...and some where...less savory).
I cant stand raiding in it actual form, and any game enforcing it (in the high end, which I always reach FAST) is a NO THANKS. If raiding was done right and not rewarding outside of raiding, then yes, I would prolly enjoy raiding and do it a LOT, because the raiding spirit would be there. But I am sorry, there is no raiding spirit in those so called guilds of old EQ, it is a nest of lootwhores with rules to deprive everything they can, DKP is a prime example, it remove all loot from the casuals hands and distribute it in the hands of those who already are richers...peoples training each others, bullshitting others, so they quit the guild and dont use their DKP, temporary prices changes, enforcing full prices even if nobody but the newcomers needs the items, early overated prices purposefully and knowing those items are junk but would see many folks waste their DKP...and so on. There is no real raiding spirit in that. A pure random or a loot comitee could have work, but peoples are cry babies about the random, and for the loot comitee it is like communist, as long as the leaders are not corrupted it work great...but you know how humans are...I would love REAL raiding...what I saw as raiding is the most despictable activity I ever did behing my computer.
It is obvious to me that you have very little achiever blood running in your veins if any. Reaching the TOP is primordial, and if I fail, I must fail in a logical ways...not because the TOP is been achieve outside of the gameplay I am playing.
As long as the best soloer is a raider, the game is incredibly flawed.
Back to the Vanguard topic...it is way to early to say every details about their specific servers rules...and I still have an irrational part of me that hope that there will be non-raiding server with a LDoN system for the best gear or whatever. The very fact some raiders cringe over this idea is the best proof that raiding is evil and flawed, they should not care about what happen on others servers! Reals raiders are welcoming the idea of a system where raiding only help in raiding, not outside of it...and by the sheer numbers of approval, you can judge how many real raiders exist for every scores of lootwhores. I still hope for a non-raiding server, and no, I would not buy Vanguard without such a server. Best grouper need to be a grouper, and there is no discussion on this topic for me, it is a dictate. Raiders dont deserve to rule the non-raiding world.
PS: When a raider get better items then a non-raider group-wise, then you are FORCED to raid if you want to reach the TOP of the grouping system...and every achiever want to reach the top.
PPS: Yes a group of persons can take stronger stuff then a soloer, but they wont ever become better soloers for doing this...and the best soloer in the world would still be a soloer, not folks who gank harder stuff in group. See, in a system where the stronger mobs drop the stronger loot, you just say that folks who never solo are better soloers, which is a nonsense. The best soloer NEED to be a soloer...he may not take the hardest mobs that group take, but no grouper can take what he solo either! On a 1 vs 1, a soloer is always stronger then any grouper in a logical system...so the guy who solo the strongest stuff, is a soloer, not a grouper. Same apply for raiding vs others aspects. In such a system, you either need different stats for groupers, soloers and raiders...or you need to have differents powers that apply in differents case...or all gears and loot can be useless while soloing, but you can use other stuff that you cant when you are grouped, some more skilled since you are not restricted to play with others but can use all your untapped power. Best soloer NEED to be a soloer.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
"If raiders get the best grouping edges, I am off the game, it is a piece of lame trash wasting my time and denying me the most basic concept of achievement."
The most basic concept of achievement is doing what's necissary to get ahead, not doing only the things you like to do. However as the "g" in mmorpg does stand for "game" your first and foremost goal should be to have fun.
"I cant stand raiding in it actual form"
Pardon my assumption, but it seems to me as though this is the real root of the entire thing, not weather or not it's fair to non-raiders.
"It is obvious to me that you have very little achiever blood running in your veins if any. Reaching the TOP is primordial, and if I fail, I must fail in a logical ways...not because the TOP is been achieve outside of the gameplay I am playing."
"As long as the best soloer is a raider, the game is incredibly flawed."
Not taking advantage of every opportunity that comes by (such as raiding) is a perfectly logical reason for not reaching the top. I dont like that I have to pay an arm and a leg for college to get a job designing games, but I'm up to my eyeballs in student loans anyway. Also, there are a large number of mmorpg'ers who dislike questing as well, however questers recieve better equipment than those who choose not to, giving them a comparative advantage to raiders and non-raiders. However your ability in a game isn't limited by this. Buying that same equipment from a raider/quester has always been a perfectly legitemate way to obtain those same quality items without having to participate in the game content required to get them.
And if the best soloer in a game also happens to be a raider, why is that such a problem? Maybe that person envisioned his/her self as an achiever but dislikes farming salable items for money to buy gear, so he/she decided to join a raid to get the equipment that way. Personally, I dont feel the need to be the best, as long as there's something I'm particularly good at. To many people, that IS an achievement, and it's something to be proud of.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or anything, and I dont particularly like arguing either. You seem like an intelligent person and all, but you let your personal loathing for raiding, or perhaps raiders judging from your description of the ones you've encountered, get the better of you. At least thats my personal observation, if I'm mistaken forgive me. However the equality/inequality of raiders/non-raiders really isnt so bad as you seem to believe it to be.
I can safely say that we will never meet again on the same server, unless you change.
Achievement is not doing what is necessary to get to the TOP, if so then a girl that is not rich should just sell her body with your same argument. Your argument would also lead to believe that the best programmer is a producer, because a producer make more sacrifice and is more worthy then a programmer. We all know that the best programmer is a programmer. The day I meet a producer who didnt program much in his life, and he say he program better then the Lead programmer, I can tell you he is having designs issues right away! You can ask a soloer ANYTHING you want to progress, as long as it is SOLOING, not grouping or raiding...but soloing. Asking a baseball player to play hockey to become better is nonsense, just as asking a soloer to group or raid is nonsense.
All this is basic design 101, it amaze me how many persons still defend such a system that dont respect basic designs concepts, it is all a marketing scheme...it has 0 design value. In the long run it can only fail and lead to unhappiness and crippled fanbase, which is exactly what SoE is suffering.
The best plumber is a plumber. The best soloer deserve to be a soloer (and the best grouper deserve to be a grouper of course). End of discussion.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Don't know why anyone would refuse to play an MMORPG because they didn't have instances in order to get away from the MMO. Instancing is just a tool. Used properly it can bring something to the game. But overused, and it just kills the immersion. One thing about instancing is that you can have too much, but you can never have too little.
Originally posted by Feyshtey They do what they do for themselves, and not because they feel some need to participate is some e-penis contest.
Yes there is no point because I would win and everyone knows it
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
"Achievement is not doing what is necessary to get to the TOP, if so then a girl that is not rich should just sell her body with your same argument."
Selling her body would certainly be one way to get ahead, but should this not be a path she'd like to take (and I'm sure 99% of the women out there wouldn't) there are alternatives. Borrowing money for school,for example, is another way to go about things. Likewise, as I stated before, buying equipment off of someone who does raid is almost always an alternative to raiding. As I stated before, I'm not much of a raider myself, but I've never let that stop me from getting good high-end gear. I take the alternate road by gathering the raw materials, lesser equipment, and other items I'm capable of acquiring to sell for the money to buy the better stuff. So you dont HAVE to raid to get good gear, it's just one path available to do so.
"Asking a baseball player to play hockey to become better is nonsense..."
I admit, I'm just playing devil's advocate now, but I suppose technically if a baseball player were to play hockey, he would get an effective physical workout that could over time improve his baseball game.
"The best plumber is a plumber. The best soloer deserve to be a soloer (and the best grouper deserve to be a grouper of course). End of discussion."
Again you imply the inability for the two to coexist. Who's to say a person cant be both a raider and a soloer? Everyone is capable of undertaking more than one job, and when one job compliments the other, of course that person would have the slight edge. If a civilian who happens to be a surgeon enlists in the military and trains as a sniper, his/her steady hands would give them the slight advantage over the other snipers training. That's not to say other snipers-in-training couldnt become just as good, if not better with a little hard work (which in the case of an mmorpg could be equated to raising the money to buy equipment). Similarly, using your example of a plumber. If someone went to school and earned a degree in physics, then later became a plumber (although with a degree in physics, I cant imagine why), they'd have the advantage of understanding materials, angles, velocity, and the like that could make their job of clearing a drain a bit easier, but again, with a bit of learning and experience, any other plumber could become just as good if not better. If a surgeon can be a sniper also, if a physicist can be a plumber also, why cant a raider be a soloer also? Raiders have the advantage of the equipment they achieve through raiding when they decide to solo, but other soloers can still find ways of evening the field if they want to work at it.
It's like those wierd IQ test questions that ask "if all flips are plids, but only some plids are widgets, are some widgets flips?". If you replace flips, plids, and widgets with soloers, gamers, and raiders respectively, it shows that the possibility for some soloers to also be widgets...um, I mean raiders, does exist.
So if you play a game and a raider has better stuff than you, dont get upset about it. Use that achiever's spirit you're so passionate about to even the score! Get out there and earn the money, then find someone with equal or better gear that wants to sell or trade. Do what you have to! Dont let them get the best of you! Um...but whatever you do, I definately DO NOT recommend selling your body......it just leads to all kinds of problems. Ah, but you're smart enough to know that without my telling you, right? ^^
All this is basic design 101, it amaze me how many persons still defend such a system that dont respect basic designs concepts, it is all a marketing scheme...it has 0 design value. In the long run it can only fail and lead to unhappiness and crippled fanbase, which is exactly what SoE is suffering.
One of the things that's obvious to pretty much everyone (except you Ano), is that making every game the same is ridiculous. You have a set of criteria that makes a game good for you. Go find a game with those criteria and play it.
Basic design 101 in any industry: Define your target audience. Build the product for thier tastes.
But you, Ano, insist that there aren't target audiences for games. You're so incredibly egocentric that you actually believe that your opinions are the only ones that are valid, and must be the opinions every game player in the world has to adhere to.
They aren't. Your ideas are as valid as anyone's. But they are not the only valid opinions!!!!!!
The best plumber is a plumber. The best soloer deserve to be a soloer (and the best grouper deserve to be a grouper of course). End of discussion.
The best plumber could do an equally fantastic job on both houses, and 100-story high rise buildings. And you can bet your ass the that guy who has only ever worked on houses, couldn't do as good a job as the guy who has worked on houses... and apartment buildings, and offices, and high-rises. In any job, you build expertise through experiencing multiple scenarios. You better your skill by seeing how things are done in a myriad of situations, and adapting and applying those new concepts to the job you have at hand. If you have a limited view of the world, you will never have a rounded abililty to perform in it.
I can safely say that we will never meet again on the same server, unless you change.
You know Ano, that's the beauty of it all. You get to play the games you want, and we get to play the games we want. You don't have to deal with us... and we don't have to deal with you. Well, ideally we don't have to deal with you. But you keep sticking your head into the forums for this game, which quite obviously isn't be designed with you in mind (how dare they!!).
I don't see anything wrong with having instanced quest areas, such as lairs, caves, etc. My concern isn't the competition, but the lag generated by having that many players in the same area. As an example, if anyone that played SWG can recall when the Geonosian Cave was released.
Keep the map mostly open with at least a few high-end quest areas instanced is a good combination imo.
Ico Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
Most MMO are not doing what most games do, they install a completely different high end that has nothing to do with everything you did before, and they are surprised when players are not reacting happily.
You have the right to think the ways those companies want you to think, if this is your choice...and I have the right to disagree.
Festhey, you are making a comment that even Vanguard didnt make so far...You have no idea how exactly their specifics servers will work, you cant say for sure that there wont be a non-raiding server...or that there will be one. I didnt goes as far as saying we wont play the same game, I limit myself to say that we wont play on the same servers. I never play on a PvP server in old EQ, been able to remove the raiding aspect is similar as far as I am concerned...off course I want a "local high end", LDoN or twice the levels or whatever...require very little work.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Most MMO are not doing what most games do, they install a completely different high end that has nothing to do with everything you did before, and they are surprised when players are not reacting happily.
THAT I completely agree with. WoW, just as a ready example, planned poorly. They allowed the players to solo for 59 levels, and then expected them to completely shift their playstyles to group/raid orientation.
However, this is not an indicator that people inherently dislike grouping or raiding (although it's entirely true that there are cases of both). It's just an indicator that people don't like having the expectations changed on them after 59 levels of gameplay.
Vanguard is choosing an approach that is more wise. They are setting the expectations of the players early, nearly from first login. They are making it readily apparent quite early that players will be much more rewarded through grouping. There are even indications that there will be raid content from early on, as low as mid-teens. The players attracted to Vanguard because of the core philosophy of teamwork will not be disappointed. And players (like you Ano) that insist on getting great rewards for solo'ing, can make the choice very early on to find something else. You won't be expected to shift your playstyle at some much later date to continue gaining rewards. You'll have learned very early (or before you even buy the game) that you are expected to participate in the community and contribute to teamwork in this game.
You have the right to think the ways those companies want you to think, if this is your choice...and I have the right to disagree.
EXACTLY!!! So why exactly do you INSIST that I can't make that choice? Why do you insist that the game is inherently flawed just because it's a game you are not interested in?! It's not for you. I can respect that. But what I can't respect is that you insist that I am inherently flawed because I support the direction this game is taking.
Festhey, you are making a comment that even Vanguard didnt make so far...You have no idea how exactly their specifics servers will work, you cant say for sure that there wont be a non-raiding server...or that there will be one. I didnt goes as far as saying we wont play the same game, I limit myself to say that we wont play on the same servers. I never play on a PvP server in old EQ, been able to remove the raiding aspect is similar as far as I am concerned...off course I want a "local high end", LDoN or twice the levels or whatever...require very little work.
If you're trying to suggest that they will re-design sections of the gameworld just to make a server that has no raid content, I don't know what to tell you. Re-designing sections of the gameworld for the multiple alternate rules servers they hope to eventually support just doesn't make sense. It's costly, it's time consuming, and it's a hell of a lot harder to manage over time. And the benefits are only realized by a sliver of your game's overall population.
Now, that being said, allowing PvP on a server is one thing. Allowing a server that doesn't allow you to group between evil and good races is quite plausible. But creating new art, new mob populations, and new loot tables across the board to make sure that there's a solo'ers server is a dream you are very very likely to be disappointed by. Vanguard has cooperation, teamwork and community as a core tenant of design. Alternate rules servers does not mean making alternate rules to completely avoid the very tenets the game is designed on.
The problem I have is not that 1 or 2 MMO are doing this...they are ALL doing this. Again this would not be that bad, if they would have done that for ALL the time.
But Pre-Kunark EQ was not raid oriented, there was arguably 2 raid event that give barely a few things that didnt shaft folks to bad.
Pre-I3 CoH was not Hamidon oriented...
The problem is that they ALL do it, and they do it in a wrong way.
Btw, despite my pro-solo stances...I am a GROUPER! It just happen that I like solo, and I like solo to be relevant or I wont do it...yes...I am a grouper that defend solo! (In EQ I was a chanter, a rogue and a cleric...grouper...grouper and grouper after my pre-Kunark toon).
Please, dont say that every grouper like raiding...I love grouping beyond what your imagination will put, and I cant stand raiding. It is just that if, for any reason, I dont get a group, I want a good reason to be soloing with my LFG tag...I dont solo until I get a group in old EQ, I log. I want a reason to solo...so I can get a group eventually...without waiting lamely behind my computer.
I play MMO to group...but I dont wait LFG...so a good soloing system is the working alternative as far as I am concerned...yes I will abort any solo stuff if I get a group that interest me. If Afterlife Guildleader ask me to group because for whatever reason, I will denied it and solo...but that is not group/solo oriented, it is socially oriented. You dont want to enforce grouping between me and uberguilders, it usually end poorly, either them trying to kill me, or me gating on them when I realize what they just try!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
The problem I have is not that 1 or 2 MMO are doing this...they are ALL doing this. Again this would not be that bad, if they would have done that for ALL the time.
So it's logical to go to the forum section for the one game that is most adamanet about this type of system to complain? Rather than going to the forums of something like, say, LOTR Online, or Middle Earth Online, or D&D Online, that's a hell of a lot closer to what you desire? It's like going to the Catepillar Corporation and demanding that they stop making construction equipment and start making sports cars.
But Pre-Kunark EQ was not raid oriented, there was arguably 2 raid event that give barely a few things that didnt shaft folks to bad.
What? Lady Vox Lord Nagefen Plane of Fear Plane of Hate Plane of Sky
By FAR the best loot in the game has ALWAYS been from raid encounters. Mana Stone? Haste Belts? Cloak of Flames? Does any of this ring a bell? The paladin armor from Fear was easily 40%+ more ac, plus kick ass stats. It blew the next best non-raid stuff out of the water.
The problem is that they ALL do it, and they do it in a wrong way.
It's only 'wrong' in your opinion. I've said this to you before, but I'll say it again: You don't want them to make one great game. You want them to make 3 games, and put them all in the same game world (One solo, one group, and one raid). But you're completely oblivious to the fact that for the VAST majority of players, there isn't a clear line in the sand between the 3 games you propose. You can't package the players into neat little subsets that are always valid. There will always be overlaps and trends in player behaviour. And therefore it's a literal impossibility to set the lines anywhere with meaning. You can't segregate them into 'bests' categories according to how they play the game, because for the bulk of the players, how they play will change from day to day.
Not to mention that you are still screwing someone. You're just ok with it because the people being screwed aren't you. Any arguments you make for a 'fair' system are a farse.
These games largely include some solo stuff because there are times when players simply can't get a group. You promote a system where a person who exclusively chooses to group or raid, but for whatever reason can't get either on a given day, is at a serious disadvantage trying to solo. That's not at all fair. Especially considering the contribution to community and teamwork that that player put forth into the game, that you chose to ignore. They've done what the game is designed specifically for them to do. But on the one day they can't, your system holds them at a loss. The difference being that you make the choice not to group or raid. They didn't have that luxury. They are screwed through no fault of their own.
This thread is hilarious and a joy to read lol Feyshtey and Ano you guys are fun to read I like to solo sometimes but I know it's better to group, just from a social standpoint. It makes you get out of your shell and get along with people, and more often than not I find myself really enjoying groups. Most people that play MMOG's are really quite funny and fun to chat with, even some of the a holes. And when they are really awful you can put them on /ignore.
I am really enjoying SWG and EQ2 right now, but I can't wait for Vanguard to come out, it's the game I will be playing and dedicating my time to. But they can take their time with it, I want it to be all it can be and I love the fact that they are putting blinders on and making the game they envision and not making it a generic "All games to all people" yawnfest. I most love the fact that some people are saying they just won't play Vanguard. See, I don't want everyone playing it, just the people that love a serious challenge, and those who like to group or raid to accomplish the impossible!
A post from Brad McQuaid in this thread, on this very same topic :
I've posted several times in the past over the whole casual vs core vs raid issue -- if you haven't read those posts, please try to.
Now, I'm going to go somewhere I don't like going, and that's being critical or a competitor (or at lesat, what could be construed that way -- I certainly have nothing but respect for the guys at Blizzard, and I also truly think that, based on what WoW was meant to do, that it's a great game).
Blizzard targetted more casual gamers, and one of the ways they did this was to design the game with very fast character advancement. Looking at their success, this most certainly worked (although this is one of several factors, all of which IMHO were brilliant planning on their part assuming the business model I think they were going after).
Along with very quick leveling, they also knew they had to make a lot of content because that content would be devoured quickly, even by more casual games.
The question is, how long did they mean for the average player to subscribe? What if they were looking at things more from a single player perspective, that people will quit after some time, and then buy the next expansion even if that means there is a gap?
It works with single player games. You finish the game and if it was good and the game did well, you look forward to buying the expansion or sequel and in the meantime play other new gams that are coming out.
I don't know how MMOG players will react, though. I think a lot of people want to keep playing contiguously with new content being added at a decent frequency. Sure, the power gamers always run out of content too early, but the priority is to expand the game not too often, nor too late, and to keep your core playerbase happy.
Or at least this is what we tried to do with EQ, and what most MMOGs have done.
This all leads to just how quickly advancement should be. The easy answer is a sweet spot between tedious and too easy and quick. The difficulty lies in the fact that that sweet spot varies depending on the player. This is why I think it's so important to identify your target audience and then stick to your guns. You can't please everyone all of the time, but I do think you can keep most of your players relatively happy.
With WoW I really see a different approach. I don't know if it's a big concern on their end if some percentage of gamers are running out of content. One could even argue that if someone quits before they are too attached to an MMOG, they leave much happier and much more likely to buy your next product. Conversely, many who leave an MMOG after several years don't leave so happy because regardless of what made them finally leave, they still feel an attachment to the game because of how long they played it. If this is true, than I don't see why many WoW players wouldn't just move on to another game for a while and then buy the expansion whenever it comes out.
Again, this is speculation, and it's also not criticism. How to make a game for the more casual player has been a problem MMOG developers have been faced with for quite some time. Many of the retention mechanisms that work with core and hard core gamers seem to turn off some casuals. It's a bit of a catch-22. So time will tell if Blizzard's different strategy is a good one. Certainly they deserve credit for reaching out to so many people and growing this gamespace immensely. They are also, to my knowledge, the first to bridge the gap between the West and Asia. MMOG developers on both sides of the pond have been struggling with how to design a game that is appealing in both regions. We've failed. The Koreans have failed. But now look at Blizzard... they're even getting a foothold into China.
Obviously, we're not making WoW and nor did we have similar goals and a similar business plan when it comes to Vanguard. Some people call WoW and EQ-clone, but look carefully at the differences that do exist. I think they're very key.
We feel that our target audience wants a more challenging game, and one that will keep them interested for months and years. Jeff's quote also indicates that this is also moreso the type of game that we personally want to play (although I know for a fact that he had a blast leveling up to max in WoW (and CoH for that matter)).
Now comes the controversial stuff, if I've not already gone past that line in the sand.
How does the developer design a game to keep people around for months and years. I will tell you as fact, even though we've been accused otherwise, we don't put in time sinks and boring grinds just to frustrate people but still somehow keep them around. Nobody here, both personally and professionaly, wants to frustrate people, much less implement mechanics or content just to annoy.
The solution is to make the journey through the levels fun. It shouldn't feel like a treadmill. You shouldn't feel you have to grind, or have no choice but to grind. But that's much easier said than done. I think we have some great ideas and so far, at least for myself, I don't feel a treadmill or grind at all. But then I'm not everybody, and I know that. This is why we've comitted to having casual, group and raid content, even though we are open about Vaguard being more challenging relative to most recently released MMOGs.
One of the big things is content. The faster the character advances, the faster content is devoured. I've heard accounts from several people that they only saw some major dungeons in WoW a couple of times before they out leveled the area. That said, I think they put a lot of effort into making sure there was a lot of content and rewards, compensating pretty well for the quicker advancement.
We are comitted to making the game as fun as possible and for people to enjoy leveling up and not feel like they just need to grind to see the end game. That means a lot of work and also some hopefully innovative ideas. I honesty believe we're pulling it off, though.
But here's my last controversial blab:
Some people simply demand character advancement to be at a certain pace. I don't criticize them at all (although they criticize us, and call other players catasses). I'll be blunt: not sure if Vanguard will be for them, though we'll try nontheless. The term casual gamer can mean so many things. It can mean my grandma who is not really a gamer at all. It can mean someone who loves these games but only has so much time to spend in-game. It can mean people who prefer to solo and don't care as much for grouping. It can mean those who do not enjoy playing a game with others who have more time or comiment and watching them level more quickly, experience more areas, acquire more loot, etc. This latter group demands to experience it all too, just as much as the power gamer does.
Vanguard, as I've said countless times, is primarily targeting the core gamer. We can argue about what that means, but to me it's the people who really enjoyed playing games like EQ, and enjoyed playing them for a long time. some asert that these people no longer exist, and that EQ was only so successful because they had no other choices and perhaps didn't yet realize that they were not really having fun. Obviously, we disagree.
But we are also targeting more casual gamers (and raiders). But not my grandma, and probably not the type of person who simply cannot tolerate watching others achive more quickly than them. Those who prefer to solo, yes, you'll be able to solo or play in smaller groups and still achive. Those who don't have as much time, especially long contiguous chunks of time, Vanguard will hopefully be for you as well. Long epic tasks don't have to be contiguous. They can be broken up. I think MMOGs can do a lot better here.
So that's it. We think we can make a game that is compelling for years without making it seem too much like a treadmill or a grind. will we execute flawlessly? I doubt it, but we've learned a lot, especially identifying mechanics or other situations that are time sinks but really don't add anything to the game. In the past, we've made mistakes in this area. As I've posted before, there are a lot of areas where we had downtime that was excessive and/or unnecessary. There were also situations where people felt compelled to do the more boring thing to advance more quickly instead of what would have been more fun. We VERY much want to avoid this with Vanguard and learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others.
I covered a lot. Plase don't hesitate to ask questions, especially if I wasn't clear on something. The danger of making these posts is that they can be misunderstood or taken out of content. Especially, say, when bits and pieces of what I say are posted on other boards whose readers either know very little about Vanguard or nothing. Add to that those who blame me for some of the problems in the past (and some of that blame I deserve). My fear is that they would take some of this stuff the wrong way (and I've seen it happen already).
Not sure what to do there except keep posting and also reaching out to other communities. Some of you already do that and I appreciate it.
That covers things pretty well, from my perspective.
But Pre-Kunark EQ was not raid oriented, there was arguably 2 raid event that give barely a few things that didnt shaft folks to bad.
What? Lady Vox Lord Nagefen Plane of Fear Plane of Hate Plane of Sky
When the 200 first player who reach level 50 on pre-Kunark, those zones where not implemented or working on a ratio of 60%. Which leave arguably 2 of them with very little...(the 2 dragons only)
If you take those first 200 players to reach level 50, if even 10 of them (5%) accept the raiding game, I would be surprised. It was a MAJOR rebuckal. See, they CHANGE the game afterward, and if 95%+ of the players refuse it, it is a clear sign. (I was not in the 200 first, but I heard them...quite well)
In the following scores of noobs to reach level 50, most refuse this high end as well, but eventually enought noobs following dumbly orders where there and they where happy to be doing something boring and following orders because they know they dont deserve to be on TOP of the regular system and this was granting them an unfair advantage.
If you want to start arguing about the first 200 levels 50, before you say something mistaken... consider this...there was about 60 druids, 50 necromancers/mages, 30 shamans, 40 hybrids, 10 wizards and 10 others...at least on my server, and from reading the varying board, seem to be about that a little everywhere. The necromancers/mages react the most badly to this raiding thingy, it was phenomenal to behold and I bet Verant was hiding quite FAR when this happen. However you must understand, it dont happen in 1 single moment, it is spread a little everywhere overtime(like a dot), so Verant was used to permanent low denial and quitting, and they assume it was a good sign when it was not. Peoples react when they realise what was up there and feels betrayed...not before. Peoples that where promised a PvE land free of evil PvPers abusing them...it was true, but only to be replace by raiding, not much of a better alternative.
Why I still hope for non-raiding server? Vanguard has always been innovative. Games where having a Lineage or DAoC approach, you where condemn to play on PvP servers. Verant put PvE servers and PvP servers, exactly like Lineage was doing for the PvP servers. History show that players flocks to the PvE server. I am convince that players would flock to the Non-raiding server as long as you have a LDoN approach for those servers and the high end loot.
Again someone see what they want to see, and my rational side dont believe in Vanguard...yet, there is a part in me that does, despite everything.
LOL at WoW, I dont even dare wasting my time posting there, they are beyond understanding. Blizzard has no idea what their game is about, they just take the individuals popular points, 1 by 1, and put them all in a game and think it will be a great experience. In fact WoW can be fun, as long as you remain superficial...some choices are contradicting others choices. Raiding at level 60+ in a casual friendly game is weird, raiding should start at level 1 or not be there at all in WoW IMO.
If CoH would not have implemented the Hamidon, I would not be here, I would be playing and happy, despite the simplicity of the game and the fact I prefer more elaborated games, CoH was definitely a blast, up to the Hamidon infestation (and you dont want to know how deep the denial was, worser then pre-Kunark EQ denial).
Again...someone see what they want to see.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Ano, regarding V:SoH specifically, when you say you are hoping for non-raiding servers, are you saying that you hope that raid encounters will simply be removed from that server? Or would you want the encounter present but somehow scaled differently? What would you consider a "raid"? Is a 2 or 3 group encounter a "raid"? Would you want the raid encounter loot distributed some other way, or not present at all on such a server?
You talk about different kinds of "uberness" for different kinds of players, but by what sort of mechanic would you propose they create that situation (in any game, not Vanguard specifically)?
Just askin', since you post a lot on the subject.
... This is where I draw the line: __________________.
Originally posted by neschria Ano, regarding V:SoH specifically, when you say you are hoping for non-raiding servers, are you saying that you hope that raid encounters will simply be removed from that server? Or would you want the encounter present but somehow scaled differently? What would you consider a "raid"? Is a 2 or 3 group encounter a "raid"? Would you want the raid encounter loot distributed some other way, or not present at all on such a server? You talk about different kinds of "uberness" for different kinds of players, but by what sort of mechanic would you propose they create that situation (in any game, not Vanguard specifically)? Just askin', since you post a lot on the subject.
Non-raiding servers...as I see it.(this is only an opinion and by no mean something Vanguard will do, I certainly hope they would do something like that...but my rational side tell me not to hope to much)
Personnally I see the raid loot been redistribute in a hard grouping dungeon. A LDoN ways would be my favorite approach, but I am not rigidly sticking to LDoNish ways. A long and farming way would be acceptable as well(LDoN is a mix of farming and challenge), I am pretty low maintenance on the details of how it is incorporated inside the grouping system.
The work for the Sigil needs to be as minimal as possible, thereby why they re-use exactly the same loot as during raid and they re-skin an existing dungeon(s) (or raid content re-sized for a dungeon, it needs to be minimal works). I dont mind if the non-raiding servers would see new expension goes live a month or two later, I easily understand that the specifics rules server is understaffed and can't keep up with the most staffed servers, yet they get the help as soon as the rush is calming on the regulars (you know, when the staff is pretending to work because they wait on some others staff and cant do their part...they could then rush the specifics servers rules and complete a lot of work). Anyway, I strongly believe they would attract a vast majority of players and the company would soon consider those servers as the regulars.
Festhey would be happy to know I fund the company who run the servers he love, yet having no chances to encounter me or peoples thinking like me...and I would neither risk any chance to encounters uberaiders on those servers but would know they fund the same company that make the game I love...all for the best of everyone.
Should Vanguard really care about soloing (this can be implemented at any later point btw)...all they need to do is to make some specials zones(more work) where all gear is useless and give no stats, where levels are secondary and trivials and where you earn a different type of XP for powers that work in those zones only...a LOT of work, but would keep soloers all happy...and it would never be pointless to solo until you find a group in the real game...of course a few weirdos would consider the solo game as the main game, but that is hardly a problem, it is a weirdo playing nonetheless and not affecting the grouping game in anyway. Such a soloing game would also be of a huge benefit, it would act like a net when you lose peoples in the regular game, they could stick to the soloing game...it would be primordial for Vanguard to keep data on who dont group among the folks who used to group, so they can realise there is an exodus and may or not try to save the basic game for all those customers...the side powers should outmatch the levels completely in this soloing game, since peoples soloing would not even earn levels...only those powers...and the nicest part is...no needs of class or such restriction on the soloing powers someone can earn, so class would be...secondary in the soloing part...but that would be another aspect...I rather have my non-raiding server for grouping purpose!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by Etcarr 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.
If your playing only for competition and not for fun, WHY are you here? Your right...Vanguard is not for you...Bye!
If your playing only for competition and not for fun, WHY are you here?Your right...Vanguard is not for you...Bye!
Define "fun".
Frustration is not fun. EQ was full of it.
Competition is fun... but not when your competition has in unfair advantage.
As far as Vanguard not being for me.... I am not alone. Vanguard will not be for a lot of players when they find out that some of these "concepts" that Brad pulled out his ass are stupid and will not work.
Originally posted by Etcarr Originally posted by windsoul44
If your playing only for competition and not for fun, WHY are you here?Your right...Vanguard is not for you...Bye!
Define "fun".
Frustration is not fun. EQ was full of it.
Competition is fun... but not when your competition has in unfair advantage.
As far as Vanguard not being for me.... I am not alone. Vanguard will not be for a lot of players when they find out that some of these "concepts" that Brad pulled out his ass are stupid and will not work.
fun
Pronunciation: 'f&n Function: noun Etymology: English dialect fun to hoax, perhaps alteration of Middle English fonnen, from fonne dupe 1: what provides amusement or enjoyment; specifically: playful often boisterous action or speech <full of fun> 2: a mood for finding or making amusement <all in fun> 3 a: AMUSEMENT, ENJOYMENT <sickness takes all the fun out of life> b: derisive jest : SPORT, RIDICULE <a figure of fun> 4: violent or excited activity or argument <let a snake loose in the classroom; then the fun began> synonymsFUN, JEST, SPORT, GAME, PLAY mean action or speech that provides amusement or arouses laughter. FUN usually implies laughter or gaiety but may imply merely a lack of serious or ulterior purpose <played cards just for fun>. JEST implies lack of earnestness in what is said or done and may suggest a hoaxing or teasing <hurt by remarks said only in jest>. SPORT applies especially to the arousing of laughter against someone <teasing begun in sport led to anger>. GAME is close to SPORT, and often stresses mischievous or malicious fun <made game of their poor relations>. PLAY stresses the opposition to earnest without implying malice or mischief <pretended to strangle his brother in play>.
So you see, fun is very subjective and your fun CAN cause other people to be upset. What's fun for you, might not be fun for someone else and in fact can upset them a great deal. This is why there is more than one online game; what is fun for you definitely might not be fun for me.
EQ was full of frustrations, but when you overcame those difficult trials you felt as though you had accomplished something really worthy.
If Vanguard is not for you, have fun in whatever you do. I for one will be having an enormous amount of fun playing the challenging Vanguard. Don't let the realistically rendered wooden door hit your arse on the way out.
I would be extremely disappointed if Brad had learnt nothing from EQ, it's one of the bonuses of this team. I can't see them just "forgetting" this problem lots of people had in EQ.
Originally posted by Etcarr Originally posted by windsoul44
If your playing only for competition and not for fun, WHY are you here?Your right...Vanguard is not for you...Bye!
Define "fun".
Frustration is not fun. EQ was full of it.
Competition is fun... but not when your competition has in unfair advantage.
As far as Vanguard not being for me.... I am not alone. Vanguard will not be for a lot of players when they find out that some of these "concepts" that Brad pulled out his ass are stupid and will not work.
Etcarr, move on.......... The issue here is quite simple.
Vanguard will not be EQ with better graphics, stop repeating the same concept all over. Why I say that? Because Brad Mcquaid is a player before than a developer (opposite to SOE devs), and I doubt that he will reintroduce the boring bits in Vanguard (in fact he always stated the opposite).
He created EQ, a game full of bugs, with lots of grind and what you can call a timesink, yet a very charming game and with a great comunity due to the fact the the game architecture incentivated the bonding between people.
But that was 6 years ago...............EQ was the pioneer of MMORPGs (along with UO), and developers didn't have a clue on how to create a good MMORPG, since they didn't have a benchmark to compare the game with. Now they have EQ, which with all its faults, is arguably the best MMORPG ever to be released.
Now the same team is developing a new game, with 6 more years of experience it would be ludricous to think that they will repeat the same mistakes.
I tell you why I fell in love with this game. The first time I read about this game, a particular sentence caught my attention, in red the important bits: " Sigils expertise and experience in the field will bring groundbreaking static and dynamic content to the genre. Vanguard will build upon the successes and strengths of earlier MMOGs to improve popular game mechanics and features, but also address these pioneering games mistakes and deficiencies. Vanguard will focus heavily on interdependence, challenge, and reward, while simultaneously addressing tedious and annoying issues, including camping, excessive downtime and more." And at the time I didn't even know that Sigil was the origial team behind EQ..............(that was a pleasant surprise which I discovered later)
These are the reasons why I look forward for this game, and as you can see, the intention of Sigil are the opposite of what you are accusing them of. So I don't understand why people keep criticising them for the wrong reasons.
What I say is to give those guys a chance, if there is a team that can pull off a game so ambitious, this is Sigil. If they can make it or not, this is another matter, but at least they have good intentions, and I believe that they will be more than able to make another cult game like EQ.
PS: You want a boring and tedious game? Play EQ2, a game that should have been called "Yawn......" instead.
Ok... Ste2000, let me just say that I see Sigil avoiding a lot of issues like crowd control, haste, slows, equal access to content, pet balance and travel which where hot issues in EQ. The Sigil answer seems to be if it is hard do, lets not do it. I am not looking for a "fixed" EQ. But Sigil is making a dull, dumb game trying to avoid the problems that plagued EQ.
Sorry, but I am not impressed.... This advanced encounter system sounds totally stupid. The class break down is dull. The "interesting" travel concept sounds like an attempt to make the world seem larger than it is by creating impediments to travel.
Comments
I can co-exist perfectly well with raiders...as long as they dont have the best grouping/soloing edges.
If raiders get the best grouping edges, I am off the game, it is a piece of lame trash wasting my time and denying me the most basic concept of achievement.
If to reach the TOP of grouping I need to raid, then raiding is enforced and as an achiever, I have no choice but to raid.
You obviously dont know the same raiders I do, and you never listen to Afterlife guildchat, or any Uberguild guildchat. There is very little team work in that, it is all drama, bullshitting, politics to get the loot rather then a fair and worthy system (and they are even taking pride in this drama and bullshitting, EQboards show this pride). Team work mean you listen to every person idea and you try to work as a team...those guilds has a STFU approach and they order folks to do this or that, there is no team work in that, this is a domination system. Don't be afraid, I was not been ordered much myself, maybe because the Guildleader has to honey talk me for weeks before I join them. Officers where generally enforcing what I suggest, which I find pathetic the way they do it, little soldiers without ideas, that read on the net or listen to others and then act like jerks(not all officers, some where greats and could have been guild leaders...and some where...less savory).
I cant stand raiding in it actual form, and any game enforcing it (in the high end, which I always reach FAST) is a NO THANKS. If raiding was done right and not rewarding outside of raiding, then yes, I would prolly enjoy raiding and do it a LOT, because the raiding spirit would be there. But I am sorry, there is no raiding spirit in those so called guilds of old EQ, it is a nest of lootwhores with rules to deprive everything they can, DKP is a prime example, it remove all loot from the casuals hands and distribute it in the hands of those who already are richers...peoples training each others, bullshitting others, so they quit the guild and dont use their DKP, temporary prices changes, enforcing full prices even if nobody but the newcomers needs the items, early overated prices purposefully and knowing those items are junk but would see many folks waste their DKP...and so on. There is no real raiding spirit in that. A pure random or a loot comitee could have work, but peoples are cry babies about the random, and for the loot comitee it is like communist, as long as the leaders are not corrupted it work great...but you know how humans are...I would love REAL raiding...what I saw as raiding is the most despictable activity I ever did behing my computer.
It is obvious to me that you have very little achiever blood running in your veins if any. Reaching the TOP is primordial, and if I fail, I must fail in a logical ways...not because the TOP is been achieve outside of the gameplay I am playing.
As long as the best soloer is a raider, the game is incredibly flawed.
Back to the Vanguard topic...it is way to early to say every details about their specific servers rules...and I still have an irrational part of me that hope that there will be non-raiding server with a LDoN system for the best gear or whatever. The very fact some raiders cringe over this idea is the best proof that raiding is evil and flawed, they should not care about what happen on others servers! Reals raiders are welcoming the idea of a system where raiding only help in raiding, not outside of it...and by the sheer numbers of approval, you can judge how many real raiders exist for every scores of lootwhores. I still hope for a non-raiding server, and no, I would not buy Vanguard without such a server. Best grouper need to be a grouper, and there is no discussion on this topic for me, it is a dictate. Raiders dont deserve to rule the non-raiding world.
PS: When a raider get better items then a non-raider group-wise, then you are FORCED to raid if you want to reach the TOP of the grouping system...and every achiever want to reach the top.
PPS: Yes a group of persons can take stronger stuff then a soloer, but they wont ever become better soloers for doing this...and the best soloer in the world would still be a soloer, not folks who gank harder stuff in group. See, in a system where the stronger mobs drop the stronger loot, you just say that folks who never solo are better soloers, which is a nonsense. The best soloer NEED to be a soloer...he may not take the hardest mobs that group take, but no grouper can take what he solo either! On a 1 vs 1, a soloer is always stronger then any grouper in a logical system...so the guy who solo the strongest stuff, is a soloer, not a grouper. Same apply for raiding vs others aspects. In such a system, you either need different stats for groupers, soloers and raiders...or you need to have differents powers that apply in differents case...or all gears and loot can be useless while soloing, but you can use other stuff that you cant when you are grouped, some more skilled since you are not restricted to play with others but can use all your untapped power. Best soloer NEED to be a soloer.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
"If raiders get the best grouping edges, I am off the game, it
is a piece of lame trash wasting my time and denying me the most basic
concept of achievement."
The most basic concept of achievement is doing what's necissary to
get ahead, not doing only the things you like to do. However as the "g"
in mmorpg does stand for "game" your first and foremost goal should be
to have fun.
"I cant stand raiding in it actual form"Pardon my assumption, but it seems to me as though this is the
real root of the entire thing, not weather or not it's fair to
non-raiders.
"As long as the best soloer is a raider, the game is incredibly"It is obvious to me that you have very little achiever blood
running in your veins if any. Reaching the TOP is primordial, and if I
fail, I must fail in a logical ways...not because the TOP is been
achieve outside of the gameplay I am playing."
flawed."
Not taking advantage of every opportunity that comes by (such as
raiding) is a perfectly logical reason for not reaching the top. I dont
like that I have to pay an arm and a leg for college to get a job
designing games, but I'm up to my eyeballs in student loans anyway.
Also, there are a large number of mmorpg'ers who dislike questing as
well, however questers recieve better equipment than those who choose
not to, giving them a comparative advantage to raiders and non-raiders.
However your ability in a game isn't limited by this. Buying that same
equipment from a raider/quester has always been a perfectly legitemate
way to obtain those same quality items without having to participate in
the game content required to get them.
And if the best soloer in a game also happens to be a raider, why
is that such a problem? Maybe that person envisioned his/her self as an
achiever but dislikes farming salable items for money to buy gear, so
he/she decided to join a raid to get the equipment that way. Personally,
I dont feel the need to be the best, as long as there's something I'm
particularly good at. To many people, that IS an achievement, and it's
something to be proud of.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or anything, and I dont
particularly like arguing either. You seem like an intelligent person
and all, but you let your personal loathing for raiding, or perhaps
raiders judging from your description of the ones you've encountered,
get the better of you. At least thats my personal observation, if I'm
mistaken forgive me. However the equality/inequality of
raiders/non-raiders really isnt so bad as you seem to believe it to be.
instancing is <> massive multiplayer online.
Thats the reason guildwars should never be called mmo
SD,
I can safely say that we will never meet again on the same server, unless you change.
Achievement is not doing what is necessary to get to the TOP, if so then a girl that is not rich should just sell her body with your same argument. Your argument would also lead to believe that the best programmer is a producer, because a producer make more sacrifice and is more worthy then a programmer. We all know that the best programmer is a programmer. The day I meet a producer who didnt program much in his life, and he say he program better then the Lead programmer, I can tell you he is having designs issues right away!
You can ask a soloer ANYTHING you want to progress, as long as it is SOLOING, not grouping or raiding...but soloing. Asking a baseball player to play hockey to become better is nonsense, just as asking a soloer to group or raid is nonsense.
All this is basic design 101, it amaze me how many persons still defend such a system that dont respect basic designs concepts, it is all a marketing scheme...it has 0 design value. In the long run it can only fail and lead to unhappiness and crippled fanbase, which is exactly what SoE is suffering.
The best plumber is a plumber. The best soloer deserve to be a soloer (and the best grouper deserve to be a grouper of course). End of discussion.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Don't know why anyone would refuse to play an MMORPG because they didn't have instances in order to get away from the MMO. Instancing is just a tool. Used properly it can bring something to the game. But overused, and it just kills the immersion. One thing about instancing is that you can have too much, but you can never have too little.
Yes there is no point because I would win and everyone knows it
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
"Achievement is not doing what is necessary to get to the TOP, if so then a girl that is not rich should just sell her body with your same argument."
Selling her body would certainly be one way to get ahead, but should this not be a path she'd like to take (and I'm sure 99% of the women out there wouldn't) there are alternatives. Borrowing money for school,for example, is another way to go about things. Likewise, as I stated before, buying equipment off of someone who does raid is almost always an alternative to raiding. As I stated before, I'm not much of a raider myself, but I've never let that stop me from getting good high-end gear. I take the alternate road by gathering the raw materials, lesser equipment, and other items I'm capable of acquiring to sell for the money to buy the better stuff. So you dont HAVE to raid to get good gear, it's just one path available to do so.
"Asking a baseball player to play hockey to become better is nonsense..."
I admit, I'm just playing devil's advocate now, but I suppose technically if a baseball player were to play hockey, he would get an effective physical workout that could over time improve his baseball game.
"The best plumber is a plumber. The best soloer deserve to be a soloer (and the best grouper deserve to be a grouper of course). End of discussion."Again you imply the inability for the two to coexist. Who's to say a person cant be both a raider and a soloer? Everyone is capable of undertaking more than one job, and when one job compliments the other, of course that person would have the slight edge. If a civilian who happens to be a surgeon enlists in the military and trains as a sniper, his/her steady hands would give them the slight advantage over the other snipers training. That's not to say other snipers-in-training couldnt become just as good, if not better with a little hard work (which in the case of an mmorpg could be equated to raising the money to buy equipment). Similarly, using your example of a plumber. If someone went to school and earned a degree in physics, then later became a plumber (although with a degree in physics, I cant imagine why), they'd have the advantage of understanding materials, angles, velocity, and the like that could make their job of clearing a drain a bit easier, but again, with a bit of learning and experience, any other plumber could become just as good if not better. If a surgeon can be a sniper also, if a physicist can be a plumber also, why cant a raider be a soloer also? Raiders have the advantage of the equipment they achieve through raiding when they decide to solo, but other soloers can still find ways of evening the field if they want to work at it.
It's like those wierd IQ test questions that ask "if all flips are plids, but only some plids are widgets, are some widgets flips?". If you replace flips, plids, and widgets with soloers, gamers, and raiders respectively, it shows that the possibility for some soloers to also be widgets...um, I mean raiders, does exist.
So if you play a game and a raider has better stuff than you, dont get upset about it. Use that achiever's spirit you're so passionate about to even the score! Get out there and earn the money, then find someone with equal or better gear that wants to sell or trade. Do what you have to! Dont let them get the best of you! Um...but whatever you do, I definately DO NOT recommend selling your body......it just leads to all kinds of problems. Ah, but you're smart enough to know that without my telling you, right? ^^
One of the things that's obvious to pretty much everyone (except you Ano), is that making every game the same is ridiculous. You have a set of criteria that makes a game good for you. Go find a game with those criteria and play it.
Basic design 101 in any industry: Define your target audience. Build the product for thier tastes.
But you, Ano, insist that there aren't target audiences for games. You're so incredibly egocentric that you actually believe that your opinions are the only ones that are valid, and must be the opinions every game player in the world has to adhere to.
They aren't. Your ideas are as valid as anyone's. But they are not the only valid opinions!!!!!!
The best plumber could do an equally fantastic job on both houses, and 100-story high rise buildings. And you can bet your ass the that guy who has only ever worked on houses, couldn't do as good a job as the guy who has worked on houses... and apartment buildings, and offices, and high-rises. In any job, you build expertise through experiencing multiple scenarios. You better your skill by seeing how things are done in a myriad of situations, and adapting and applying those new concepts to the job you have at hand. If you have a limited view of the world, you will never have a rounded abililty to perform in it.
You know Ano, that's the beauty of it all. You get to play the games you want, and we get to play the games we want. You don't have to deal with us... and we don't have to deal with you. Well, ideally we don't have to deal with you. But you keep sticking your head into the forums for this game, which quite obviously isn't be designed with you in mind (how dare they!!).
-Feyshtey-
I don't see anything wrong with having instanced quest areas, such as lairs, caves, etc. My concern isn't the competition, but the lag generated by having that many players in the same area. As an example, if anyone that played SWG can recall when the Geonosian Cave was released.
Keep the map mostly open with at least a few high-end quest areas instanced is a good combination imo.
Ico
Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
*shrug*
Most MMO are not doing what most games do, they install a completely different high end that has nothing to do with everything you did before, and they are surprised when players are not reacting happily.
You have the right to think the ways those companies want you to think, if this is your choice...and I have the right to disagree.
Festhey, you are making a comment that even Vanguard didnt make so far...You have no idea how exactly their specifics servers will work, you cant say for sure that there wont be a non-raiding server...or that there will be one. I didnt goes as far as saying we wont play the same game, I limit myself to say that we wont play on the same servers. I never play on a PvP server in old EQ, been able to remove the raiding aspect is similar as far as I am concerned...off course I want a "local high end", LDoN or twice the levels or whatever...require very little work.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
THAT I completely agree with. WoW, just as a ready example, planned poorly. They allowed the players to solo for 59 levels, and then expected them to completely shift their playstyles to group/raid orientation.
However, this is not an indicator that people inherently dislike grouping or raiding (although it's entirely true that there are cases of both). It's just an indicator that people don't like having the expectations changed on them after 59 levels of gameplay.
Vanguard is choosing an approach that is more wise. They are setting the expectations of the players early, nearly from first login. They are making it readily apparent quite early that players will be much more rewarded through grouping. There are even indications that there will be raid content from early on, as low as mid-teens. The players attracted to Vanguard because of the core philosophy of teamwork will not be disappointed. And players (like you Ano) that insist on getting great rewards for solo'ing, can make the choice very early on to find something else. You won't be expected to shift your playstyle at some much later date to continue gaining rewards. You'll have learned very early (or before you even buy the game) that you are expected to participate in the community and contribute to teamwork in this game.
EXACTLY!!! So why exactly do you INSIST that I can't make that choice? Why do you insist that the game is inherently flawed just because it's a game you are not interested in?! It's not for you. I can respect that. But what I can't respect is that you insist that I am inherently flawed because I support the direction this game is taking.
If you're trying to suggest that they will re-design sections of the gameworld just to make a server that has no raid content, I don't know what to tell you. Re-designing sections of the gameworld for the multiple alternate rules servers they hope to eventually support just doesn't make sense. It's costly, it's time consuming, and it's a hell of a lot harder to manage over time. And the benefits are only realized by a sliver of your game's overall population.
Now, that being said, allowing PvP on a server is one thing. Allowing a server that doesn't allow you to group between evil and good races is quite plausible. But creating new art, new mob populations, and new loot tables across the board to make sure that there's a solo'ers server is a dream you are very very likely to be disappointed by. Vanguard has cooperation, teamwork and community as a core tenant of design. Alternate rules servers does not mean making alternate rules to completely avoid the very tenets the game is designed on.
-Feyshtey-
The problem I have is not that 1 or 2 MMO are doing this...they are ALL doing this. Again this would not be that bad, if they would have done that for ALL the time.
But Pre-Kunark EQ was not raid oriented, there was arguably 2 raid event that give barely a few things that didnt shaft folks to bad.
Pre-I3 CoH was not Hamidon oriented...
The problem is that they ALL do it, and they do it in a wrong way.
Btw, despite my pro-solo stances...I am a GROUPER!
It just happen that I like solo, and I like solo to be relevant or I wont do it...yes...I am a grouper that defend solo! (In EQ I was a chanter, a rogue and a cleric...grouper...grouper and grouper after my pre-Kunark toon).
Please, dont say that every grouper like raiding...I love grouping beyond what your imagination will put, and I cant stand raiding. It is just that if, for any reason, I dont get a group, I want a good reason to be soloing with my LFG tag...I dont solo until I get a group in old EQ, I log. I want a reason to solo...so I can get a group eventually...without waiting lamely behind my computer.
I play MMO to group...but I dont wait LFG...so a good soloing system is the working alternative as far as I am concerned...yes I will abort any solo stuff if I get a group that interest me. If Afterlife Guildleader ask me to group because for whatever reason, I will denied it and solo...but that is not group/solo oriented, it is socially oriented. You dont want to enforce grouping between me and uberguilders, it usually end poorly, either them trying to kill me, or me gating on them when I realize what they just try!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
So it's logical to go to the forum section for the one game that is most adamanet about this type of system to complain? Rather than going to the forums of something like, say, LOTR Online, or Middle Earth Online, or D&D Online, that's a hell of a lot closer to what you desire? It's like going to the Catepillar Corporation and demanding that they stop making construction equipment and start making sports cars.
What?
Lady Vox
Lord Nagefen
Plane of Fear
Plane of Hate
Plane of Sky
By FAR the best loot in the game has ALWAYS been from raid encounters. Mana Stone? Haste Belts? Cloak of Flames? Does any of this ring a bell? The paladin armor from Fear was easily 40%+ more ac, plus kick ass stats. It blew the next best non-raid stuff out of the water.
It's only 'wrong' in your opinion. I've said this to you before, but I'll say it again: You don't want them to make one great game. You want them to make 3 games, and put them all in the same game world (One solo, one group, and one raid). But you're completely oblivious to the fact that for the VAST majority of players, there isn't a clear line in the sand between the 3 games you propose. You can't package the players into neat little subsets that are always valid. There will always be overlaps and trends in player behaviour. And therefore it's a literal impossibility to set the lines anywhere with meaning. You can't segregate them into 'bests' categories according to how they play the game, because for the bulk of the players, how they play will change from day to day.
Not to mention that you are still screwing someone. You're just ok with it because the people being screwed aren't you. Any arguments you make for a 'fair' system are a farse.
These games largely include some solo stuff because there are times when players simply can't get a group. You promote a system where a person who exclusively chooses to group or raid, but for whatever reason can't get either on a given day, is at a serious disadvantage trying to solo. That's not at all fair. Especially considering the contribution to community and teamwork that that player put forth into the game, that you chose to ignore. They've done what the game is designed specifically for them to do. But on the one day they can't, your system holds them at a loss. The difference being that you make the choice not to group or raid. They didn't have that luxury. They are screwed through no fault of their own.
-Feyshtey-
This thread is hilarious and a joy to read lol Feyshtey and Ano you guys are fun to read
I like to solo sometimes but I know it's better to group, just from a social standpoint. It makes you get out of your shell and get along with people, and more often than not I find myself really enjoying groups. Most people that play MMOG's are really quite funny and fun to chat with, even some of the a holes. And when they are really awful you can put them on /ignore
.
I am really enjoying SWG and EQ2 right now, but I can't wait for Vanguard to come out, it's the game I will be playing and dedicating my time to. But they can take their time with it, I want it to be all it can be and I love the fact that they are putting blinders on and making the game they envision and not making it a generic "All games to all people" yawnfest. I most love the fact that some people are saying they just won't play Vanguard. See, I don't want everyone playing it, just the people that love a serious challenge, and those who like to group or raid to accomplish the impossible!
A post from Brad McQuaid in this thread, on this very same topic :
That covers things pretty well, from my perspective.
-Feyshtey-
double post.
-Feyshtey-
What?
Lady Vox
Lord Nagefen
Plane of Fear
Plane of Hate
Plane of Sky
When the 200 first player who reach level 50 on pre-Kunark, those zones where not implemented or working on a ratio of 60%. Which leave arguably 2 of them with very little...(the 2 dragons only)
If you take those first 200 players to reach level 50, if even 10 of them (5%) accept the raiding game, I would be surprised. It was a MAJOR rebuckal. See, they CHANGE the game afterward, and if 95%+ of the players refuse it, it is a clear sign. (I was not in the 200 first, but I heard them...quite well)
In the following scores of noobs to reach level 50, most refuse this high end as well, but eventually enought noobs following dumbly orders where there and they where happy to be doing something boring and following orders because they know they dont deserve to be on TOP of the regular system and this was granting them an unfair advantage.
If you want to start arguing about the first 200 levels 50, before you say something mistaken... consider this...there was about 60 druids, 50 necromancers/mages, 30 shamans, 40 hybrids, 10 wizards and 10 others...at least on my server, and from reading the varying board, seem to be about that a little everywhere. The necromancers/mages react the most badly to this raiding thingy, it was phenomenal to behold and I bet Verant was hiding quite FAR when this happen. However you must understand, it dont happen in 1 single moment, it is spread a little everywhere overtime(like a dot), so Verant was used to permanent low denial and quitting, and they assume it was a good sign when it was not. Peoples react when they realise what was up there and feels betrayed...not before. Peoples that where promised a PvE land free of evil PvPers abusing them...it was true, but only to be replace by raiding, not much of a better alternative.
Why I still hope for non-raiding server? Vanguard has always been innovative. Games where having a Lineage or DAoC approach, you where condemn to play on PvP servers. Verant put PvE servers and PvP servers, exactly like Lineage was doing for the PvP servers. History show that players flocks to the PvE server. I am convince that players would flock to the Non-raiding server as long as you have a LDoN approach for those servers and the high end loot.
Again someone see what they want to see, and my rational side dont believe in Vanguard...yet, there is a part in me that does, despite everything.
LOL at WoW, I dont even dare wasting my time posting there, they are beyond understanding. Blizzard has no idea what their game is about, they just take the individuals popular points, 1 by 1, and put them all in a game and think it will be a great experience. In fact WoW can be fun, as long as you remain superficial...some choices are contradicting others choices. Raiding at level 60+ in a casual friendly game is weird, raiding should start at level 1 or not be there at all in WoW IMO.
If CoH would not have implemented the Hamidon, I would not be here, I would be playing and happy, despite the simplicity of the game and the fact I prefer more elaborated games, CoH was definitely a blast, up to the Hamidon infestation (and you dont want to know how deep the denial was, worser then pre-Kunark EQ denial).
Again...someone see what they want to see.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Ano, regarding V:SoH specifically, when you say you are hoping for non-raiding servers, are you saying that you hope that raid encounters will simply be removed from that server? Or would you want the encounter present but somehow scaled differently? What would you consider a "raid"? Is a 2 or 3 group encounter a "raid"? Would you want the raid encounter loot distributed some other way, or not present at all on such a server?
You talk about different kinds of "uberness" for different kinds of players, but by what sort of mechanic would you propose they create that situation (in any game, not Vanguard specifically)?
Just askin', since you post a lot on the subject.
...
This is where I draw the line: __________________.
Non-raiding servers...as I see it. (this is only an opinion and by no mean something Vanguard will do, I certainly hope they would do something like that...but my rational side tell me not to hope to much)
Personnally I see the raid loot been redistribute in a hard grouping dungeon. A LDoN ways would be my favorite approach, but I am not rigidly sticking to LDoNish ways. A long and farming way would be acceptable as well(LDoN is a mix of farming and challenge), I am pretty low maintenance on the details of how it is incorporated inside the grouping system.
The work for the Sigil needs to be as minimal as possible, thereby why they re-use exactly the same loot as during raid and they re-skin an existing dungeon(s) (or raid content re-sized for a dungeon, it needs to be minimal works). I dont mind if the non-raiding servers would see new expension goes live a month or two later, I easily understand that the specifics rules server is understaffed and can't keep up with the most staffed servers, yet they get the help as soon as the rush is calming on the regulars (you know, when the staff is pretending to work because they wait on some others staff and cant do their part...they could then rush the specifics servers rules and complete a lot of work). Anyway, I strongly believe they would attract a vast majority of players and the company would soon consider those servers as the regulars.
Festhey would be happy to know I fund the company who run the servers he love, yet having no chances to encounter me or peoples thinking like me...and I would neither risk any chance to encounters uberaiders on those servers but would know they fund the same company that make the game I love...all for the best of everyone.
Should Vanguard really care about soloing (this can be implemented at any later point btw)...all they need to do is to make some specials zones(more work) where all gear is useless and give no stats, where levels are secondary and trivials and where you earn a different type of XP for powers that work in those zones only...a LOT of work, but would keep soloers all happy...and it would never be pointless to solo until you find a group in the real game...of course a few weirdos would consider the solo game as the main game, but that is hardly a problem, it is a weirdo playing nonetheless and not affecting the grouping game in anyway. Such a soloing game would also be of a huge benefit, it would act like a net when you lose peoples in the regular game, they could stick to the soloing game...it would be primordial for Vanguard to keep data on who dont group among the folks who used to group, so they can realise there is an exodus and may or not try to save the basic game for all those customers...the side powers should outmatch the levels completely in this soloing game, since peoples soloing would not even earn levels...only those powers...and the nicest part is...no needs of class or such restriction on the soloing powers someone can earn, so class would be...secondary in the soloing part...but that would be another aspect...I rather have my non-raiding server for grouping purpose!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Your right...Vanguard is not for you...Bye!
"My Fantasy is having two men at once...
One Cooking and One Cleaning!"
---------------------------
"A good man can make you feel sexy,
strong and able to take on the whole world...
oh sorry...that's wine...wine does that..."
Originally posted by windsoul44
Define "fun".
Frustration is not fun. EQ was full of it.
Competition is fun... but not when your competition has in unfair advantage.
As far as Vanguard not being for me.... I am not alone. Vanguard will not be for a lot of players when they find out that some of these "concepts" that Brad pulled out his ass are stupid and will not work.
Define "fun".
Frustration is not fun. EQ was full of it.
Competition is fun... but not when your competition has in unfair advantage.
As far as Vanguard not being for me.... I am not alone. Vanguard will not be for a lot of players when they find out that some of these "concepts" that Brad pulled out his ass are stupid and will not work.
fun
Pronunciation:
'f&nFunction: noun
Etymology: English dialect fun to hoax, perhaps alteration of Middle English fonnen, from fonne dupe
1 : what provides amusement or enjoyment; specifically : playful often boisterous action or speech <full of fun>
2 : a mood for finding or making amusement <all in fun>
3 a : AMUSEMENT, ENJOYMENT <sickness takes all the fun out of life> b : derisive jest : SPORT, RIDICULE <a figure of fun>
4 : violent or excited activity or argument <let a snake loose in the classroom; then the fun began>
synonyms FUN, JEST, SPORT, GAME, PLAY mean action or speech that provides amusement or arouses laughter. FUN usually implies laughter or gaiety but may imply merely a lack of serious or ulterior purpose <played cards just for fun>. JEST implies lack of earnestness in what is said or done and may suggest a hoaxing or teasing <hurt by remarks said only in jest>. SPORT applies especially to the arousing of laughter against someone <teasing begun in sport led to anger>. GAME is close to SPORT, and often stresses mischievous or malicious fun <made game of their poor relations>. PLAY stresses the opposition to earnest without implying malice or mischief <pretended to strangle his brother in play>.
So you see, fun is very subjective and your fun CAN cause other people to be upset. What's fun for you, might not be fun for someone else and in fact can upset them a great deal. This is why there is more than one online game; what is fun for you definitely might not be fun for me.
EQ was full of frustrations, but when you overcame those difficult trials you felt as though you had accomplished something really worthy.
If Vanguard is not for you, have fun in whatever you do. I for one will be having an enormous amount of fun playing the challenging Vanguard. Don't let the realistically rendered wooden door hit your arse on the way out.
Everyones version of fun is different.
I would be extremely disappointed if Brad had learnt nothing from EQ, it's one of the bonuses of this team. I can't see them just "forgetting" this problem lots of people had in EQ.
Define "fun".
Frustration is not fun. EQ was full of it.
Competition is fun... but not when your competition has in unfair advantage.
As far as Vanguard not being for me.... I am not alone. Vanguard will not be for a lot of players when they find out that some of these "concepts" that Brad pulled out his ass are stupid and will not work.
Etcarr, move on..........
The issue here is quite simple.
Vanguard will not be EQ with better graphics, stop repeating the same concept all over.
Why I say that?
Because Brad Mcquaid is a player before than a developer (opposite to SOE devs), and I doubt that he will reintroduce the boring bits in Vanguard (in fact he always stated the opposite).
He created EQ, a game full of bugs, with lots of grind and what you can call a timesink, yet a very charming game and with a great comunity due to the fact the the game architecture incentivated the bonding between people.
But that was 6 years ago...............EQ was the pioneer of MMORPGs (along with UO), and developers didn't have a clue on how to create a good MMORPG, since they didn't have a benchmark to compare the game with.
Now they have EQ, which with all its faults, is arguably the best MMORPG ever to be released.
Now the same team is developing a new game, with 6 more years of experience it would be ludricous to think that they will repeat the same mistakes.
I tell you why I fell in love with this game.
The first time I read about this game, a particular sentence caught my attention, in red the important bits:
" Sigils expertise and experience in the field will bring groundbreaking static and dynamic content to the genre. Vanguard will build upon the successes and strengths of earlier MMOGs to improve popular game mechanics and features, but also address these pioneering games mistakes and deficiencies. Vanguard will focus heavily on interdependence, challenge, and reward, while simultaneously addressing tedious and annoying issues, including camping, excessive downtime and more."
And at the time I didn't even know that Sigil was the origial team behind EQ..............(that was a pleasant surprise which I discovered later)
These are the reasons why I look forward for this game, and as you can see, the intention of Sigil are the opposite of what you are accusing them of.
So I don't understand why people keep criticising them for the wrong reasons.
What I say is to give those guys a chance, if there is a team that can pull off a game so ambitious, this is Sigil.
If they can make it or not, this is another matter, but at least they have good intentions, and I believe that they will be more than able to make another cult game like EQ.
PS: You want a boring and tedious game? Play EQ2, a game that should have been called "Yawn......" instead.
Ok... Ste2000, let me just say that I see Sigil avoiding a lot of issues like crowd control, haste, slows, equal access to content, pet balance and travel which where hot issues in EQ. The Sigil answer seems to be if it is hard do, lets not do it. I am not looking for a "fixed" EQ. But Sigil is making a dull, dumb game trying to avoid the problems that plagued EQ.
Sorry, but I am not impressed....
This advanced encounter system sounds totally stupid. The class break down is dull. The "interesting" travel concept sounds like an attempt to make the world seem larger than it is by creating impediments to travel.
I am not buying into all the hype over this game.
-e